The Boy Who Cried Wolf

This fable is equal to the internet.

Some people may take what on Internet literally but certainly I’m not one of them. As I mentioned in my Social Media post, most people on Internet could be trolling for fun. And again as I mentioned on my first post, I had lost count on how many times Justin Bieber died. But he’s still breathing now, isn’t he? (or is he?) It could be some meaningless rumours like that.

Hey Justin. You're dead again?

Remember the shepherd boy and the lost sheep story (The Boy Who Cried Wolf - Aesop Fables) that our mom used to tell when we were young? The shepherd that lied that his sheep had been eaten by the wolf and when the sheep really were eaten by the wolf nobody believes him; that’s the perfect analogy for Internet. When the news about Amy Winehouse died appeared on the net, I dismissed it as being another Internet rumours and trolling but the fact remains that Amy Winehouse did die. (R.I.P Amy)

R.I.P Amy :'(

So, it is hard to decide on what news to believe and what to dismiss on the net. My advice is hmm let’s check from the most reliable sources like official news website like CNN, TM Insider.

Lies or Truth?

I never consider that internet is telling truth to all of us. But depends on which source the information come, it can be considerable such as Wikipedia.

So far, I only use Wikipedia as my source to do history research and find word definitions. However, due to anybody can access the Wikipedia by creating account there, they can alter the information from more accurate into simpler one. Though simple is better but I still prefer knowing all of it so I learn the truth.

I used to believe “Internet have all the answer”, but sadly the ‘answer’ is too many to count and only half of them is true. That is why I have to rely on Yahoo! or Google sometimes to find information.

The Internet does not lie.

Or does it? Well this is up to us to decide. Many times when we're faced with a problem these days, we turn to the internet for an answer, the internet contains a vast pool of information and in most cases when you ask it a question it will give you an answer, infact it will give you several answers.

Search engines like 'Google' and 'Ask' are popular today when one needs an answer to a question. From my experience i have found that by asking the Internet i've always received a good answer but, this doesn't necessarily mean that i don't make sure it's the best answer. By searching through various links to many other websites i'm able to come up with the actual answer.
I never consider the information i get off one site regardless of it's popularity to be the best information, researching a number of related websites helps me understand more about what i'm searching for and eventually come up with what's right depending on the arguments put across by the different websites.

Yes? No?

For me, sometimes we can believe it. But it is up to us to believe anything that the information provided in the Internet space. Normally, I would believe more in the facts as the newspaper online. This is caused due to the fact a lot of space to give the correct news. In addition, the space can also give us the facts information faster and up to date. I was also able to research the various facts that have been given. This would allow me to do any activity that has more information towards current issues. Besides, we need not believe in 100% of information given in the gossip columns. This caused a lot of gossip columns give the false news. In fact it was a fiction story solely to raise the name artist / leader quickly. I always read the gossip columns in beautifulnara.com and ohbulan.com to find the stories artists. But I do not believe whole-round. I just believe in 10%. This is because I do not know the story behind it. Finally, you need to watch with all information that exists on the internet. Not everything you think right are right, sometimes we have misunderstood what is actually provided in the Internet space.

Should I believe it?

As an ordinary college student, I seldom watch news or read any newspapers. Maybe because of my packed daily schedule that occupied with class and activities. So, I take the alternative ways to know the latest issues by reading the online newspapers or scrolling through people's tweets on Twitter. They give me much info though. I even get the news faster than watching news and read the newspapers. But, the only problem is the truth. Do you guys believe every single detail that they wrote on the online news? Do you believe every single video that people post on the YouTube? For me, i'll believe it if I thought that it looks really real and convinces me to believe it for sometimes. But then, I'll get the various versions of the stories that I heard of and that will make me confuse. For an example, I've watched a video on the internet about this huge riot happened in Malaysia. A few weeks later, the news on TV telling the people that the video was a fake video. So which one am I supposed to believe? That's the main problem. People tend to spread the propaganda on the net and blur our vision by convincing us that it was true. But, sometimes, the net can be trusted. But not every time. Only for certain occasions and situations. We can't anticipate people's perception. Everybody comes out with their own version of stories. It is just like listening to people's stories and you can't even deny them and just keep listening all over again. Other than that, trolling people is one of the current trend on the net. For those who seldom surfing the net, they might believes all those hoax and propaganda. So my little advice here, don't rely too much on the net. Sometimes you need real people to tell you the real story. 

