Media ruins

[kiasimom]

jedamum:

another note..commenting on other people's over/under size be it innocent or not is never going to go down well with the recipient. unless the person has gorgeous/super fit figure, best to keep all comments to yourself if you are a sales person.

I know she should just keep her mouth shut. Still that doesn't warrant a warning from the management just because of what that s***** journalist wrote.

[kiasimom]

mathsparks:

kiasimom:

To quote what sashimi said in the other thread.

But yes, the news-related media is, imho,
the biggest stinking pile of BShting misinformants this world has ever known.
I have more respect for the fungus growing on the decaying spirulina pellet
in the dust-covered grime under my fridge. flame flame flame....

He couldn't be more right and I totally agree with him.

Wow! kiasimom, you write very well! :salute:

Nope nope nope.
The credit goes to Sashimi.
He's the one who wrote:

\"But yes, the news-related media is, imho,
the biggest stinking pile of BShting misinformants this world has ever known.
I have more respect for the fungus growing on the decaying spirulina pellet
in the dust-covered grime under my fridge. flame flame flame....\"

Not me :salute:

[mathsparks]

wow! I made 3 booboos a day. Yep, sashimi writes well indeed. :salute:

[kiasimom]

I pop over to stomp Singapore and I

was very shocked to read the comments
that were written!
They are obsene, crude and offensive.
A lot of vulgarity were used and yet
it seemed only normal!

There is no administrator there to control
what were written. Netizens can just
hurl abuse at anyone !

It is really scary! I definitely don’t want
to expose Smarty to that website.

There’s simply too many topics that were
not suitable for kids like him.

I am glad that at KSP, we do not have
people like that!

I am so put off by the postings.
There isn’t any censor of what is posted !

[sashimi]

Oh wow! :oops:


Let me share another important perspective on the media.

In the Old World, in Media 1.0, we are all consumers of content. The Media, the Authority, the Organization is the sole producer of content. We the consumer cannot influence the content in any way, we are expected to just consume.

The reason why there is a big hoohah about this in the last few years is that the traditional media is still trying to resist the 2.0 world - this \"new\" world, of which Web 2.0 is a major force, is a world where YOU the consumer get to choose what you want to read, you get to comment and vote on what is valuable, what is good, and what is trash.

The traditional media circles cannot stand this because it makes them lose power over you.

In a traditional newspaper, the journalists and editors choose for you what you read. They expect you to read what they choose to publish.

This doesn't have to be the case today. In a 2.0 world, YOU can choose what you want to read, by filtering the web through RSS. You can construct your own \"newspaper\" by using such tools as Google Reader, Netvibes, etc.

You choose what subjects, what sources interest you. I do this on a daily basis. I configure my netvibes homepage to feed me news from sources on technology, science, gadgets, social media, my favourite TV shows, books, music, etc. and every day I read it, I feel more knowledgeable and good about the world and myself. I kid you not.

(Eg of Netvibes: http://supergeekery.com/images/mylightbox/netvibesGeekery_open.jpg)

A traditional newspaper won't give you that privilege. And that is why I ignore them, even when they are free.

And anyway, whenever I see the newspaper report about something \"new\", like Google's Nexus One - all I can say is, \"I knew that THREE WEEKS AGO.\"

I feel that traditional media as is a great source of ILL WILL because they are so obsessed with their Daily Diet of Death, Disease, Destruction, Delusion and Debauchery. The media RUINS, as the this topic says.

Why allow yourself to be fed this everyday? Do all this bad news the media reports every day really matter to you and your family? Are you not concerned about the news reports on mass deaths, murderers, rapists, conmen, scams, etc - what kind of effect they have on our children's minds? Is this the kind of world you want them to learn about?

Can you remember the last air crash that the media made a big hoohah about? The one before that? The one in 2009? 2008? 2006? If you have forgotten it, it is proof that that was worthless to you.

Stop relying on traditional media - empower yourself with 2.0 media!

[3Boys]

There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.


