vendredi, août 12, 2005 There are debates raging out out there in both the academic and practitioner fields about blogging and journalism. Is blogging journalism? The existence of Garret M. Graf, the first blogger ever to be issued with a White House press pass seems to suggest that there is growing acceptance at the highest echelons of the public sphere that certain forms of blogging have been legitimised and parsed into mainstream media.Interestingly, while commenting on the inclusion of Graf (editor of FishbowlDC), White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan also mentioned that the White House has "historically... admitted the traditional media and the nontraditional media, as well as colo(u)rful individuals with certains points of view from the left or the right." (Emphasis mine.)That seemingly innoculous sentence perfectly encapsulates the establishment's ambivalent attitude towards "journalistic blogging". Showing a mastery over ambiguous inclusivity, McClellan has effectively categorised Graf (and FishbowlDC) as "traditional media". No, "nontraditional media". No, Graf is merely a "colourful individual". Who could have left-wing leanings. Or right-wing inclinations. Or something. Maybe. Singapore's method of dealing with bloggers is more straightforward - we've co-opted them into the system (just like the PAP.) The mainstream media (I hesitate to term them "traditional media") has given popular bloggers like mrbrown, mr miyagi, xiaxue, and sarongpartygirl regular columns within our (extremely small) newsprint offerings. (I don't think I need to link them, do I?) This after criticism that the very first bloggercon in Singapore was "a yawn", and that the bulk of Singapore-based/Singaporean blogs were insular and dedicated to "navel-gazing." Despite this, our newspapers have welcomed their contributions with open arms. My question is: why have we legitimised these bloggers, who have set examples for bad journalism? Shouldn't these bloggers be subjected to (at the very least) some form of journalistic standard by which they can be compared to other writers? I read Izzy's (sarongpartygirl) column in Today with a skeptical eye - was that piece truly worthy of being published in a nationally-distributed paper? Perhaps the blame should rest on the editor, but her little ditty ran on about half a page too long, and seemed only to be included for its shock value ("art and porn" was her topic of choice.) mr miyagi's columns irritate the hell out of me because of its utter disregard for some semblance of propriety - his columns get my hackles up because he writes exactly like how he does on his blog, with lousy English (engrish) and a large dose of colloquialism. Wendy Cheng (xiaxue) also had a column somewhere, I believe, but it/she failed to make an impression. mrbrown is the only blogger-turned-journalist whose columns I can tolerate, but I think that is a testimony to his talent for observation than anything else. Plus, he writes well - his ideas flow, his words run together, and the use of Singlish is not overly-gratituous. So - articles which ramble, writing which has less content and more shock value, columns which blatantly flaunt the use of bad English, discussions on non-topics - which of these would really pass muster in newspapers concerned about their journalistic integrity and standard? I hope that this fad of co-opting these famous/infamous Singapore bloggers into the periphery of local newsprint passes quickly. It does not bode well for the future of the profession should any Tom, Dick or mrbrown be allowed so easily to cross from their weblogs to the newspapers. ETA - a.A. SMSed that it does not bode well for the journalistic profession either for marginalising "us bloggers" here in Singapore (such as their comments on bloggercon.sg etc.) While I agree that they should not have cast the first (biased) stone, prejudice on their part is beside the point in my argument. The prejudice is mine - against the use of poor English and gratituous use of Singlish in newspapers. In fact, one could argue that the "traditional media" have risen above themselves and have "graciously" (and I use the term loosely) allowed bloggers to enter into the "hallowed sphere" of newsprint. More about newspapers and agenda setting in the next post. [I wrote the above ETA with great trepidation. a.A. is a philosophy major, and I'm not well-versed at all in logic and rhetoric. Hello a.A.!] ETA II - a.A. frantically SMSed me that I have misunderstood her - I apologise. Her beef with The Establishment is that they would not allow her to write in their space, but would allow these bloggers to do so. [And sorry for getting home too late to call you.] [Blogging and Journalism] |
0 Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
