As some of you may be aware, Google has launched a new browser earlier this week named Google Chrome (GC). Built with open source code, and having borrowed from other open source projects like Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, GC aims for the internet community to provide their inputs in order to achieve a more pleasant web surfing experience for all. Extremely minimalistic, clean and pleasing to the eye, Google Chrome provides yet another option for those who spend much of their time on the interwebs. Now, what is one of the first things that you do after switching on your computer? That will be the launching of the internet browser. As such, most of the time that we spend online is done inside the browser. We surf the pages for news, look for information, send emails, do banking transactions, and connect with friends, all inside the browser. Thus, that brings about the issue, the rise of the electronic media.
It may not dawn on you, but the fact is that we absorb much information from the internet. Be they from entertainment blogs, personal accounts of events written in personal blogs or online editions of newspapers and magazines, these myriad choices often present to us an overload of information. Question is, how much of those information do you take in? Do you visit sites purely because of their entertainment value? Because of their status and are known as a credible source, and thus appealing to ethos? All of us have our own reasons, but one thing to keep in mind is that, there are no governing body to edit the information that is found online and thus we should always be skeptical and take information with a pinch of salt, especially dubious ones that you may come across.
Now, can you imagine yourself to live without the electronic media? And just getting information from newspapers for example?
photo by birdfarmAs you can see, the media scene has changed quite drastically and we now have to be very discerned readers to order to obtain accurate information online. Then again, newspapers often have their own perspective and are often biased as well. So readers, what do you think? Are you a subscriber of online/offline media, and which one do you prefer?
P.s. A little bit of trivia, US Senator John McCain (who is running for the president by the way) is an internet newbie!
Read about the article here.
Sourced from : Time.com
P.s. A little bit of trivia, US Senator John McCain (who is running for the president by the way) is an internet newbie!
Read about the article here.
Sourced from : Time.com
13 comments:
i agree with this "Then again, newspapers often have their own perspective and are often biased as well." so if you really want a neutral perspective about an issue, you'll need to refer to at least 2 newspapers of different publishers. i can't imagine how inconvenient that is. you have to read double, compare the 2 stories and finally draw your own conclusion. everything is on the internet these days so why bother relying on the newspaper when online news is almost instant and the newspaper only comes in the morning. besides, reading off the internet is almost always free!
The reason for which i am online surfing the net is influenced differently by my pathos logos and ethos..When i am online doing a research, gathering materials for my project, the logical content and credibility of the website affects me most. But if i am jus surfing the net to kill time, the website with the most emotional contact(funny,touching) attracts me..If i had to choose between E-media and media, i would have take both..It is becoming impossible to function without the internet, where you can get a variety of reports and perspective on One issue. This helps to broaden our knowledge and break out from the local conformed perceptions!
:)
News online definitely appeal more to me than the papers especially when Singapore Press Holdings is dominating the printed news industry here.
The credibility of either sources are doubted because one is pretty government-oriented and the other tends to be "spiced up". Online news-mongers often exaggerate or add a lot of misleading details, most prominently seen in showbiz gossip. Being accurate seem to be the least of their worries and with the rise of news-bloggers fighting for online endorsements, their main aim is to have as high a viewership rate as possible.
I do think that The Straits Times is more reliable than online news since they have a reputation to uphold but I prefer my news with a bit more salt and pepper.
it is totally true how the world has changed so much in the past decade. and how reliant we are on the internet and how convenient it is to attain information off the web. they definitely need to filter the good and bad information. and learn to question credibility.
this is also happening to people all around the world. like rumors and gossips, sometimes we need to take a step back and look at the information before accepting it WHOLEHEARTLY.
Both media tools, online (internet) and offline (newspaper articles)have their pros and cons.Perosonally, if i am interested in searching for general knowledge or records, i nwould prefer the internet but if i'm interested about current affairs like in the last month or so, i would use the offline tool.There's a subscription fee for assessing the online Strait Times and i guess im just used to "feeling" the papers when i read it. With that said, i still think the internet has so much more to offer in terms of information as a whole.
I believe that there is always 2 sides to the argument. For me, the issue is not so much the Internet vs the newspapers, but more of where the information comes from. When I read the Internet for news, I usually visit websites of media companies. For a more neutral perspective, take multiple companies. For example, to find out more about an incident in the mid-east, I may want to view the BBC or CNN or Al-Jazeera for extremely different viewpoints.
I don't really find myself surfing the internet for any source of information, especially about news and such. If I am looking for information however, i tend to try and find them from official sites, or if I'm researching for projects, on electronic journals. I do go youtube alot though. While not exactly a wealth of information, i feel that it allows us to experience or see things we may not have a chance to see.
open source is good! down with commercialism!
electronic media has revolutionised the way we communicate. gone are the days when reporting on a story required overnight for the news to be printed on paper. how, we watch news as it happens.
as with all coins, there are 2 faces to this subject. instant news means an over flow of information. how often do we actually read an online article from beginning to end, instead letting our eyes skim through, our attention fighting with the flashing advertisements and incessant pop ups?
