New Media Hotspot

Media and citizens meet in the YouTube Reporters' Center

6/29/2009 10:50:00 AM

This is the first of a series of posts from YouTube's news and politics blog, Citizentube. -Ed.

YouTube is the biggest video news site on the Internet, and at no time in our site's history was that more apparent than in these last two weeks of the crisis unfolding in Iran. As hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens took to the streets of Tehran to protest the national elections, the government kicked out foreign journalists, leaving citizens themselves as the only documentarians to the events unfolding there. We've been highlighting many of these videos and keeping track of the latest developments on our YouTube news and politics blog, Citizentube.

Though the circumstances in Iran are unique, this isn't the first time that citizens have played a crucial role in reporting on events around the world. Burmese citizens uploaded exclusive video footage to YouTube during the protests in Myanmar back in 2007; people in China's Sichuan province documented the devastating and historic 7.8-magnitude earthquake of 2008 in real-time; and eyewitnesses to the shooting of young Oscar Grant by Oakland police forces captured the event on their cell phone cameras and uploaded videos to YouTube for the world to see. Citizens are no longer merely bystanders to world events. Today, anyone can chronicle what they see and participate in the news-gathering process.

Though it's the phenomenon of citizen reporting that YouTube is probably best known for, we also have hundreds of news partners who upload thousands of videos straight to YouTube every day. You can see lots of these on our news page at youtube.com/news. Many of these organizations have used YouTube in unique ways, like asking the community to submit questions for government officials, providing a behind-the-scenes look at traveling with the Obama press corps and accepting video applications for a reporting assignment in West Africa. We believe the power of this new media landscape lies in the collaborative possibilities of amateurs and professionals working together.

And so today, we're launching a new resource on YouTube to help citizens learn more about how to report the news, straight from the experts. It's called the the YouTube Reporters' Center, and it features some of the nation's top journalists sharing instructional videos with tips and advice for better reporting. Learn how to prepare for an interview; or how to be an investigative reporter from the legendary Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward; or how to report on a global humanitarian crisis from Nick Kristof of the New York Times. All of the videos are available on the YouTube Reporters' Center channel.

Article Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/media-and-citizens-meet-in-youtube.html

Oh, my god! Are the 'fourth floor boys' back?

Shah A Dadameah Tuesday, 30 June 2009 04:00

KUALA LUMPUR - When Najib Abdul Razak moved into the fifth floor of the Prime Minister's office on April 3 this year, he came with his big picture of "One Malaysia" to drive home the point that this land belongs to every son of the soil, native and citizen of the country. If the idea had come during the tenure of his predecessor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, you would hear that it was the result of some clever brainstorming by a band of young intellectuals on the floor below. Blue Ocean strategy Najib is known to be an ardent follower of the Blue Ocean strategy, which dictates there is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid in a market where competition is irrelevant. With more than 30 years in politics and administrative affairs, he has lately taken the Blue Ocean stance of creating rather than fighting over opportunities. Thus, it is said, he has given more room for people, albeit selective, to advise and counsel him over key functions and issues in his administration. Has the spectre of the "fourth floor" resurfaced? In Abdullah's brief era, the so-called "fourth floor boys" were relatively young officers of sound knowledge on current affairs, with good business acumen and networking skills as well as very media savvy. Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who gave them the label, had accused them of using their talents and close links with Abdullah to influence decisions and policies in Umno and the administration. They were said to be very authoritative in their ways, to the extent that anyone who wants to meet the prime minister has to first be screened by them. In other words, if the 'fourth floor boys' were not convinced about the nature of the planned meeting, the visitor would not get to go to the upper floor. In contrast, when Dr Mahathir was at the helm everything centered on the fifth floor of the Prime Minister's office in Putrajaya and every decision had his personal intervention. His critics may say he was a dictator but they acknowledged that for every failed 'Plan A' he has 'Plan B' to bank on. Critics of Abdullah were less kind to him. They say he has no plan. Mahathir's impatience, Abdullah's sad exit Mahathir's impatience with Abdullah reached a crescendo when his grand design of a scenic bridge across part of the Tebrau straits to replace the causeway was shredded by the Cabinet of his successor. Several unhappy events followed, leading to Mahathir quitting from Umno. He returned to the party only when Najib took over the office as the country's sixth prime minister. Abdullah's exit, in a sense, was sad. He was harassed to resign following the Barisan's dismal performance at the 12th general election. He was criticised by both foes and those he thought were friends. He had introduced a string of economic corridors across the country but his critics only want to blame him for the country being at very low economic ebb. Enter Najib, with his One Malaysia theme. He made a flamboyant start with a magnanimous decision to release 13 Internal Security Act detainees and withdrawing the suspensions of political papers Harakah and Suara Keadilan. In an attempt seen as redeeming lost pride over the Johor bridge issue, he proposed a third link between the state and Singapore. But he probably pushed his luck too far for the Sultan was not impressed. State assemblymen on both sides of the political divide were also not keen on the bridge, reasoning that the people of Johor were not consulted on the matter and, furthermore, the project would only bring more benefits to the republic. What Mahathir feared was happening during Abdullah's term appears to have returned and decisions made by Najib are suspiciously being maneuvered by remote control from elsewhere. This time around the power broking may not necessarily come from the space below the fifth floor office. While working in similar fashion as the ousted "fourth floor boys" of Abdullah's time, the currently-invisible new kids could be operating from any other block. It is, according to some careless whispers, the new batch of "fourth floor boys" who had come out with the One Malaysia concept; an idea conceived from outside the boardrooms of Umno. Najib's own 'fourth floor boys' And, because the party was allegedly not consulted on the matter, those who were caught by surprise when Najib announced the concept immediately said there would be dire implications and repercussions that would further distance them from the leadership. Word has it that his own "fourth floor boys" report back to Najib on those who disagree with the concept. Among other key decisions that have allegedly not gone down well among his own party members are the abolishment of the Ministry of Entrepreneurial and Co-operatives Development and the scrapping of the 30% bumiputra quota in the civil service. Najib, of course, has his reasons to revise policies deemed inconsistent with his One Malaysia nation and, perhaps, as Finance Minister, he has to think as well in terms of being prudent and optimising talents. To be fair to Najib, he has only been at the helm for three months and he does need all the help he can to carry out his premier duties and make an impact as the "people's prime minister". Some people choose to think that Najib came to Putrajaya carrying some "excess baggage' that was not declared when he took the prime minister's job. While he has repeatedly denied he ever knew murdered Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribu - with wife Rosmah Mansor solidly standing by her man - he continues to be taunted by his opponents over his link with the woman's alleged lover, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda. Having cronies around is not a new phenomena in Malaysian politics. But what has become phobic for many people is the haunting return of "the fourth floor" syndrome in Umno and the country's administrative capital. Worse, it could demoralise Putajaya officials whose role in the administration could be gradually usurped by this ghostly band of advisers and opportunists – if they actually exist.