Internet is one of the media which have developed long time ago and it still coming up every year because of the creation 2.0 technologies in this 21st century. We as community knew that media is a form to communicate, share and gain knowledge in our daily life. As we all know, media doesn't share all the information which are correct. 

This is a simple psychology. How many people in this world does says the truth everyday in their daily life? I bet it's none! Even if there are people out there always say the truth, it's sure will be only 0.1%. Who controls the media? Of course it is the people. When people themselves doesn't always says the true things in their daily life, why we should believe everything which is shared through media which is controlled by people themselves? That's the main reason why I don't often believe what the media especially internet says even when comes to "Official Website". 

For an example, the United States of America Government says that there is no such things about "UFO's" but is that true what they says? We have been seeing their planes which looks like "UFO" on the air by the evidence of pictures and videos but still how many of the pictures and videos are "REAL"? So, when all the people is not telling the truth just to get publicity, after all "MEDIA" especially "INTERNET" sure won;t be sharing the real informations because nowadays "WEBSITES 2.0" can easily be created even a kid at age 10 by using certain software like the famous one "ADOBE DREAMWEAVER".

Of course I am not against anyone or any party. Every people have their own opinion. Based on my opinion, if people themselves doesn't says the truth everyday in their daily life, why should we believe everything which is shared through media especially the most developing media like internet. In this world, there are always pros and cons. There are always true and false and there are always yes and no for sure. I does believe internet which is one of the media for me to gain knowledge, informations and lots more with a short period of time because of its speediness but I don't take "Everything" which is true in internet.

Do you often take what is on the Internet as TRUTH without thinking much about it?

Do you often take what is on the Internet as TRUTH without thinking much about it? 

I won’t believe it DIRECTLY. depends on which website of course.. Normally, I will go do some search the others website or articles which written by different authors first. Nowadays, a lot of information can be spread via Internet. It can be written by anonymous or strangers,these people might just write out their opinion through their own perception, their information maybe wrong sometime, but sometimes they are true too! their source or information might be reliable through an investigation. Other than that, there is still some reliable website which provides us reliable articles with good information. Such as Google!


But of course.... if is a blog. if the persons we know , higher possibility the things they blog are true and of course online newspapers.... they are definitely true =D

Do checklist before go for the next step

This is the typical nature for human being that always takes things easy. Especially for students they will always try to find a way to make their life easier, even for myself i would totally vote for a yes as i also do the same thing. Most students often take what is on the Internet as truth without thinking much  what will happen in the future .This do not surprise me because not only the student do it but also the older people do the same thing.  It is actually not a good habit to apply to our life style because it will break the bonds for not investigate the truth or copy someone article without do some research to that issue. The truth is that only some information in the internet is reliable information. The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use.  Therefore if we learn to use the criteria in this list, we will be much more likely to separate the high quality information from the poor quality information.

Topic Discussion 4.

Do you often take what is on the Internet as TRUTH with our thinking much about it? If yes, why? If no, why? Discuss this in your own words with recent personal examples.

Bloggers Are Journalists - Vice Versa?

Based on my research, there is a simple explanation on this statement. A Journalist is a person who discover and write reports about his research and statement based on the facts, evidence such at photographs and videos, experiences and then release it through several media like television, website, radio and so on. He or she works for a company or else by his own (freelancer).

Bloggers are the people or community who write and share their experiences of their daily life like writing about diary(public diary). But you can't estimate that all bloggers does that. In this 21st centuries, technologies have grown up. Nowadays, people prefer sharing their research and experiences through net compare with television and so on. Net is a new media which have attracted more people even a kid too. The community prefer internet compare with television because net is more faster than the other media. The people able to gain knowledge and information through net.

