QotW9: Are you passionate to share???

I was just having a little chat with my uncle, Anthony, who works as a Warrant Officer. He mentioned on how a portion of his job requires him to recognize within seconds nearly invisible details such as a crescent (for e.g.) on an oncoming aircraft and name the type of aircraft. Just the thought of it made my eyes bulge with surprise as to how he is able to name the planes in a matter of four seconds. However, he mentioned that this was an easy task for him as he already had a keen interest in aircrafts. This was a quality in him that has led him to stand out among his colleagues. My uncle stated that most of his colleagues would research and study hard to remember these names to get the job done. He did not fail to mention that though his colleagues had a passion for this job (warrant officer), their interest levels were low in this area of aircrafts.

WHAT IS CITIZEN JOURNALISM???

As I sat in the comfort of my living room listening to my uncle, I realized that I could easily piece “citizen journalism” and “journalism” into his job description. Confused? Let me explain. In the description above, I see my uncle as the participant in citizen journalism and his colleagues involved in journalism.


Generally journalism allows the communication of an event, issue, people or anything that is of concern in the form of writing. However, in my opinion, citizen journalism is a facet of journalism. It allows ‘the people’, basically the public to address issues and communicate matters that are close to their heart. Subjectivity, comments, feedback and self-interest are some of the characteristics of this form of communication. People can conveniently express their individual observations and interpretations of things that they feel related to. However, I believe that ‘personal interest’ is the key difference between citizen journalism and journalism.

Usually journalists would engage in research and a thorough study on the topics, issues or events they need to write upon (Gillmor, 2004). Even if they do not have an interest in that area, they need to meet their deadlines and produce a top-notch performance. Nevertheless, this does not mean that they are not keen in journalism itself (just like my uncle’s colleagues). On the other hand, participants in citizen journalism only talk about things that they are keen and dedicated about. For example, a person interested in immoral behavior among Singaporeans would not exactly bother to read the section on why ‘vitamin C levels are low in Ribena’. The same principle follows suit for those posting news on the online citizen journalism websites.


STOMP: An example of Citizen Journalism

In my judgment, it is this factor of personal interest that makes websites like STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print) to be successful in luring public participation. Generally people want to be heard and citizen journalism allows this. Singaporeans, who get involved with STOMP, are bonded by similar interests. This makes this forum more interactive. STOMP allows Singaporeans to liberally share incidents that they have captured through pictures and comments. It paves the way for the public to communicate their opinions in a democratic way; in other words “freedom of speech”. In this way STOMP is definitely a form of citizen journalism.


When I was required to do a speech (Social Graciousness in Singapore) last semester, I used STOMP as a source to learn about the perspectives and attitudes of Singaporeans regarding this subject. I was stunned by the multiple pictures and comments written passionately by Singaporeans regarding this matter. Conversely, a local mentioned how he has nothing to say about this situation as it does not bother him and social ungraciousness is necessary to survive in this selfish world. This illustrates the basic idea behind citizen journalism – people write or read about issues that they are passionate about.


Improving STOMP!!!

In my view, STOMP is user friendly. However, if I should mention ways to improve it, then I would suggest that the delivery ways can be altered. I feel that not many people are aware of this service. Honestly, even after using the website, I had no idea it was a made for the public to participate freely. I did not really understand the significance of it. Therefore, I guess its reputation can be further heightened through informing the public in the Strait Times Newspaper or The Channel 5 News. These two medium have a certain level of authority to which the audience would respond to.

Another option can be publishing the information gathered on the website. I feel that this would further encourage the public to fearlessly talk about things that are close to their heart.

Conclusion

I would like to end off by mentioning a little on something I came across while searching on this topic.

I think it is crucial to note that only the ways and means to create public awareness can be improved or changed. However, the fundamental structure of citizen journalism cannot be reconstructed. It is the inherent nature of citizen journalism that encourages a centric characteristic in people. Many complain that this form of communication is too subjective. Nevertheless, how can you change something which has subjectivity as its objective? This may sound like a digression but I felt that I should practice my very own form of citizen journalism.