Source: http://www.malaysianmirror.com/homedetail/45-home/3182-oh-my-god-are-the-fourth-floor-boys-back

Is it the same here in Malaysia?

Study finds widening generation gap in US

Study finds split in attitudes on religion, relationships; largest generation gap since '60s

HOPE YEN
AP News

Jun 29, 2009 02:50 EST

From cell phones and texting to religion and manners, younger and older Americans see the world differently, creating the largest generation gap since the tumultuous years of the 1960s and the culture clashes over Vietnam, civil rights and women's liberation.

A new study released Monday by the Pew Research Center found Americans of different ages increasingly at odds over a range of social and technological issues. It also highlights a widening age divide after last November's election, when 18- to 29-year-olds voted for Democrat Barack Obama by a 2-to-1 ratio.

Almost eight in 10 people believe there is a major difference in the point of view of younger people and older people today, according to the independent public opinion research group. That is the highest spread since 1969, when about 74 percent reported major differences in an era of generational conflicts over the Vietnam War and civil and women's rights. In contrast, just 60 percent in 1979 saw a generation gap.

Asked to identify where older and younger people differ most, 47 percent said social values and morality. People age 18 to 29 were more likely to report disagreements over lifestyle, views on family, relationships and dating, while older people cited differences in a sense of entitlement. Those in the middle-age groups also often pointed to a difference in manners.

Religion is a far bigger part of the lives of older adults. About two-thirds of people 65 and older said religion is very important to them, compared with just over half of those 30 to 49 and 44 percent of people 18 to 29.

In addition, among adults 65 and older, one-third said religion has grown more important to them over the course of their lives, while 4 percent said it has become less important and 60 percent said it has stayed the same.

"Around the notion of morality and work ethic, the differences in point of view are pretty much felt across the board," said Paul Taylor, director of the Pew Social and Demographic Trends Project. He cited a greater tolerance among younger people on cultural issues such as gay marriage and interracial relationships.

Still, he noted that the generation gap in 2009 seems to be more tepid in nature than it was in the 1960s, when younger people built a defiant counterculture in opposing the Vietnam War and demanding equal rights for women and minorities.

"Today, it's more of a general outlook, a different point of view, a general set of moral values," Taylor said.