How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.

Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one’s point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?

I don’t trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!

[flim]

i feel that what's most important is how we react to each piece of news

we read. to remember that there are always two sides of a story.

in the case of kiasimom, a good company should write to a 'relatively'
more reputable paper, like the straits times, to present its side of the
story, ie. kiasimom's friend's account, in an objective way. it can take
some responsibility for the hooha, apologize but at the same time defend
itself and its employee's act.

a lot of companies do this, actually. i'm sure you've seen them before.
especially SBS Transit, for the obvious reasons that a lot of people
complain about its service :lol: poor SBS.

currently i'm especially concerned by the money page in the sunday
version of our 'relatively' reputable local paper. they would write about a
person who, in their mind, has 'made' it and how they spend their 'made'
money.

my husband is a cynic and he tends to scoff at some of these successful
people's investment and spending habits. of course, with his own
justification thrown in. prob subtly sending me a message that i should be
more mindful with my spending... haha!

but not everyone is like that. some people are more trusting, especially
when they haven't made it quite as big as these successful people. like
the young, the fresh grads, or the middle-mgt white-collar who work their
guts out trying to make half as much money as these so-called 'made'
men and women (pls delete this if it may cause some offence).

they prob think, hey, if this guy said it's good to trade in options, i prob
shd do that too. but how many ppl can really make money out of option
trading? and if they do make some in the beginning, do they realize that
they can also lose money from it?

recently, a guy got sued for falsely claiming he had a degree from a
recognized university. he was an options trader trainer. his students sued
him for 'misleading' them to trust him. after he was proven guilty,
the 'relatively' reputable local newspaper started to ostracize him. ok. so
he was definitely at fault.

but if you remember, not too long ago, the same person was featured in
one of the sunday's money page, complete with how he made it big
(which is of course, thru options trading), how he invested his money, and
proof of his success (property, cars, etc).

now, i'm sure a lot of his students were encouraged to sign up for his
training after reading the article. thanks to the great feature writing skill
of its journalists. these students have been misled, but in a way, they
allowed themselves to, so they are also at fault. and does the paper need
to be made accountable for it? they didn't ask you to sign up for his
training. but they are a newspaper, and with it comes a pre-conceived
nature of trust and credibility.

but the reality is, they are now the very ones who report on his 'crime' at
every possible opportunity and from the way they write it, it's as if they're
trying to make it sound worse than it actually is. i mean, come on. the
world is full of people like him. look at maddoff! don't you have anything
better to write?

so i do agree that the journalists are not saints. far from it. but it is up to
us to decide what to do with it.

[sashimi]

3Boys:

There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.


How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.

Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one's point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?

I don't trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!

Sorry but I completely disagree with you. You are saying that every piece of writing on the web is \"unfiltered\", \"unauthorized\" or \"unofficial.\" That's what traditional media has been trying to persuade people to believe.

I have come across more fine articles and perfectly reasoned, professionally written articles on all manner of subjects, published on professional websites, than I care to count. They are, as you say \"Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.\" Exactly that.

You only have to locate the right sources. Just as you personally pick The Economist as your choice of good writing, I pick my sources.

You misread me - this is not about selecting what fits my opinion, this is about selecting my choice of topics, interests and relevance. I never said anything about not reading widely and reading different opinions. If someone only reads what he agrees with, that is a problem in the person that nothing in journalism is going to help.

I'm talking about the MEDIUM by which you process and receive news. I'm not talking about whether you should be reading A or B or C publication.

In any case, the 2.0 paradigm IS EXACTLY about different people with different opinions. It is EXACTLY about throwing away 1.0 attitudes where you are forced to listen to ONE authority on information. It is EXACTLY about the fact that Web 2.0 allows you to even challenge, comment upon and question writers and journalists that makes it even MORE reliable.

Leveraging a medium where I can choose multiple sources has made a vast difference. my perspectives and horizons have been expanded by exposure to what people across the entire globe opine about. When the newspapers write about one piece of news, I have already read a dozen different takes on it on the web.

