Category: new media

In support of a bloggers’ Code of Ethics – Part 2

Dharmendra Yadav’s TODAY article calling on bloggers to self-regulate continues to draw mixed reactions from local blogosphere. Aaron, Yuhui and I generally support the suggestion. BL agrees that blogs should self-regulate, but doubts the feasibility of implementing the idea. Other bloggers, including Dr Huang, Cowboy Caleb and Elia Diodati feel that it is unnecessary and impossible.

I don’t think Dharmendra and Aaron were calling for a formal blogger’s association which will censor or censure its members who do not toe the line. That is not only undesirable but also impractical—bloggers simply won’t join the association. There is also no intention to muzzle the “last bastion of truly free expression”, as Dr Huang colourfully describes blogosphere. “Censorship” is as much a bad word to bloggers, as “welfare” is to the Singapore government.

Rather than any type of association, whether formal or informal, I would prefer a Code of Ethics that the majority of law-abiding bloggers would willingly agree to. This Code should be concise, localised to the Singapore context, simple to understand, easy to adhere to, and non-binding. Its function would be symbolic rather than regulatory. It would be somewhat like the our National Pledge. The Pledge, penned by our first foreign minister S Rajaratnam, is a short and straightforward, yet deeply meaningful statement. Almost all Singaporeans from all walks of life and political persuasions agree with it. The Pledge itself has no legally binding requirements, but those who choose not to adhere to the statements set forth in the Pledge are likely to find themselves contravening some laws of our land.

Once a bloggers’ Code is agreed upon, it could be hosted on its own website. Bloggers who agree to adhere to the Code can then place a logo (like CaseTrust) on their own blog with a link to the Code.

My rationale behind advocating a Code of Ethics is two-fold.

Firstly, it would help illuminate the “out-of-bound (OB) markers” that exist in Singapore so that bloggers don’t inadvertently cross them and end up in hot soup.

The fact that the vast majority of bloggers use pseudonyms rather than their real names on their blogs belies a mistaken belief that pseudonyms provide a high level of identity protection for bloggers. This is a false security. One’s identity is easily traced through the IP address that ISPs (either Singnet, Starhub or Pacnet for all residential users in Singapore) issue to customers each time they log in to the Internet. You can easily find out your own IP address. All website logs also keep track of the IP addresses of their visitors. In addition, the surfing habits of visitors can also be determined through the logs. For example, my logs tell me that 24 per cent of my visitors are Singnet customers, 87 per cent use Windows XP operating system, and 80 per cent of them are from Singapore. I even know what pages they were on just before they visited my blog (i.e. the referral pages).

In countries like the US, the authorities require a subpoena to get the ISP to reveal the name behind the IP address. Not here Singapore. In the absence of privacy laws, the police can easily compel your ISP to reveal that information even without a court order. In fact, even without asking the ISP, the police are exempt from seeking permission before gaining access to computer servers to conduct their investigations (under the Computer Misuse Act, Section 14). Readers would recall the uproar in 1999 when Singnet was caught using a Trojan horse to scan its customers’ computers. Incredibly, Singnet had asked the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) IT security unit to scan the computers of its more than 200,000 subscribers. (MHA is the parent ministry to the Singapore Police Force and the Internal Security Department. It is not the agency in charge of info-comm regulation.)

Most bloggers are not fully aware of the wide array of laws that can be used against them should they cross that red line. These include the Computer Misuse Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Penal Code and the Sedition Act. The latter was used several times in the past year against bloggers whose writings the authorities deemed to be inflammatory and racist.

Recently the MHA released its proposed amendments to the Penal Code. Section 298 of the Penal Code is to be expanded to allow the authorities to prosecute individuals who utter words with the intent of wounding not just the religious, but also the racial feelings of any person. Under the revised defamation laws (Section 499), explicit mention will include imputation “made or published in written, electronic or other media”. What this means is that (1) the authorities will soon have the option to prosecute racist bloggers under either the Sedition Act or the Penal Code, and (2) it would be easier to charge bloggers for defamation.

The Code of Ethics should therefore state, in simple terms, that its bloggers agree not contravene the laws of Singapore.

Secondly, a Code of Ethics could help raise the credibility to the blogging community. It has been repeated time and again by ruling party politicians and the government-controlled media that blogs are not credible sources of information, unlike the mainstream media. In a speech in October to foreign journalists, PM Lee Hsien Loong declared that while the traditional or mainstream media is “reliable, verified and insightful”, the new media is “full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths” which are “not always easily countered by rational refutation or factual explanation”.