Among the study's other findings:

_Getting old isn't as bad as people believe in terms of health, but isn't as good when it comes to lifestyle. While more than half of those under 65 think they will experience memory loss when they are older, only one-quarter of people 65 and older say they do so. Older people reported fewer instances than expected of problems such as serious illness, not being able to drive, being less sexually active or depressed.

On the other hand, older adults end up having less leisure time than expected. While 87 percent of those under 65 think they will have more time for hobbies and other interests in older age, only 65 percent of older people report having it. Life at 65 and older also fell below expectations when it came to time with family, travel, having more financial security and less stress.

_Hispanics are more likely to report problems in old age. About 35 percent of Hispanics 65 and older say they have a serious illness, compared with 20 percent of whites and 22 percent of blacks in the same age group. More older Hispanics reported being depressed, lonely or a burden to others than did whites and blacks. They also were less likely to do volunteer work or be involved in their communities.

_Younger people are more likely to embrace technology. About 75 percent of adults 18 to 30 went online daily, compared with 40 percent of those 65 to 74 and about 16 percent for people 75 and older. The age gap widened over cell phones and text messaging. About 6 percent of those 65 and older used a cell phone for most or all of their calls; 11 percent sent or received text messages. That's compared with 64 percent of adults under 30 for cell phone use and 87 percent for texting.

_Americans differ on when old age begins. On average, they say 68. People under age 30 believe it begins at 60, while those 65 and older push the threshold to 74. Of all those surveyed, most said they wanted to live to 89.

Pew interviewed 2,969 adults by cell phone or landline from Feb. 23 to March 23. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. In cases where older persons were too ill or incapacitated, their adult children were interviewed. Pew also used surveys conducted by Gallup, CBS and The New York Times to identify trends since 1969.

Source: http://pewsocialtrends.org/

Future journalism "training"

YouTube Launches Reporters' Center, Wants To School Citizen Journalists In Better News Reporting

Posted: 29 Jun 2009 08:56 AM PDT

Over the weekend, YouTube launched a new channel dubbed Reporters' Center, which it hopes will prove to be a good way to educate existing and aspiring citizen journalists on how to report news in 'the digital age'. The new resource will feature a host of top journalists and media experts sharing instructional videos with tips and advice for better reporting.

So far, there are 34 videos uploaded to the channel, featuring people like Facebook Marketing Director Randi Zuckerberg providing 8 tips on how to maximize distribution of your YouTube video on the social network her brother famously co-created, and folks like CBS News' Katie Couric and legendary Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward explaining how to conduct a good interview and how to be an investigative reporter, respectively.

The idea is sound and some of the content is rather good, and I'm sure it will provide a helpful resource for citizen reporters across the globe. Of course, it serves YouTube's interests as well when more and more people take up the habit of filming whatever happens in their neighborhood and upload the videos to the wildly popular sharing site afterwards.

If you have any tips to share, you can also upload your own videos to the channel.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/iJAI7D6TBWQ/

The battle for religious identity

Religion and the US military

Watch Part 1 Watch Part 2 The United States is a deeply religious country. More than 90 per cent of the population say they believe in god and while 80 per cent profess to believe in miracles. For the US military, dealing with its' own religious identity has become an internal battle. Growing evidence points towards a rising influence of evangelical Christianity, and with two wars still raging in Muslim countries with significant religious overtones, there could be serious consequences for the US mission. Pentagon officials say incidents are isolated, aberrations occur, but others closely tied to the military and its' religious leadership say a transformation is taking place with dire costs. On this week's episode of Fault Lines, we look at the battle over the religious soul of the US military. Also, we meet Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor under Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush. He gives Fault Lines a fresh take on the issue of religion in the military and how it is impacting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/faultlines/2009/06/200962675254610845.html

What will it take...

Mainstream Media Still Has Eyes Wide Shut

by Robin Wauters on June 26, 2009

Michael Jackson's unfortunate passing is a sad event on many levels, and a moment to reflect upon the man's rich life and career as well as a time to pass support - silent or loud - onto his family, friends and everyone who needs it now that the King of Pop has ceased to be.

For us here at TechCrunch, it's also an opportunity to take a look at how media, old and new alike, handle news reporting and distribution in this day and age (as well as a sneak peek at how it'll likely evolve in the near future).

Like many others, I had Twitter open in one of my browser tabs when the first reports of Jackson's hospitalization and at the time rumored cardiac arrest started circulating. At first, there was no indication that the news had been confirmed by anyone and people were just frantically retweeting messages carrying lots of question marks while trying to find an online news source to serve as a beacon for further updates on the story. Quickly enough, people started linking to AOL's online gossip powerhouse TMZ, which was the first to call out his passing away when everyone else was still referencing the hospitalization part.