So, nowadays, the technique have changed. Journalists like freelancer prefer sharing their research through net such as Blogger which have become an important element in our daily life. So, this means that not all bloggers are journalist. Those who don't write about their daily life but do research and document their experiences, fact and element such as about politics, economy and social of a country or world can be know as journalist even though they are bloggers. Based on my opinion, NOT ALL BLOGGERS ARE JOURNALISTS BUT ALL JOURNALISTS CAN BE BLOGGERS. It just depends on what the bloggers document on their web profile to share it to the community. As long as bloggers have their own research, facts, evidence and so on about his issues which he document in the website, he can be known as journalist or more towards freelancer journalist.

Obvious Distinction

Journalists are those people that write and get their work published while working under a newspaper or magazine company. Bloggers are those people that write and get their work published on the net.

So the big question here, are bloggers journalists?

Journalists have somehow become a joke now with the existence of bloggers

Unfortunately, no, I don’t think so. Unlike journalist, bloggers write to their heart content about a topic, no restriction, no limitation whatsoever. Whileas journalists, they have certain ethics, certain limitation provided by their editors – sometimes their article could be cut in half if the editors want it to be. For me, that much shows the difference between the two; the freedom in writing I mean.

Journalists are often writing news or article under the influence and pressure of their company or affiliated parties like we see in the movie Green Hornet. In the movie, the newspaper company owned by the Reid family was pressured to write biased articles. Or like in Harry Potter, where Rita Skeeter, the journalist, manipulates and write wrong facts in her article.

While bloggers write as they like, no pressure whatsoever.

No pressure obviously.

But, that doesn’t mean bloggers aren’t biased either. Both journalists and bloggers may provide false facts and it is up to us to decide whether it’s wrong or right.

Who's right?

Journalist? Blogger? What's that? According to wikipedia, a journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism. Reporters are one type of journalist. They create reports as a profession for broadcast or publication in mass media such as newspapers, television, radio, magazines, documentary film, or the Internet. But blogger, is called a web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, and often having images and links to other Web sites. For me, blogging is not a journalism. It is because blogging is only share their information in a blog. Then, the blogger do not do the research before post at the blog. Mostly, their information only their opinion. Sometimes, it also do not have the editorial control or review at their blog. They are not professionally trained like journalism. Journalism more to formal sharing information. First think what they do before publish in mass media is do the research. After that do the interview then lastly post into mass media. So, who's right now? Better think wisely ;)

Bloggers: Journalists without Paychecks.

Consider this definition of a journalist from Wikipedia:

 'A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people,trends, and issues'


My take on this topic is that bloggers; the everyday person who sits behind his computer and airs his opinion on topics that he finds interesting, could be considered journalists since they do satisfy the definition of the very word in question; Journalist.

*With respect to the fact that the information should be conveyed through mass media, otherwise that would mean that even a person holding a conversation with another person would be considered journalism*

(proffesional journalist)

The only difference, in my opinion, is that Bloggers most of the time express their personal opinions, don't do it for money and regard the sharing of information as passion or something they feel they were born to do. Journalists on the other hand are paid, consider it a work and most of the times their personal opinion may or may not be aired due to company propaganda.


The question is that should the latter only be considered a journalists only because they're paid? In my opinion the mere definition of the word suggests that it is the critical analysis along with the distribution of the information that makes one a journalist and not his or her's paycheck.

Blogger writes from their heart.

Does blogger is the same with journalist? Hmm based on the article that I've read, "Are bloggers journalists? Are blogs new journalism? by Chris Pirillo" he thought that, a blogger is not the same as journalist. Well it seems like i  think the same way with him. For me, a blogger will most probably writes about his or her personal life; about what they did or their own opinion. Furthermore, blogger will not getting any payment for what they've been writing for because they write what they want to share with the readers. Maybe a few bloggers will get some extra money from the advertisements application on their blogs. While the journalists write because they have to. It's their job to write. So maybe it is not purely from their heart. And Chris stated that most of the info that being channeled from the journalists to the media are not 100% correct. It is because they just write 'something' to fulfill their jobs criteria.  Other that that, we must consider if certain bloggers are wrong about their statements because bloggers only write about what they know and the one who supposed to give a real fact is the journalists. Nowadays a lot of bloggers tend to be the journalists, giving info and inputs to other people. But they still don't get any payment. It depends on the bloggers' sincerity of writing. In other cases, troll blogs have become a worldwide trend because troll blogs will get higher hit than any informative facts blog. Are they same as the journalists? No aren't they? So my conclusion is bloggers are not the same as the journalist. Bloggers write for fun while journalists write for money.  