References


“STOMP (online portal)” (February 14, 2007) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved 14:42, March 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOMP_%28online_portal%29

Gillmor, D. “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (July, 2004). Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap9

"Singapore Seen". (2006). [On-line]. Retrieved March 28. 2007 from the World Wide Web:http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/index.aspx

QotW7: Tweety Twitter- Restoration?

During one of my usual chats with my distant cousin online (through messenger), I found out that she has been keeping in touch with her soon to be ex-husband. This news was both shocking and interesting to me. Her filing for divorce was a result of many unbearable incidents and conversations. Their marriage hit rock bottom just eight months into their new life as husband and wife. Divorce then became the only viable decision to make. With their situation appearing to be unsalvagable, it was a major surprise for me to find out that they have been keeping in touch through Friendster and Twitter!!! (What a coincidence since I have a blog assignment on this to complete)

MY VIEW

Just has how “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder”; the definition of a virtual community depends on what an individual considers it to be. Different people may have different meanings behind the term community and this is also a major reason why some of us feel that “Twitter is” and “is not an online community”.

What started off emails has now through the progress of technology developed into instant messaging. These Instant Messenger (IM) services can be likened to face-to-face communication as now you can see the person you are chatting with and also have live conversations with a simple device know as the microphone.

Personally for me, whenever I think of the term community, I often picture a spiral. Just like the continuous connected circling of the spiral, once in an online community, we are all in a continuous connection with one another. It is interesting to note that once connected to eleven people on Friendster, I am actually linked to thousands of others automatically. It is like a network of people together (Rheingold, 1993). This continuity will only end when we leave the community and break all forms of contact. Twitter does function in a similar way. Once added under the friend list, we are in direct contact with the added party. Through our direct friends, we are indirectly linked to others and fed with their information. This is especially true when we visit a friend’s site and view the updates posted by others whom you may know nothing about.

Another characteristic of a community is that it can be static or fluid. Everyday people are signing up and deleting their accounts online. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for people to be apart of multiple communities. Twitter allows this (just like my cousin- Twitter and Friendster). Moreover, communities also have certain boundaries between members and non-members (Rheingold, 1993). Not only in Twitter, but in all communities, information revelation can be restricted. Though Twitter allows continuous updates to be posted about oneself, the details updated are under the control of the member posting it. This limitation becomes a negative aspect of most online communities. The possibility of faking information is a serious consequence of online communities. Just because Twitter allows immediate updates, it does not make it any much safer. Another thing I was wondering about is do people simply appear nicer in online communities? Maybe it is the need to present themselves as appealing and good mannered. This sounds logical when we are in contact with those we just got to know, but how about to those we have known for some time. I guess my chat with my cousin got me thinking along this line. She was confused with her conversations online with her husband, as he seemed like a totally different person. Unfortunately, when they decided to meet, the gentle and warm feeling she experienced online disappeared as the coldness and arrogance was vividly evident. Can this be likened to the negative repercussions virtual communities have on real-world interactions?

Anyway, communities are believed to provide individuals with certain benefits. Twitter is beneficial as it provides instant information of friends just like the IM. Even though Friendster is a popular online community, it does not have this feature. Just as how reciprocity is a key element in online communities, the updates and conversations posted in Twitter creates a form of reciprocation. There appears to be an unwritten social agreement between community members (Rheingold, 1993). Similar to online communities, members in Twitter can decide on their levels of interaction and participation among other members and themselves. Finally, just because I am connected or have a huge number of friends in my list, it does not mean that I share a strong bond among members (another characteristic of online communities). To be honest, there are some friends in my Twitter whom I know very little about.

CONCLUSION

I personally feel that Twitter is an online community. It does fit into the characteristics of a community in my opinion. Well, for now I wonder if this form of connection can help restore a broken marriage.

ReFeReNcEs

Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=4AAFDF98-AA07-4D29-9B42-A356DC54A8D7&ttype=2&tid=3823

Virtual community. (2007, March 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:58 p.m, March 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=115277136

QotW6: AM I BEING WATCHED???

Just a year ago, a friend of mine met whom she thought to be the ‘perfect guy’. With similarities jumping out at you, you start to wonder if he was God sent. Interestingly, the phrase that “we are meant to be” was his favorite lingo.