Granted, TMZ may well not be the most credible source in the world (quick, which one is?) and there's a possibility they just went with the story of Jackson dying as fact before it really was, but all that doesn't matter anymore now. They called it first, and they got it right. We soon learned that, despite the fact many news blogs and sites were struggling to keep up with all the massive influx of people looking for more digital reports.

For a visualization of Twitter trending topics as they evolved in real-time, check out this video, courtesy of TwitScoop.

So TMZ broke the news and Twitter was red hot with all the chatter about it, approximately 40 minutes before the L.A. Times followed up with a confirmation of Jackson's death on one of its blogs, citing its own sources. Not really that big a deal, but people did see the LAT follow-up as a more credible confirmation of what everyone was assuming already, which is fine, even if some of them minutes before couldn't stop bashing TMZ over the so-called rumor-mongering they displayed.

But noteworthy, and somewhat disturbing in my view: most mainstream media who followed up on the story after these two outlets were mostly regurgitating and filtering what the two blogs had reported before them, more often than not without proper credit or attribution, let alone a link. Some of them, like NY Times blog Bits acknowledged Twitter to be the place to be for watercooler-type chatter about the events, yet practically none of them dared admit that blogs and Twitter had simply been quicker with spreading the facts than they were (and yes, we realize using both as a source for rock-solid news can be quite dangerous too, but that's beside the point in this case).

A jaw-dropping case of being painfully out of touch with reality was to be found in this Chicago Tribune article, carrying the subtitle "TMZ leads with early details, while Los Angeles Times and AP do the heavy lifting", in which we read nonsense like:

Gossip site TMZ.com, owned by Time Warner, was out in front with Jackson news and digital-era pipelines spread the word, as has happened before with other major celebrity news stories. But it was old media stalwarts that did the heavy lifting, with giants such as The Associated Press and the Web site of the L.A. Times, sister paper of the Chicago Tribune, reporting the fastest, most credible information on the emergency call for paramedics and ultimately his death.

Yes, I laughed out loud too. Chest-beating over old media doing the "heavy lifting" for blogs and Twitter, and being faster in reporting information than those new media when it was exactly the other way around is beyond ridiculous. TMZ was the first to report Jackson's death, and its sources in this case proved to be as "credible" as those of any of the old-media laggards. Statements like the above are evidence of massive misunderstanding of the author - and he'll certainly not be the only dinosaur thinking along these lines - of how the world of news distribution is evolving.

The author was also happy to find someone to back him up, this time Adam Fendelman, founder and publisher of entertainment news site HollywoodChicago.com, whose first response to his staff was when he was filled in on the news was apparently: "Are we sure?".

Here's what he reportedly said to the Chicago Tribune journalist:

"The Web and TV phenomenon that TMZ is is very good at fast-breaking and late-breaking news, but there's an inherent problem with trust in the everyday consumer's mind."

Damn right and for the better too, but as far as I'm concerned you can replace TMZ with just about any news outlet out there, including the old big ones, who are rapidly becoming far less big and relevant.

To me, this whole thing just proves that mainstream media are justifiably freaking out with their eyes wide shut to what's happening instead of learning and adapting to the new age of journalism.

Source: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/mainstream-media-still-has-eyes-wide-shut-proves-michael-jacksons-death-reporting/

Melayu, oh melayu...