\"New Media\" is not new anymore - it is 8+ years in the net, mature and already moving on to the next step while traditionalists continue hiding in their caves.. I mention this because traditional media like to position \"new media\" as something unestablished = unreliable.

Good journalism exists plentifully on the web. Of course if I find that a certain source has poor writing, I ignore it. It's exactly the same as your own filtering of magazines. You and I are after the same thing: good journalism, all I am trying to say that if you leverage web 2.0 instead of paper, you gain even more possibilities, opinions and perspectives.

1.0 journalism is outdated journalism. On a printed paper, you can never discuss with the author. It is the same when a reader thinks the whole world can be encapsulated in one newspaper. And that's exactly the problem, because people start to believe that everything in that one newspaper must be the only truth.

And THAT is exactly the problem here. The salesgirl had NO way of challenging the journalist, or defending herself. People read the report and accept that ONE writer's biased reporting as the \"truth\".

Lastly, I was targeting the general media, as in broadsheets, not \"higher\" publications like The Economist. And btw, particiapte online and you can comment on your own favourite articles with people all over the web, See for yourself. http://www.economist.com/node/15108690/comments

[3Boys]

sashimi:

3Boys:

There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.


How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.

Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one's point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?

I don't trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!

Sorry but I completely disagree with you. You are saying that every piece of writing on the web is \"unfiltered\", \"unauthorized\" or \"unofficial.\" That's what traditional media has been trying to persuade people to believe.

I have come across more fine articles and perfectly reasoned, professionally written articles on all manner of subjects, published on professional websites, than I care to count. They are, as you say \"Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.\" Exactly that.

You only have to locate the right sources. Just as you personally pick The Economist as your choice of good writing, I pick my sources.

You misread me - this is not about selecting what fits my opinion, this is about selecting my choice of topics, interests and relevance. I never said anything about not reading widely and reading different opinions. If someone only reads what he agrees with, that is a problem in the person that nothing in journalism is going to help.

I'm talking about the MEDIUM by which you process and receive news. I'm not talking about whether you should be reading A or B or C publication.

In any case, the 2.0 paradigm IS EXACTLY about different people with different opinions. It is EXACTLY about throwing away 1.0 attitudes where you are forced to listen to ONE authority on information. It is EXACTLY about the fact that Web 2.0 allows you to even challenge, comment upon and question writers and journalists that makes it even MORE reliable.

Leveraging a medium where I can choose multiple sources has made a vast difference. my perspectives and horizons have been expanded by exposure to what people across the entire globe opine about. When the newspapers write about one piece of news, I have already read a dozen different takes on it on the web.

\"New Media\" is not new anymore - it is 8+ years in the net, mature and already moving on to the next step while traditionalists continue hiding in their caves.. I mention this because traditional media like to position \"new media\" as something unestablished = unreliable.

Good journalism exists plentifully on the web. Of course if I find that a certain source has poor writing, I ignore it. It's exactly the same as your own filtering of magazines. You and I are after the same thing: good journalism, all I am trying to say that if you leverage web 2.0 instead of paper, you gain even more possibilities, opinions and perspectives.

1.0 journalism is outdated journalism. On a printed paper, you can never discuss with the author. It is the same when a reader thinks the whole world can be encapsulated in one newspaper. And that's exactly the problem, because people start to believe that everything in that one newspaper must be the only truth.

And THAT is exactly the problem here. The salesgirl had NO way of challenging the journalist, or defending herself. People read the report and accept that ONE writer's biased reporting as the \"truth\".

Lastly, I was targeting the general media, as in broadsheets, not \"higher\" publications like The Economist. And btw, particiapte online and you can comment on your own favourite articles with people all over the web, See for yourself. http://www.economist.com/node/15108690/comments

Much clearer sashimi, and you are right that we are more similar than different in our thinking. I find good quality stuff very difficult to come by on the internet still, though.

Cheers