"So which one do you trust? The one that writes from the heart or the one that writes from the (not 100% correct) facts?"

• 1
• 

Are Bloggers Journalists?

The term of journalist does not just end as a reporter, it can be an editors, photographers, graphic artists and page designers.

In my opinion, bloggers is not really can be considered as a journalist. Blogger write things that take on their interests while journalist write based on whom they want the article to be aimed to, usually it is about current issues that happen around us and they want to report the news to us.

Other differences between blogger and journalist is that blogger tends to write through their opinions and things that they known and sometimes they will write issues as well by following closely the journalist report to get the information while journalist have to interview people to get their stories. Through the post, reader can immediately and easily access the comment to give a review what have the blogger write and if there’s any mistake the blogger able to edit them. Unlike journalist, once the story have been publish, there’s no turning back to alter it and it will take time for journalist to response to the reader comments.

Blogger VS Journalist

Studies have shown that 52% of bloggers considered themselves journalists. How far is this statement true? In my opinion not all bloggers are journalists; this is because different bloggers have different thought over a topic. Whereas journalists have the same fact and thought over a certain topic. Bloggers write informally ignoring writing rules and ethics.  Journalists have standard guideline to follow and adhere to. Bloggers’ blogs are reflection of personal thought and cannot be taken as source of reference. Journalists are required to be unbiased in their write ups published in magazines or news papers. Bloggers can just sit in front of their computers and write but journalists have to go out and interview sources, investigate the issue themselves and then write what they have learned. In conclusion opinions by bloggers are not journalism.

bloggers ARE journalist!

"Josh Wolf, the blogger who has spent some six months in prison for refusing to hand over a video he took of a violent July 8, 2005, protest in the Mission District of San Francisco to a federal grand jury, is not a journalist.

He is a blogger with an agenda and a camera, who sold a "selected portion" of the video of the demonstration, which left a San Francisco police officer with a fractured skull, to KRON-TV. The day after the melee, Wolf called himself on his videoblog an "artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist." He does not work for a news organization. He does not answer to editors who fact-check. I do not understand why newspapers -- including The San Francisco Chronicle -- refer to him as the "longest-imprisoned journalist" in America.

San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, who has spoken at Wolf fundraisers, told me, "I think he, and those who are doing similar kind of work, is in the process of redefining what a journalist is relative to 21st century technology." In this brave new world, no definition is sacred any more. But a camera and a Website do not a journalist make, any more than shooting a criminal makes a vigilante a cop."

Are bloggers journalists? Look to history. Boston University journalism professor Chris Daly writes that “bloggers stand squarely in a long-standing journalistic tradition. … Their roots go back to the authors of the often-anonymous writings that helped to found America itself by encouraging the rebellion against Britain.” So we today are at the beginning of a revolution in journalism. Isn’t that exciting? (Be sure to check out my post on whether blogging is journalism and the thoughtful comments, including one from Daly about this essay.)

Why you should hire a journalist: Jill Geisler, of the Poynter Institute, has what I think is a great blog post. It explains to hypothetical employers why journalists make good workers. She lists 10 characteristics that make journalists good hires for any job, including writing skills, ability to get answers quickly and speed at meeting deadlines.

My favorite takeaway: Journalists have “been trained that ‘If your mother says she loves you, check it out.’ Journalists know that asking why and why not, looking at multiple perspectives, digging beneath the surface, challenging conventional wisdom, discerning patterns, finding context and thinking about “what’s next” improves any story. Just as it improves job performance in most any field.” That describes most of the journalists I know — both laid off and still on the job.