Mitos perpecahan Melayu

Abu Firdaus Sat | Jun 27, 09 | 5:42:35 am MYT

APABILA banyak orang Melayu menyokong Umno, maka dikatakan Melayu bersatu. Apabila banyak orang Melayu menyokong PAS dikatakan orang Melayu berpecah. Inilah mitos yang selalu dimainkan oleh pihak Umno untuk mengekalkan sokongan orang Melayu kepada mereka. Dalam demokrasi tidak timbul mana-mana kaum berpecah. Rakyat tanpa mengira kaum memilih mana-mana parti yang boleh berkhidmat untuk mereka secara jujur dan berkesan. Untuk apa orang Melayu menyokong Umno jika parti itu dalam amalannya tidak jujur dan pentadbirannya tidak berkesan. Maka ia wajar beralih sokongan kepada parti lain yang berkesan, umpamanya PAS. Kalau dikira dari sudut perpaduan, orang Melayu wajar bersatu menyokong PAS dan sekutu-sekutunya. Andai kata orang Melayu Perak banyak memberi sokongan kepada PAS dan sekutu-sekutunya, maka PAS muncul sebagai parti yang dominan. Jika itu berlaku maka tidak timbul hujah DAP menerajui kerajaan negeri Perak. Apa yang berlaku di Perak, orang Melayu sebahagian besar masih menyokong Umno, tetapi pada waktu yang sama sudah ramai menyebelahi PAS dan sekutu-sekutunya. Tidak semestinya baik Namun begitu, ia tidak bermakna orang Melayu berpecah. Perpaduan tidak semestinya baik, seperti mana perpecahan tidak semestinya buruk. Kalau bersatu atas perjuangan yang baik, maka hasilnya adalah baik. Tetapi kalau bersatu atas perjuangan yang buruk, maka hasilnya buruk. Begitu juga dengan perpecahan. Adalah mustahil untuk berlaku perpaduan yang mutlak. Manusia mempunyai pelbagai ragam termasuk pandangan dan sikap. Sudah tentu mereka mempunyai pandangan politik berbeza dan memberi sokongan kepada parti politik berlainan. Dalam sejarah tidak pernah mana-mana bangsa memberi sokongan kepada sesebuah gerakan secara mutlak. Perpaduan mutlak tidak ada. Yang ada ialah kebanyakan atau majoriti sesuatu sokongan bangsa kepada mana-mana pihak. Itulah apa yang disebutkan sebenarnya sebagai perpaduan. Mitos bahawa Melayu berpecah sering kali dikaitkan pula bahawa orang Cina bersatu. Kalau orang Melayu menyokong parti yang berlainan maka mereka dikatakan berpecah. Orang Cina menyokong parti berlainan tidak pula dikatakan berpecah. Ini kerana orang Cina dikatakan bersikap bersatu dalam menghadapi isu-isu Cina seperti soal bahasa Cina, sekolah Cina, kebebasan beragama dan menolak Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Tanggapan ini menggambarkan seolah-olah Melayu yang berlainan parti tidak bersatu dalam isu-isu Melayu. Apabila orang Melayu menyokong PAS dan KeADILan, maka dikatakan bahawa mereka dalam Pakatan Rakyat menolak isu-isu Melayu. Sedangkan orang Melayu dalam PAS dan KeADILan tetap mendokong kepentingan Melayu, seperti memartabatkan bahasa Melayu dan hak memperbaiki kedudukan ekonomi orang Melayu. Secara umumnya orang Melayu, seperti juga orang Cina tetap bersatu dalam memperjuangkan kepentingan mereka. Tetapi tentunya mereka berlainan pendapat khususnya dari segi pendekatan lebih-lebih lagi apabila mereka kecewa dengan kegagalan Umno. Maka apabila sesebuah parti politik itu gagal, wajarkah mereka terus menyokong sesuatu kegagalan? Tentunya tidak. Pendekatan sememangnya berbeza tetapi matlamat serupa. Suatu contoh jelas. Umno menyokong gagasan ketuanan Melayu. Tetapi dari segi pendekatan, mungkin itu tidak dicerminkan dan tidak berjaya sepenuhnya. Selain itu, gagasan ketuanan Melayu yang dipegang Umno ada unsur perkauman dan penindasan. Itu menurut sesetengah pandangan. Gagasan ketuanan Melayu umpamanya bermaksud bahawa Malaysia berasal dan berasaskan kepada negeri-negeri Melayu yang mempunyai raja-rajanya dan rakyatnya yang merupakan bangsa Melayu. Atas perjalanan sejarah, ia menjadi negara moden Malaysia sebagai negara yang berasal dan berasaskan Melayu. Itu terlihat dalam perlembagaan Malaysia yang menetapkan Raja-Raja Melayu sebagai ketua negeri masing-masing dengan secara bersistem menjadi ketua negara bagi Malaysia. Dukung Perlembagaan PAS dan KeADILan mendukung Perlembagaan Malaysia. Begitu juga dengan DAP. Bermakna Pakatan Rakyat mendukung Perlembagaan Malaysia. Ketuanan Melayu seperti yang terdapat dalam Perlembagaan didukung oleh Pakatan Rakyat. Tetapi bukan ketuanan Melayu yang bersifat perkauman dan meminggirkan kaum lain seperti mana yang difahamkan oleh sebahagian daripada orang Melayu yang menyokong Umno. Dalam hal ini, ada dua fahaman lain yang dipegang oleh Pakatan Rakyat. Bagi DAP dan KeADILan ada gagasan yang disebut sebagai ketuanan rakyat. Sementara PAS pula mendukung ketuanan Islam. Ketuanan rakyat dan ketuanan Islam juga tercermin dalam perlembagaan Malaysia. Ketuanan rakyat menunjukkan semangat demokrasi sementara ketuanan Islam meletakkan agama ini sebagai kepercayaan tertinggi bagi negara. Adakah orang Melayu yang mempunyai pandangan berbeza dalam hal ini dikatakan berpecah? Banyak orang Umno turut menyokong ketuanan rakyat dan ketuanan Islam jika mereka diberi kefahaman mendalam. Ini kerana seperti ketuanan Melayu, ketuanan rakyat dan ketuanan Islam berada dalam jiwa orang Melayu. Melayu tidak berpecah dalam hal ini. Dalam sejarah pun, Melayu mempunyai keragaman pandangan politik dan ia tidak bererti berpecah. Apabila Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) keluar daripada Umno, itu tidak bermakna Melayu berpecah. Mereka keluar daripada Umno antara lain kerana Umno tidak mahu memperjuangkan kemerdekaan. Umno hanya mahu mengekalkan kedaulatan Melayu dalam naungan British. Tetapi itu tidak bermakna Melayu berpecah kerana kedua-dua pihak menjunjung kepentingan Melayu. Walaupun nanti apabila orang Melayu bertambah sokongannya kepada Pakatan Rakyat, itu tidak bermakna orang Melayu bertambah berpecah. Malahan ia bermakna orang Melayu bertambah bersatu di bawah Pakatan Rakyat. Umno adalah sebuah parti politik. Umno bukan Melayu sepenuhnya dan Melayu bukan Umno sepenuhnya.