The truth is that while there is a fair share of inflammatory opinions out in blogosphere—terrorist websites usually feature most prominently—the vast majority of blogs are just personal diaries, which cater to only a small network of the authors’ friends. Others are authored by writers who are earnestly trying to present balanced, truthful and responsible opinions.

A Code of Ethics, which could incorporate journalism ethics and standards of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability, would go some way in convincing not just ruling party politicians, but also the mainstream media-reading population that blogs are not as full of nonsense as they have been conditioned to believe.

Conclusion

While a bloggers’ association is an idea that could be KIV’ed for the future, an informal Singaporean bloggers’ Code of Ethics may not be as far fetched and draconian a measure as some of my fellow bloggers think. There are strong benefits in coming up with such a Code, but it will only be realisable with the strong support of the majority of blogosphere.

PAP MP calls for less restrictions on mainstream media

PAP MP Baey Yam Keng, in his first speech in Parliament this week, urged the government to amend Singapore’s media legislation so as to promote greater media freedom in the mainstream media (MSM). (Extracts of his speech are reproduced below.)

In his speech, Baey noted that new media’s impact on the young has been “massive”. He pointed out that the government should not hold itself responsible for what the people see or read, otherwise Singaporeans may lose the ability to think, evaluate and judge for themselves. In observing the vastly different viewpoints put out by the MSM and new media, Baey wondered if they were from two different populations talking about two different countries. He went on to state that he did not think that the reality is “mostly positive” as portrayed in the traditional media nor is it as negative as what the new media describes it.

In contrast to what the Second Minister for Information recently said, he called on the government to relax regulations on traditional media to allow people to vent grouses and frustrations, without always demanding for constructive suggestions. He said this would enable Singaporeans to then engage openly in meaningful, level-headed discussions without fear of prosecution.

This is probably the first time that a ruling party MP has so openly advocated greater media freedom — tight media restrictions are a sacred cow for the PAP. Equally significant is the fact that he was a former director in the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), the very ministry in charge of regulating – or some say censoring – the media.

It is heartening to note that at least one MP is listening to issues percolating from the ground by reading blogs, rather than just believing everything the Straits Times and Zaobao put out.

Baey gave a good example of Wikipedia’s self-policing mechanisms as the way of the future. Journalist Thomas Friedman had also cited community-driven websites like Wikipedia as one of the “ten forces that flattened the world” in his book, The World Is Flat. He compared how Microsoft Encarta, the world’s “best-selling encyclopedia” had just 36,000 entries, while Wikipedia had almost 900,000 articles by end 2005. The Singapore government cannot afford to be stuck in its traditional mindset of how information is disseminated and digested if they desire to see our country progress and keep pace with this globalised world.

Baey pointed out that unlike the MSM, new media often portrays issues in a negative and critical manner. There are good reasons for this. Bloggers try to find a niches that are not covered by the MSM. Because the MSM in Singapore is so skewed towards the ruling party’s viewpoints, it doesn’t make sense for the bloggers to echo the praises the MSM heaps on the PAP and the government. If the MSM were to be a bit more balanced when reporting on local political issues, perhaps bloggers would start see less of a need to play an adversarial role all the time.

Having said that, it is important to point out that the new media contains very diverse viewpoints – both for and against the government. Many are just independent analyses, which when compared to the Straits Times, naturally appear “anti-government” when they are in fact simply independent. It is unhelpful for political leaders to constantly paint the new media as being full untruths, because this may become a self-fulfilling prophesy. (More comments on this issue in my earlier post, From broadsheets to blogs.)

—————————

Extracts of Parliament speech by MP Baey Yam Keng, 9 Nov 06. Original speech is on the P65 blog:

* * * * *

Now, I would like to move on to the subject of new media, another means of self and cultural expression. New media’s impact on the young, to say the least, has been massive.

Compared to traditional media, new media is much less structured; it is more informal and also more difficult to control. It is a virtual world with its own parameters, rules and regulations. Its estate or space is both private and public. It has both advantages and disadvantages. It presents new opportunities and solutions as well as new problems. It is a force to be reckoned with and most people in the developed world cannot envision a future without it. We are beginning to see its social, political and economic powers.