The rise of electronic media has been one of the few buzz phrases that has been going around the past few years, and we do see empowerment given to those who wield the power of information technology. This can be seen through your example of the increase in the number of web browsers that computers now have. In the past, windows PC users would just use Internet Explorer (IE for short). Now, we are spoilt for choice with many browsers like Mozilla and Google Chrome.
Its true that the first thing we do when we log onto our computers, is to launch the internet browser (in some cases, auto-launch). Then we go on to use the internet to do a myriad of things, including absorbing news @ a rate that we would never have been able to do so before. Eg. Websites run by major news corps. like CNN, Reuters and BBC update their website on a minute basis, so that their readers can keep up with the latest news. As of now, I'm looking at an article which informs me of Hurricane Ike's potential effect on Texas, which was just updated 8 mins ago.
However, I do hope people pick up on the point that information is not always CREDIBLE! In the US, many professors actually forbid the use of wikipedia as the source might not be entirely reliable. There are also people with ludicrous claims in their blogs ( We should know better..) Even the usually-reliable news sites tend to be biased sometimes, and in some cases, DOWNRIGHT WRONG!
Take for eg. the latest news regarding United Airlines(UAL) which has rocked the financial industry in recent days, because of an old article that was found by Google using their GoogleBot Technology. The article in question was about UAL filing for bankruptcy 6 years ago.(Like so many other American Airliners) Since the article was undated, Google's bot assumed that it was up-to-date news, and posted the date as the date it found it. Needless to say, the end results were disastrous. After an investment firm posted the article on Bloomberg, a financial website that many people in the financial industry consult on a day-to-day basis, UAL's stock price plunged from about 11 dollars to 3 dollars in a matter of minutes, and trading of UAL stock had to be frozen for about an hour before it resumed at a price of about $10.50.Even then, the stock closed for the day trading in the lower 10s.
So, I totally agree about taking a pinch of salt when obtaining information off the web, irregardless of the source.
I definitely feel that the younger generation, like most of us, would suffer without electronic media. I have some friends who would definitely "DIE" if they didn't have their cellphones with them for even 1 day. However, I hope to dispel the air about newspapers. You seem to suggest that newspapers are not a good source of information in a world without electronic media. I beg to differ.
Like I stated earlier on, many of us now wield the power that IT has given us. However, I hope that ALL of us do not forget that the articles we obtain on news sites were once on physical copies of books, newspapers, magazines (and what not...) What the rise of electronic media has done for all of us is just making the search for these articles easier, thus empowering us.
Thus, to answer your final question, I would like to say that a combination of both online/offline media would be the best for everyone, but as we are now taking for granted the ease of online media, I would like to say that I prefer online media.
PS. Good find on the McCain Article. Just reminds me of the fact that some old dogs take FOREVER to learn new tricks. (I just hope Sarah Palin is not as clueless as he is). :p
McCain can't even operate a notebook.
Epic Fail right there.
Then again ,at least that some assurance to his Wife that he won't be surfing for Porn anytime soon.
Ah ,the internet.An addiction,og yes it is!(Not,the porn).I holds the entirety of my emotional construct and I find that both disturbing and sad.
Thank you all for the insights.
True enough, there are always 2 sides to the argument. The online medium empowers us to obtain information almost instantaneously with a click of the mouse while the offline medium provides us with slightly more credibility than those found entirely online. It is all a matter of balance as to how we choose to select our information and analyse them into valuable information.
It is also no longer possible just to rely on offline resources alone, and as we move with the times, things inevitably gets more complicated. We just have to choose wisely what is best for ourselves.
It's good to be adaptive to both forms of media, whether online or offline. When I'm on the computer and bored, yes I'll google Yahoo News and read whatever's up. But when I don't have access to a computer, I can just as easily pick up a copy of the Straits Times and scan my way through. Sometimes it feels like we lead two different lives - one part of which is spent using electronic devices in the virtual environment and the other in the 'real' world still, where you can touch grass and trees and talk to people directly in the flesh.
You know as far as credibility goes, it depends individually. The singapore Straits Times is an offline source but can be viewed as a biased avenue for news (censored pro-Singaporean views and all) while CNN.com is online but should be considered as credible by most because it is an established name. We shouldn't generalise the genuine nature of a source just because it's simply from an electronic source or not.
At this day and age, most of our knowledge are derived from the internet. The vast amount of resources it has is stunning. I feel if we don't tap on this online treasury, we will be obsolete in no time.
Post a Comment