Sumber: http://harakahdaily.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21429&Itemid=37

The Chairman's Grandchildren...

The Fate of Mao's grandchildren -- China Blue

I suppose Malaysian feminist and women's rights group should focus their energy on finding out what is happening to women as they are transformed into cheap labourers in factories in Malaysia -- from Penang to Johor.

Source: http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/2009/06/fate-of-maos-grandchildren-china-blue.html

Wither the media...

The media is dead. Long live the media

Posted by Jeremy Allison @ 4:00 am

I gave up on the mainstream media in 2002-2003, in the run up to the Iraq war. Every single  channel in the USA was selling the prospect of war like a product, a new soap powder. I tried to find coverage of the over one million person protest march in London that I'd heard about via email, and it was barely mentioned. The last straw came when I got so angry I nearly threw a chair through my brand new plasma TV,  which would have been an expensive outburst, but that's what you get for watching Fox News for longer than it takes to flip through the channels on the remote.

Godzilla: I just didn't care

I moved to the Internet to get my news coverage, and I've never looked back. Yes, I'm seeing some of the same US-centric reports, but you can easily balance them by looking at the viewpoint on events from world wide media coverage. There are so many alternatives to simple text now too. Video sharing sites provide instant camera-phone access to events that would never have received attention before. You can actually watch an event that previously would only be reported from one point of view and make up your own mind about what happened. New communications media like Twitter have become so important in recent events that the US government requested the company postpone scheduled maintenance in the aftermath of the Iranian election, because so many Iranians were using it to communicate with the outside world.

Mainstream cinema I'd given up much earlier than that. I went to see the movie "Godzilla" when it came out in 1998. I'd seen the previews and was excited about actually seeing a big lizard trample New York underfoot. I wasn't disappointed. The special effects (an early use of computer-generated imagery) were everything they promised in the trailers. I actually believed a giant lizard was loose in the Big Apple. But during the movie I realized I felt completely detached from the spectacle. It took me a while to realize the problem was I just didn't care. The story was facile (OK, it was a monster movie)  and the characters were one dimensional cardboard cut-outs. I was bored, which is the ultimate sin for a summer blockbuster movie.

Since then I've still enjoyed movies, but now I only go watch movies with recommendations from people whose judgment I trust. I use a peer-to-peer filter on my viewing habits these days. As for TV shows I no longer partake. If I hear about anything interesting on the networks I wait until it is available on DvD, then buy the boxed set to enjoy at my leisure. No adverts, you see. Anyone who has ever watched US TV channels will realize how unbearable the adverts make trying to watch a program. Some people use a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) to achieve the same effect, but I just don't want to encourage the TV networks any more so I don't subscribe.

Mostly I like to watch things online. It's no surprise to me that the most interesting videos I've enjoyed recently were Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog and the wonderful comedy soap opera The Guild,  both of which were created for the Web.

My relationship to newspapers is more complex. I no longer buy or read a full newspaper, but am an avid consumer of journalism online. I've been lucky enough to be personally involved with some events that were considered worthy enough to cover by the press, and I was continually amazed by how bad the reporting was. Much of it was just plain wrong, with basic facts incorrectly stated. Other people I've talked to who had insight into other events have often told me the same. Yet at the moment it's still the only way to find out what might be going on in the world, flawed though it is. But this will change.

I've found the biggest difference between print stories and their online equivalent is that most journalists or bloggers now have some method of feedback attached to the articles they write. Usually you can send direct email to the reporter, and potentially engage in a dialog with the author or other people commenting on a story. Journalism is becoming a peer-to-peer activity these days.

