As I was reading the The AIMS-Town Council issues via the blogs, it hit upon me that the way we search and consumed our news has totally change. Thanks to both technology and non-technological reasons.
Dr Teo Ho Pin released his 26 paragraph rebuttal as a press release and Facebook Post
Before Facebook, before Internet, one had to wait for the print media to report on releases. Radio and TV had the upper hand as they could release it earlier on air.
But now, the release is made via a Facebook Post where everyone can like, share and comment. In doing any of this three, the news would be easily spread from friend to friend.
Back then, without the Internet, the only way to share the news was to pass the newspaper to a friend. There would be coffee shop talk but comments usually disperse at the speed of sound.
Newspaper report, bloggers analyse
This is where the local newspaper struggle. I believe there are some journalists who would like to go deeper into the story and provide a more critical analysis of the issue. Unfortunately, self-censorship and censorship within the print publication are preventing these journalists to take that extra step.
In fact, I was thinking of which blog to visit to get their analysis, not just reporting, of the new rebuttals. Should I visit Yawning Bread first and next Lucky Tan. Or maybe I should just wait for Singaporedaily.net to highlight their daily links.
One of the more interesting take on the issue came from a link shared by Singaporedaily.net - Harish Pillay's emotional comments on the rebuttal.
Yes, I do know the names of the editorial team at Digital Life as I occasionally still pitch to them. But as a reader, not a single SPH journalist's name popped to my head.
Here's the problem for The Straits Times. The Internet Generation can recall which blog to visit by their name, and not that of any SPH Journalists. You need that top of mind recall to bring back readers.
Traditionally, the soft advertisements pay for the hard news. But when hard news get commoditise and you can get your news every where and any where, when even the newsmakers can bypass the gatekeepers and put in their medium at their own time, when sharing a news is done easily with a simple like or share, the hard news needs to provide a value add to the reader.
If the value add is deterred by self and internal censorship, can you blame the Internet for falling subscriptions?
Dr Teo Ho Pin released his 26 paragraph rebuttal as a press release and Facebook Post
Before Facebook, before Internet, one had to wait for the print media to report on releases. Radio and TV had the upper hand as they could release it earlier on air.
But now, the release is made via a Facebook Post where everyone can like, share and comment. In doing any of this three, the news would be easily spread from friend to friend.
Back then, without the Internet, the only way to share the news was to pass the newspaper to a friend. There would be coffee shop talk but comments usually disperse at the speed of sound.
Newspaper report, bloggers analyse
This is where the local newspaper struggle. I believe there are some journalists who would like to go deeper into the story and provide a more critical analysis of the issue. Unfortunately, self-censorship and censorship within the print publication are preventing these journalists to take that extra step.
In fact, I was thinking of which blog to visit to get their analysis, not just reporting, of the new rebuttals. Should I visit Yawning Bread first and next Lucky Tan. Or maybe I should just wait for Singaporedaily.net to highlight their daily links.
One of the more interesting take on the issue came from a link shared by Singaporedaily.net - Harish Pillay's emotional comments on the rebuttal.
Yes, I do know the names of the editorial team at Digital Life as I occasionally still pitch to them. But as a reader, not a single SPH journalist's name popped to my head.
Here's the problem for The Straits Times. The Internet Generation can recall which blog to visit by their name, and not that of any SPH Journalists. You need that top of mind recall to bring back readers.
Traditionally, the soft advertisements pay for the hard news. But when hard news get commoditise and you can get your news every where and any where, when even the newsmakers can bypass the gatekeepers and put in their medium at their own time, when sharing a news is done easily with a simple like or share, the hard news needs to provide a value add to the reader.
If the value add is deterred by self and internal censorship, can you blame the Internet for falling subscriptions?
Comments