Unfortunately (THANK GOD!), she soon discovered what a freaking liar he was. He was never that perfect guy he portrayed himself to be. Never were they similar in any way. A major striking difference was that he was mentally unstable (A PURE PSYCHO!).

Well let’s not dwell too much into her personal life, but what is interesting and crucial to note is that the ‘psycho’ discovered her through friendster!


Privacy

In my opinion, privacy is the need to create a space for yourself. A world built where only your thoughts, emotions, interests and activities exist.

No doubt, social networks like Friendster, MySpace, etc do allow an individual to create a space for themselves; a profile which belongs to them. However, it is not personal enough to be private. Profiles have become a common mechanism for presenting one’s identity online. With the popularity of online social networking services, profiles have been extended to include explicitly social information such as articulated "Friend" relationships and Testimonials.

Being affiliated with Friendster, information revelation for me was a means of getting to know others. Before, I knew about my friend’s incident, I never believed that being part of an online social network could result in drastic consequences (my friend was extremely hurt). For example, before my friend spoke to this guy in person (getting to know each other stage), the only information he knew about her was what he read on her friendster profile and that was sufficient to lure her. Yikes!

That was when I decided to check my profile to gage how much information I have divulged about myself. To my surprise, I realized there were sufficient details to make me a potential victim! Pictures and videos posted and interests mentioned meant to create a reputation for me. I believe it is the desire to appear presentable and attractive that has led many to reveal much information about oneself.

Knowing people through a social network is as similar as getting to know someone face-to-face. Facilities which create a face-to-face (FtF) environment provides an easier way for users to reveal more about themselves that they may not consciously want to. I maybe wrong, but am wondering if this is a form of reciprocation to the opportunities given on these social websites to make yourself known?

Well for me, I have tapped into the privacy settings to ensure that I know who is viewing my profile. Furthermore, it is a good thing that Friendster allows you to view a person’s profile before accepting their request to be friends. However, there are some out there who have private profiles. When faced with such, I do not accept their request. This has always been a practice of mine (even before knowing about that psycho). I also block or delete people I feel suspicious about. However, I have not changed much information n my profile. It is not a means to create intimacy, but a way to let those reading your profile know some details about you. I am a strong believer of the idea that intimacy is only possible with people you are well aware of (Rosen, 2004). As you can see, I mentioned “some details”. I would not go to the extent of revealing my address or mobile number to a possible whacko out there.

The Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2003 published an article today entitled "Having Lots of Online Friends Could Mean Privacy Trouble." The article articulates some of the institutional privacy concerns that some users do have and suggests that more users should have. The article reported on a specific incident:

“When Meredith Rosenblum first joined social networking site Friendster inJuly, she tried to find as many of her friends as she could. Now with 48 immediate friends and more than half a million in her "network," the 27-year-old advertising writer from San Francisco thinks she may have too many pals.

Two months ago, an online suitor she wasn't interested in, and had told so, entered her e-mail address in Friendster, found her and sent her a note: "Ha, ha. I found you." Turns out they were connected by one friend and though the mutual friend vouches for the guy, Ms. Rosenblum foundthe whole experience creepy.” - (Uslaner, 2004)

Conclusion

From the example I realize that when you first sign up, you are so sucked into finding your friends, you do not realize how much access people have to finding you. This is something you should realize. A spokesman for Friendster Inc., of Sunnyvale, Calif., said there were no privacy issues on Friendster, and that the company could not comment on future features. Currently, users can only view profiles that are connected to them by within four degrees of friends. Users are not required to post photographs to sign up, and are only required to have a valid e-mail address. Users can also choose how much or little information to include in their profile (Uslaner, 2004).

Though every online network has its privacy procedures, unfortunate incidents still do take place. In the first place, protection would not be provided if the social networks are foolproof. Therefore, this is an issue that is mainly part of the responsibility of every individual. You could even be watched at this very moment!

References

Rosen, J. (19th July, 2004). "The Naked Crowd". Retrieved on 8th March, 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

Uslaner, E. M. (April 2004) Trust online, trust offline. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 28-29. Retrieved on March 7, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=975817.975838

Joinson, A., Uhler, B. (2002) Explanations for the Perception of and Reactions to Deception in a Virtual Community. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 275-289. Retrieved on March 7, 2007, from http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/3/275