Peer-to-peer is the key. The shift that is currently taking place is from an old style of centralized network media, to a decentralized peer-to-peer media. You can participate. You should participate. The Internet is what makes this possible. The change this is going to make in our societies I think will be profound, and I don't even pretend to know what it will be long term. But I firmly believe it is coming. It's really exiting to be alive in these times, to see such a major change going on all around us.

I know it's a cliché, but it's such an important one I'm not ashamed to repeat it: On the Internet, anyone can be a broadcaster. Yes, I know that if I tried to outdo CNN by serving out news from my home DSL line, I'd be pretty swamped if I had anything anyone was interested in seeing. See the "Slashdot effect" for details. But that's not the way things work anymore. If I have a riveting piece of camera phone footage showing an event the world was interested in, I don't need to serve it from home;, merely uploading it to a peer-to-peer network or one of the many video sharing sites will ensure that it will get to everyone who wants to see it. Unfiltered and uncensored, that's the key. People get to see the raw footage, not some news outlets processed version of what they think people want to see. Even in countries with complete censorship of the news media and Internet access, people find a way to get to the truth eventually.

This is the beginning of the participatory society. The Free Software/Open Source movement understands this very well. I contribute to this society by writing Samba code, helping people with problems on the Internet with Samba, and communicating freely with the community of people who have coalesced around this code. Many other programmers make a living and communicate in the same way. But this movement doesn't stop with technologists or Free Software programmers. I used to love going to the opera. With a small child I don't get to go anymore, but I'd love to see more amateur productions. Video your amateur production and upload it. I'll watch ! Some will end up being worth paying for and maybe you'll hit the bigtime. Most of it won't and just you and your friends will get to enjoy it. But you'll never know unless you upload and share.

Musicians already get this. The remix culture is already alive on the Internet and will surely grow. The most interesting music I heard recently was from someone who just remixed YouTube video clips into something completely new and creative. Almost certainly he's violating someone's copyright in some fashion, but just listen to the result. — it's incredible.

You can use the Internet to express your own creativity and connect with a community of people who are interested in the same things you are. You don't need a publisher or intermediary or anyone to edit your work. Most importantly, you don't need anyone's permission to publish. It doesn't matter if you don't think it's worth publishing. It probably isn't (as regular readers of my column often tell me). The science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon famously said, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." What matters is that you create and you share with others. Could it really be any worse than that Godzilla movie ?

The days of living in Ruritania, with its one state-run TV and radio channel playing only state approved content, are over. You can move out into the wider world. The only people still living there are those who haven't yet discovered that Ruritania is only in your own mind. (Thanks to Vernor Vinge, whose amazing novel A Deepness in the Sky , contains the phrase that was the inspiration for this column.)

Source: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=20120&tag=nl.e550

What ah?

What's Wrong With You Chinese?

Amazing isn't it how the Indians suddenly seem to be doing so well? In recent months, every few day there seems to be a splash in the mainstream media about the MIC doing something or another for its Indians. One day it might be rushing to a neighbourhood where the sewer pipes may have burst or a sinkhole may have developed under someone's home. Another day it might be a story of some MIC official pandering to some Indian traders in Brickfields or some other such Indian neighbourhood. More recently we have seen one mainstream newspaper do a big spread with a photo of the MIC having channelled RM30,000 for a Tamil school library! Wow! Just imagine.

It's truly incredible how efficient these MIC people are. How come we don't hear about the MCA doing such wonderful things for its people, ah? Are they that disconnected from their people? What la you Chinese. You should learn from us Indians, man. See how the MIC is not just a political party, you know. It's actually more like a NGO, la. They do charity work, community service, and even get funds for renovating a Tamil school library. How come we don't see your MCA doing such incredible things?

Actually, I would venture to guess there are not many political parties out there that can claim to be as effective as the MIC, you know. I tell you, if anyone needs to statrt a small business or needs a loan to study, you must call Samy Vellu, la. Surely you'll get him and the MIC to help you. After all, if you follow the reports in the mainstream media, they've got to be one of the most prolific social welfare agencies around.

By the way, how come your Chinese schools don't seem to need their libraries renovated, one ah? How come I don't see MCA or even Gerakan officials posing with Chinese kids in schools or with poor Chinese mothers living in shacks? Are these MCA and Gerakan clowns all asleep, ah? I tell you, it is time you all took a page from Samy Vellu's MIC and learned from the master how to do things right. Imagine, one of your Chinese schools might also be so fortunate and get RM30,000 for renovating their library.

I'm sure if the MCA and Gerakan people just asked Samy and his army how they do it, the latter would be most willing to give you people a few tips. After all, you too got smacked by the voters in the last general election what! Haven't you learned anything? The way to win back the public's support is to do big spreads in the mainstream media showing vernacular schools getting their dilapidated toilets, broken windows or roofs repaired and such. How come your Chinese schools don't have broken toilets, ah?

