Google Translate

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Newspapers don't like named bloggers

I'm starting to develop the notion that the newspapers, or at least The Straits Times, don't like to quote from named individuals from the Web. In general, when it needs to quote something from an online source, it will use individuals who are pseudonymous, anonymous, or use ambigous names.

Take this example:

The Sunday Times had a short write-up about reactions to the Miss Singapore Universe evening gown. It lifted three comments from my Tomorrow entry. One was by anonymous, another from "Destini", and the third by "Julian W" (Wong? Wee? Worthington?).

But when ST does feature named online individuals, it tends to focus on popular ones or typecasts them, the latter of which garnered a strong criticism from an online buddy.

I smell an agenda... Oh no, I don't mean that ST is setting the agenda, heaven forbid another mrbrown incident. But it seems like it's perpetuating one to the unsuspecting, disconnected public.

--

Technorati tags: , ,

2 comments:

paddychicken said...

I don't really understand how your comments and your buddy's connect.

Are you trying to say that the media is detracting from the credibility of bloggers?

And one of your ambiguities is my cousin. How coincidental.

Yuhui said...

I was trying to say that the newspapers seem to quote only from ambiguously-named sources, and at the same time lumps all bloggers as anti-establishment, and therefore bad.

Post a Comment