Benjamin, in his post above on the Online Citizen, contends that most blogs nowadays are "reactionary in nature". I couldn't agree less, because I for one am a reactionary blogger, i.e. I blog after reading about certain news in any or all of the below:
1. a newspaper (online or paper),
2. a news site (which may include other mainstream media like the TV or radio),
3. another blog.
I am probably doing what most other bloggers are, and do not create NEW content. Basically, I write on topics that interest me, and that cause me to have feelings bottled up so much that I have to blog about it. That's basically each and every blogger's mentality.
Blogging for myself
The world (and my world) has changed much in these few years. I started blogging in 2005 mainly as a pastime, and only recounted narrative events in my life. Back then my writing style was quite immature and littered all over with expletives (that my friends found quite entertaining, for some reason). I do not think I would have changed even if allowed to go back then, cos I see it as part of a growing process. But at the back of my mind, I knew I would want to write properly, just that I needed some impetus to do so.
As the days went on, I began to despise blog-writing that had SMS lingo, or simply bad spelling and/or grammar, in it (it's such a pain to read!), and therefore adopted a proper English writing style. With that mindset, I finally evolved to writing not just in proper sentences, but also developing a better vocabulary (fortunately I have had a firm grounding in my grammar.) At that time, I used blogging as a medium to improve my standard of English, and as a way to force myself to articulate thoughts that would otherwise have been just "mere figments of imagination" floating about in my mind.
Now armed with a reasonable standard of English, I have come to the point where I use the blog as a means to develop opinions on certain matters. I read, therefore I am. I write, therefore you know who I am. It doesn't matter that I may not have a well-rounded opinion of any matter at hand, I write because I believe in it. Back in my youth, the leaders lamented the dearth of political participation amongst the younger generation. Now, there is an active blogosphere which touches on anything from healthcare, politics, NS, socio-economic problems and the like. PAP has certainly gotten more than it has asked for.
Reactive blogging
This kind of blogging, as mentioned earlier, does not create new content. That said, reactive blogging has its good points, because we know that reports in the newspapers do not give adequate coverage to certain issues - and so we can "add breadth and depth", as Benjamin says. We should not be restricted to reading what the editors of a certain newspaper think are important, and instead have our own views on those topics thrashed out in the online world. Some issues are given very little coverage, but with the power of the blogging medium, we can give it the coverage it deserves.
In fact, the newspapers and other mainstream media like TV and radio are feeling the heat from popular bloggers. In this year alone, countless articles debating the importance/relevance/credibility of blogs have appeared in ST. I say, if blogging were as bad as the shadow which the newspaper cast over it, then the reporters wouldn't have wasted their time dissing it in the first place, would they? Fact is, some of the better bloggers have much more interesting content, better English and a wider readership than those individual reporters could ever hope to have, and as such, these reporters feel threatened.
The accusation that most blogs do not do enough research and hence what they say cannot be taken at face value may ring true (we do not own the resources which an established newspaper owns), but I believe seasoned bloggers and blog readers already know this for a fact, and hence will not rely on a single blog for information they want to know. This is where the "power in numbers" comes in. In fact, for any article you may find on a single blog, you can be sure there will be others talking about it too, so you can get a myriad of similar/differing viewpoints on it, and even those with similar viewpoints will tend to bring up other facets of the opinion that might not have been discussed in detail in the original post.
Proactive blogging
Proactive blogging is indeed the future of blogging activism - there is no doubt about it. Benjamin has outlined 3 ways where bloggers can do so, namely depicting future scenarios which could emerge, covering issues that have NOT appeared in mainstream media (MSM) and discussing controversial issues that MSM will find challenging/tricky to tackle.
Only when blogging has reached this level, and on a large scale at that, will newspapers start to become irrelevant. This may not be for some time, but I foresee this happening because of various reasons.
1. The Internet has made it easier for us to get news fast, dig out information more easily. It is now not as painful for us to do research on topics that interest us, because most major organizations put relevant information on the Net which can help our cause. The only information that newspapers can get that bloggers can't is probably that which requires the use of spies within the organization itself, or that which the organization itself is covering up. However, with the "power in numbers", once one individual (who may be in the organization) who knows some news-worthy information publicizes it, the rest will quickly catch on, and soon everyone will be in the know. Online forums may be a great avenue to indulge in gossip, but more importantly they may also be a good starting point to lay the groundwork for our own "investigative blogging".
2. Another phenomenon that is occurring that I noticed (though it might not be widespread yet) is that of reporters or ex-journalists joining the burgeoning rank of bloggers. These few may help spearhead the direction of blogging through their sheer expertise and know-how. Even discounting this fact, many of the bloggers have rather astounding credentials, for e.g. TOC's Leong Sze Hian, who has 5 degrees and 13 professional qualifications, and this indubitably lends weight to his opinion(s).
3. Blogging may be seen as more credible because of the lack of censorship over it, although the lack of control over accuracy of facts may undermine it. However given time, intellectuals will be able to identify how good a blog is and how factual the writing is simply by reading it. Granted, there will be the older generation or even the not-so-privileged in education that cannot separate facts from fiction, but a general guide to how good a activist blog is is simply how many blogs link to it, and no, I am not talking about populist bloggers like Xiaxue or Dawn (who mainly attract teens and aunties who need a good dose of gossip). We shall draw the line between people who know proper English (and actually employ the use of such) from those who don't, and those who narrate their lives (in full or part) on their blogs from those who produce serious commentary.
-------
I say, the future of blogging burns bright in more ways than one. Those who can afford the time and who have the ability should try their hand at it. It sharpens the mind, helps to articulate thoughts, gives you an opinion should anyone else ask you about a certain issue, and in general, aids in improving your English over time. Oh, and did I mention, it helps relieve boredom too. Haha.
No comments:
Post a Comment