It was reported recently that Google UK is poised to overtake UK’s main TV channels in advertising revenue within the year. It is therefore a wise choice that the government has identified interactive & digital media as a new sector to grow. We should harness the power of both new and old media, for instance, in using them for cross communications and marketing to different audiences. The popularity of Singapore Idol and the Idol format around the world was largely due to its ability to leverage on both the traditional TV media and the new mobile media. It manages to engage the audience and turn them into fans who like the power to be able to pick their winner.

The global media scene will continue to evolve. From the ancient days of using smoke signals, pigeons, to print, radio, television, fax, telephony, mobile and now the internet, it does not mean the emergence of one new media will always replace another. The radio continued to survive in the advent of the TV. In fact, it became more accessible with the emergence of the portable radio, then the car radio, followed by the mobile phone radio.

It is a media ecosystem when many can co-exist and will co-evolve. Even The Straits Times has launched STOMP and vodcasts, and Channel News Asia has its BlogTV.sg. One thing is certain, with technology advancement, the speed of evolution will be faster and people’s lifestyles and expectations will also change at a quicker pace.

The convergence of media can pose problems for the conscientious censor. On the other hand, the good citizens of the world can now also play a bigger role in helping to police our virtual space. For example, the Wikipedia is a self-regulating resource. As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education in Oct 2006, Alexander M.C. Halavais, an Assistant Professor with the State University of New York at Buffalo, slipped in 13 errors in Wikipedia. In less than three hours, all of his false facts had been deleted, thanks to the vigilance of Wikipedia editors who regularly check recently updated entries. On Dr Halawi’s “user talk” page, one Wikipedian pleaded with him to “refrain from writing nonsense articles and falsifying information.”

The differences between new media and traditional media call for different treatments from the authorities. We can allow different platforms for responsible and less responsible expression of views, eg 全民乱讲 is for all citizens to talk nonsense, 全民开讲 allows all citizens to speak their minds，and 全民好好讲 calls for all citizens to have a good discussion. I believe people will know which programme is meant to serve what target audience. What the government should ensure is that there is no masquerading.

The government should not and cannot hold itself responsible for what the people see or read. Otherwise, Singaporeans risk losing the ability to think, evaluate and judge for themselves. The Mr Brown incident illustrates too clearly how new and old media could have engaged each other better. Having driven negative comments or untrue information about the government underground, into the labyrinth of virtual space, the government loses an opportunity to engage the propagators and dispel the erroneous statements.

As I read comments in the newspapers and compare them with those in bl
ogs and online forums, I sometimes wonder if they are from two different populations talking about two different countries. I do not think that the reality is mostly positive like in the traditional media or like what the new media is portraying, mostly negative and critical. I believe the real world is somewhere in between.

We have to accept that it will be very difficult, in fact, impossible to monitor and rebut all negative online comments against the government. We should also consider relaxing regulations on traditional media to allow people to vent grouses and frustrations, without always demanding for constructive suggestions. Singaporeans can then engage openly in meaningful, level-headed discussions without fear of prosecution. Erroneous assumptions, wrong ideas, narrow mindsets, prejudices and biases, loyalties, tolerance and wisdom can all be brought to the light of day and seen clearly for what they are. I believe in the Singaporean’s ability to discern wisely. Even if we may not be able to do so accurately, that is our judgment and that judgment should be given the opportunity to be sharpened.

A few months ago, Lianhe Zaobao and My Paper featured articles about the “strawberry generation”, a description of “soft”, young people with little determination, weak wills and dependent mindsets who are unable to take the slightest of hardship. They are adults but they still turn to their parents for pocket money. They have difficulties holding down a job. I wonder if this reflects, on a micro level, a side effect of our government’s parental style towards its citizens. If our government trusts the general public’s ability to refrain from uncontrolled gambling by allowing casinos, she should also trust its ability to tell right from wrong, black from white, or even grey, on other issues. Thus, I urge the government to consider amendments to our media legislation so as to promote greater media freedom.

This, I believe, would encourage greater creativity in this sector, leading to spill-over effect in other sectors and professions in Singapore. Creativity exists in all sectors and industries. As we nurture creativity in every aspect of our lives, it would become part of ourselves, our DNA, our lifestyles, our identity. Creativity is doing things in a different way which adds value and benefits, which no one else has done before. Creativity is working smart. Creativity is the new cutting edge. Creativity is that which will provide us with the lead over our competitors.

I look forward to the day when creativity is synonymous with the Singapore national identity, the Singapore brand. When that day comes, we can be assured that our survival as a nation is secure and the future, ever the brighter.

* * * * *