New Media

Both articles 1 & 2 are talking about the internet as a form of media. The articles point out some of the pros and cons of this type of "totally open and free" media. The first article discusses about issues that are relating to the new methods of entertainment and the new freedom that people are said to only have from "the last hope for a free press" a.k.a the internet. To understand how the internet can provide power to the people, or be a threat to stability, we first have to examine the internet itself. As said in article 1, "the all-too-human reality of the web is that the majority of its traffic is directed to sex sites." This shows how, despite having a vast, constantly updated database that can be accessed wherever there is a connection to the cellphone network, people still use or rather abuse its ability to host images and videos to fulfill their sexual desires. This would mean that the internet is not being embraced as a new form of media since it is  being used as a method of achieving sexual desires. The presence of some excellent uses of the internet, like web applications, or YouTube and social networking sites does not simply merit the internet to take over traditional media as the "New Media." Social networking sites like facebook allow users to track the thoughts and views of individuals on a whole variety of topics, even if they are not trained journalists.

The other popular topic linking media to the internet is blogging. Blogs are simply websites that are either maintained by large organizations for individuals who are unable to purchase a domain for hosting their own website, and do "work" for free, or websites maintained by traditional media companies to allow some of their paid reporters to do online "specials," where they are able to more freely express themselves. Although the people may abuse the openness of such forms of "media" to promote "extremism," as put by article 2, the people are free to choose what they believe and what should be discarded or put up for open debate on more popular websites. As such, people should be given their right to free speech and allowed to express their views openly on the internet, and responsible netizens should take it upon themselves to see if an article is credible before believing it.

Although extreme views may be expressed on blogs, in the form of videos or images with captions, people should not be easily swayed by any one-sided argument. One thing I have personally experienced is that blogs tend to be essentially the papers, with more of the "human" part in it. The ones owned by public companies of course. The social or animal or food or countless other types of blogs are a whole different story. According to Aarommal, the internet is not susceptible to the censorship  of the traditional media. I strongly disagree, since countries still monitor the internet for sensitive or "potentially harmful" topics and views. These people are punished, be it openly or in a more secretive manner. This happened in Singapore itself, when two men were jailed for posting racist views on their blogs. This is correct by me, but does not go with Aarommal's views. The example given by Aarommal of cyberterrorism is not as of now a common thing, but could be in the future. The hiring of skilled hackers to handle the job of what a trained bomber would have to do many times over to achieve the same devastation shows the shift in the paradigm and how cyberterrorism could potentially be more dangerous than traditional terrorism.

Ismail