Print your own newspaper: Martin Langeveld has a provocative post at the Nieman Journalism Lab. He explains that Océ, a Dutch firm, has unveiled a new digital web press that could print full-color individually customizable newspapers fast. The idea is readers would sign up for the news they want, and the newspaper would print and distribute the individual papers to the readers.

Essentially, the Web allows people to do that now, for free. They read the stories or blogs they like. But this idea would give readers insurance of sorts that they got all the stories on a particular topic of interest, and they wouldn’t have to surf for them.

Would it work? Langeveld points out it could pose problems with larger newspapers, although one of the commenters makes a cogent case for using these individual newspapers to support hyperlocal efforts. 


My take: Explore it; can’t hurt

Topic Discussion 3

Are bloggers journalists? What is your take on this? 

Please read these two interesting articles.

http://chris.pirillo.com/are-bloggers-journalists-are-blogs-new-journalism/

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc2005037_7877_tc024.htm

“A stereotype is a popular belief about specific social groups or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings. Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions.” -Wikipedia-

In my opinion, stereotype have been a people mind set of making assumption toward others. The sentences like ‘army is for men” while “chef is for women” is an example of occupation based on gender stereotypes. Those are good stereotypes although when the gender role have been changed, it’s still consider as okay in the end.

People always makes an assumption in their everyday life. Example like when I see an elegant beautiful woman, I will think that “oh maybe she doesn’t want to talk with me”, but surprisingly the elegant beautiful woman is very friendly. But not every people is same, I saw another elegant beautiful woman and my thought is that “oh maybe she is friendly”, but it turns out she ignores me which makes me want to rolls my eyes and say “whatever”.

So the stereotype conclusion is; don’t judge the book by its cover.

Stereo-type-ism in Malaysia

Multi-races people in Malaysia

Seems like the Hollywood had conclude that 'all Muslim should be known as terrorists' after the 11/9 incident including my dad. My mom and dad once arrested during their trip to Germany, suspected as terrorists just because my dad's first name is Mohamad. Ridiculous isn't it? But then, it is a fact. But now I woud like to discuss more about stereotypes in Malaysia. Stereotypes are just like a kind of microchip that exists in human's head. It will conquer the human's perception according to their norm and believe. In Malaysia for example, we assume that all Malays are lazy and Chinese are business-minded but not all Malays are lazy and not only Chinese can handle business well. It is just a kind of stereotype. Furthermore, our community nowadays, create a lot of stereotype names such as, Mat Rempit (known for the streets kids that ride motorcycle and do the excessive stunts), Budak Pavi (known for the youngsters that  hang out around Pavillion Kuala Lumpur with a DSLR hanging on their neck), and etc. What a creative community we have. This stereo-type-ism thing makes our country to be more unique and it implement some kind of essence to our culture. When it comes to food, Nasi Lemak is for Malay, Bak Kut Teh is for Chinese and Roti Canai is for Indian. Eventhough it looks slightly like close-minded perception, but it brings the unique identity to our country, Malaysia. So this is my perception, my stereo-type-ism and what's yours?

Nasi Lemak for Malays

Bak Kut Teh for Chinese

Roti Canai for Indian

Highschool Cliques

Stereotype is an easy generalization made by others to the people around them. C’mon, let’s be honest here, everyone has a stereotyped opinion on others. Some famous stereotypes are that; Asians are smart and nerdy, Blacks have guns and wear blings around their neck, Italians are mafias with thick accent, jocks are jerks, blondies are bimbos and Brits love teas.

For me, personally, stereotypes are easier seen in high school themed films as everyone is categorized and judged accordingly to their stereotypes. The stereotypes in high school themed films are the most common and it unfortunately exist in every high school themed films like Mean Girls, High School Musical, Glee, Lizzy McGuire and lots of other films that you might be familiar of.

The cheerleaders, the jocks, the gays, the disabled, the Asians and the outcasts.

In this video above, the stereotypes sit together on the same table in the cafeteria and only hang out with each other. Let’s face it, there might be some bitter truth in the stereotypes BUT don’t you ever heard of “don’t judge a book by its cover”?