Come on, get your people moving with their BN propaganda programme!

Source: http://imagineequality.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-wrong-with-you-chinese.html

from Haris M. Ibrahim:

Why Najib's 1Malaysia will fail – Part 1

June 23, 2009

Let's try to put a context to where Najib is coming from and headed to with his 1Malaysia.

What is Najib's grand design that he now calls 1Malaysia?

Is his 1Malaysia novel and innovative, or re-hashed from a model that we've seen before?

Two days ago, Malaysianinsider reported Mukhriz as saying that it would be difficult to realise the "1Malaysia" concept if the Malays are not united, as the the Malays are the pillar in making 1 Malaysia a reality and played an important role in ensuring the country's progress as they are the majority in the country.

I quote Mukhriz from that report :

"If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1 Malaysia concept? This will not only be detrimental to the Malays but also to other races…When we talk about Malay unity, we are not talking from the racism point of view. We have accepted the fact that there cannot be a government which is led 100 per cent by Malay leaders … we have been practising power sharing for so long"

What do you discern from this?

One, 'Malay unity talk' ala UMNO-style is not racism.

Two, power sharing in the governance of this country is set, not on the premise of having the best men and women in place to get the job done, but along racial lines, with a predominance of Malays at the helm of government because they are the majority, because this is how power has been shared thus far.

If you want to know where Mukhriz is coming from, you don't have to go far.

Just read his father's 'The Malay Dilemma'.

I've just finished re-reading that book.

If you've never read this book, you should make the effort to.

It'll give you an idea of how this country found itself on that slippery slope into the cesspool we now are in when Mahathir took over the PMship.

It will reveal how this man, in the late 60's / early 70's,  conveniently distorted a prevailing 'have versus have-nots' class issue into a racial one, portrayed as being that of the 'marginalised Malays versus the non-Malay community' and, through his years of rule as PM, perpetuated this thinking, with the acquiescence of the other BN component party leaders, of course.

In a speech that he was supposed to have delivered at the Harvard Club of Malaysia on 29th July 2002, this is what Mahathir is reported to have said :

"When I wrote The Malay Dilemma in the late 60s, I had assumed that all the Malays lacked the opportunities to develop and become successful. They lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises. If these opportunities could be made available to them, then they would succeed. …… So what is the new Malay dilemma? Their old dilemma was whether they should distort the picture a little in order to help themselves. The new dilemma is whether they should or should not do away with the crutches that they have got used to, which in fact they have become proud of. There is a minority of Malays who are confident enough to think of doing away with the crutches, albeit gradually. But they are a very small minority. Their numbers are not going to increase any time soon. They are generally regarded as traitors to the Malay race. …."

There you have it!

Distort the picture in order to help themselves!

That the truth then was that every marginalised Malaysian, regardless of race, "lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises", was buried in the distorted picture that was presented, so that certain quarters could help themselves.

11 years before that reported speech to the Havard Club, in 1991, Mahathir launched his Vision 2020 where he also spoke of establishing a united Malaysian nation; a Bangsa Malaysia, as he put it. I have alluded to this in a previous post last year. This is what Mahathir had said in 1991 of that Bangsa Malaysia :

"By the year 2020, Malaysia can be a united nation, with a confident Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable, progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. There can be no fully developed Malaysia until we have finally overcome the nine central strategic challenges that have confronted us from the moment of our birth as an independent nation…The first of these is the challenges of establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one 'Bangsa Malaysia' with political loyalty and dedication to the nation…The eighth is the challenge of ensuring an economically just society. This is a society in which there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation, in which there is full partnership in economic progress. Such a society cannot be in place so long as there is the identification of race with economic function, and the identification of economic backwardness with race."

18 years on from that inspirational speech of his, why is it that we do not appear to be anywhere near establishing that one 'Bangsa Malaysia' with political loyalty and dedication to the nation ?

Was Mahathir's Vision 2020 no different from his 'Look East' policy that he innovated soon after taking office, in that both were made up of inspiring rhetoric with little political will to carry through and which got us all sufficiently distracted so that the privileged hands that were raiding the national coffers could work at will and unnoticed?

What is the difference between Mahathir's Vision 2020 and Najib's 1Malaysia?

Is there such a difference between Mahathir and Najib that we should be encouraged to believe that, whilst Mahathiir had little impact in taking us anywhere near the Bangsa Malaysia he spoke of, with Najib, it will be otherwise ?

Source: http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/why-najibs-1malaysia-will-fail-part-1/