The labels.

I think this is the case with stereotypes that irked me the most. You only see the cover hence the stereotyping but there could be much more underneath a cover. If Asians are nerds, it doesn’t mean that they’re smart. And for God’s sake not all Blacks dressed in blings and talk swagger. There’s more to a person than what they are labeled.

I think, everyone has that something, that X-factor, that sets them apart from each other. But we are blinded by the labels that we put on them. Heck, every individuals have different and distinct thumbprints. That much could explain that everyone is different and special.

We just take the easier route of clumping the seemingly similar people together but in fact they are very different to one another. Just seemingly similar. Finding that X-factor in someone is like playing spot the differences between two pictures. It looked seemingly similar, but there are differences.

Can you spot the differences? :)

Conclusion is, some stereotypes might be true but they are more to someone than what they are labeled to be.

Stereotyping the word Stereotype???

Stereotyping in my opinion can be referred to as classification of people groups using generalized simplifications. Often stereotypes are thought to be bad and, don't get me wrong i agree but my question is it the case or are we in this case just 'stereotyping the word Stereotype'.

 'All Muslims are terrorists' or 'All Asians are bad drivers' are common negative stereotypes in the world since they hurt the group of the classify but how come when someone else says "All Black guys are good at Sports" it doesn't seem to be a problem for the blacks at least, that example may be harmful to other groups of people but it is definitely look at as a source of pride to the blacks.

 My point is that are stereotypes only termed as stereotypes if they are negative? Or are all stereotype to at one point a good thing to a group of people...."America is the land of opportunity", this stereotype dumbs down other areas in the world but is seen as a good thing to the American people.

So are all stereotypes negative? Or are we just Stereotyping the word?

Media Stereotypes

This post is I am repeating it back from my previous blog which i posted it for my creative studies and I am repeating back. Stereotype is a term that we put in a subject as a representation, on the contrary prejudice. Usually, stereotype always represent the subject in negative side but Not all the stereotypes are negative. Man usually stereotyped as strong because they always go out of their home while woman usually stereotyped as weak because they always be in home to take care of family and to cook. But both of them can be strong or weak. It depends on the ability and characteristics of a person. This can be know as a common stereotype.

Other example of stereotype which represent negative side is The Game labeled as ‘violence’. People judge a subject, even though the prejudice is not 100% correct and exact with the subject. Among the parents, they judge games as violence because it harms their children's education and changes their behavior based on the game their children played. For an example among the community, when you hear a name or word, you will relate that to something else. It is just a representation that people commonly use it. This is called a stereotype.

Malays - Sepak Takraw

Chinese - Badminton

Indians - Cricket

Where usually stereotype come from commonly? Of course, it's from media. Media nowadays represent stereotype to send their massages in a simpler way form to the community. They think that stereotype is one of the easiest way to say their messages through media. Based on my experiences and research, one of the example i can say about stereotype is "African-American Are Good In Basketball". This one is in America but it also applies here in my country which is Malaysia like for the same example which is "Malays Are Good In Sepak Takraw", "Chinese Are Good In Badminton" and same goes to "Indians Are Good In Cricket". Overall, it represent a race concur  a game or sport in worldwide. Another huge example is "Blacks Are Good In Running". Biologically, scientist have proved that people with darker skin can run faster than others. All this stereotype are known as positive stereotype.

Lets focus on African-Americans. This is true that largest percentage of professional basketball players in the NBA sports. The majority of the top college basketball programs also have mostly all the healthy African-Americans. Same goes to Malays, Chinese & Indians in their skills in sports they control. But, this doesn't mean that every man and woman able to play those game based on color or racial. It is just that, since small, each race have exposed themselves to the game that they always favor. They have adapt the sport the sport of their people play very well when they were in childhood time until they loved the game so much. When they grew up, all they do were just brushing their skills in that particular sports. That's why we can see that most of the games were concur by particular race of people.So, overall I can say is, all stereotypes doesn't represent negative side. There also also positive side which gives good impact towards the society. It's just the matter of how the community express those stereotypes through media and how they adopt it in their daily life.