Arrogant Big Media

Re: "We The Media: Rise of Citizen Journalism"
Dan Gillmore, OhmyNews (internews)

Arrogance of big media, yes. And they so project dominant or power groups that those marginalized become more marginalized.

In one local media, for example, you often see terms in print media like “Muslim bandits,” “Muslim thief,” “Muslim rapist.” Muslims then feel constrained to complain. Nowhere in media, they say, do you find terms like “Christian bandits,” “Christian thief,” “Christian rapist.” Why is it that when perpetrators are Christians, the adjective fails to act up?

Traditional media more than divide people. They compete to the point that they manufacture news even. No one knows which is true, and yet they thrive with all the advertisements around - which, in turn, do their part to function negatively towards a more helpless society. Kudos to Citizen Journalism!

We The Media: Rise of Citizen Journalism

Victory for Communication

Re: “Netizens Are Critical to Citizen Journalism”
Ronda Hauben from the U.S. (OhMyNews International)

I am also happy for having discovered the contribution of South Koreans in the field of communication. I am a communications specialist and so I look to the turn of events as victory for communication. It is something really that we have to take care of. Communication today is not becoming effective in the way we had expected it.

I think that we share the same excitement that OhMyNews is doing. I am also a netizen and I am doing my part in the same direction as OhMyNews. It is only that I center my efforts in the field of communication. I maintain my own blog to do this thing.

I am also doing my own writings here and there - guided by the principles of Citizen Journalism. Remember, I had only recently stumbled upon this concept a year ago, and I would back up its ideals.

Netizens Are Critical to Citizen Journalism

Art Without Parameters

Every piece of communication has a social responsibility. It does not end with just transmitting a message and leaving it there. Communication thrives in a system and in that system, there is a message to be sent and an effect to be considered.

There was a poem defining a situation where some secret had long been held from the poet and he felt so bad. The poem ended with a threat. Then another poem detailed a situation where he was raped, graphically presenting the incident – move for move. Still another poem depicted stammering while one spoke and with it that slap, slap, slap to “slow down the mind so he could speak out the words properly.”

Viewed from the point of view of art, the poem is unique. The poet is very resourceful and imaginative. The output is not common; it is extra-ordinary and would reap the highest praises from some quarters. A snippet from the piece (with all due courtesy for the poet) –

A m-means of s-s-saying w-w-we’re th-th-through… or th-that w-wh-what c-cu-could’ve
(Slap, slap…, slap, slap…, slap…, slap, slap…, slap…, slap…, slap, slap, slap, slap)
B-b-been c-cu-ccould’a b-b-been m-m-meant f-f-fu-fuc-for me, s-s-so-so-oo b-b-be-ee
(Slap…, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap…, slap, slap, slap, slap)
Ps-p-s-p-p-patient and w-waa-weigh-wwait a bi-b-b-bit,--
(Slap, slap, slap, slap, slap…, slap, slap, slap, slap…, slap, slap, slap)
Th-th-th-hat-that s-s-st-stu-s-stuff i-i-i-in h-h-hee-h-hhead denies a kingdom
(Slap, slap, slap, slap, slaps…, slap, slap, slaps…, slap…)

Viewed as a communication piece, however, what does it intend to achieve? Beauty in the artform, but it ends from there. It ends from where the poet has achieved a masterpiece of producing a unique art. However, beyond the poet, what? Where does that leave the source now for which the poem was made? For what is all these beauty in the artform that is a poem? Where does that lead her?

In all the wonderings of the poet, she had produced a work of art from a relative, turning the defect into something useful. It had produced poetry that people can read and enjoy. Enjoy because they can laugh – perhaps in disinterested innocence, not minding the defect, but the funny play of the poem.

The poem now becomes a document - enshrined for eternity under the category, UNIQUE, NEWLY DISCOVERED TECHNIQUES. Poets will follow the example and with alacrity look to people with more defects - relative or not - to surpass the earlier feat.

Alas! Perish the thought that next time, we shall have poetry enshrining all the defects of people and highlighting them.

Today, we talk about rights and empowerment. If one conducts a research and leaves the participant dis-empowered, then that research is not valid as consent is violated. The same is true in producing poetry out of someone’s predicament.

The question is, who owns the data gathered for this poem? Are they the poet’s only? How much of the “message” was supposedly the poet’s and how much, the subject’s? If he knew – and if all people of his kind knew – that out of their predicament a beautiful poem was made - how would these people react? Wouldn’t they feel some of their rights were violated?

Although an artform, poetry comes under the umbrella of communication. The consent of the rightful owner of data must be ascertained first. As it is, poets don’t have more rights than others in communicating. If they did, then anybody can go to war just with poetry. It is then like saying anything you want as anyway, it’s just poetry.

Doesn’t this ring familiar? Didn’t Novelist Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code say, “It’s just fiction”? He simply gets Jesus Christ and marries him off to Mary Magdalene, and he escapes just like that!

As discussed by Robert Traer (1 December 2003, christian-bible.com), Dan Brown uses the character Teabing, who speaks as an expert, and claims, that “almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." (p. 235). Another one, “The plan of Jesus was to have Mary Magdalene carry on the work of the church. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." (p. 248)” Etcetera and etcetera.

As it is, Dan Brown escapes all attacks. ”It’s just fiction!” And anyone who counters this is a fool.

The question that comes to mind then is: Is science supposed to be with parameters, and art, none?

© Copyright 2006 janeabao (UN: kota at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.

Slang and Chatspeak: Where They Belong

It is good to form good habits of writing by not using slang. There is a proper time to use this and it is when one is trying to characterize one’s subject through level of language. It is when language is used as a tool to convey something about the character. This is mostly done in short stories or novels.

One can use slang to convey something like tone, mood, emotion, but it is not to be used as a norm. We may find it cute using slang - or chatspeak for that matter -but it is always a good writing habit not to be sloppy with language.

There are age-old principles to follow in writing and it is best to respect them for their wisdom. Therefore, we do not defend use of slang or chatspeak – when it comes to learning good writing.

Some writers concur with me. The following transcripts may lend some insights -

Me:
I had recommended a budding writer here - one whom I told to stop using slang and chatspeak and to use formal language as a good habit of writing. I told her she could develop here. I told her there is use for these kinds of communication - in a short story or novel where one is characterizing a subject. But, it is not the norm, I told her.

Instead of saying "yeah," for example, she should use "yes." Instead of using "u," she should spell it out as "you."

Unfortunately, I see slang and chatspeak sometimes in the posts.

A:
I agree that instant messaging abbreviations have no place in writing. However, there are instances where slang can be used in dialogue. In order for dialogue to appear natural, the writer should write, as their character would actually speak were that character an actual person. I don't use chatspeak or messaging abbreviations in my writing. I don't even make a habit of using it in my replies to other people's work, but it is used so commonly that people sometimes forget this is not proper for writing.

I do use yeah in dialogue because it is so common in speech. There are other instances. Street lingo would only be appropriate where a book or a short story is set in that setting.

If you're writing a formal letter for employment or such, slang, neither chatspeak, or street lingo would be appropriate.

B:
I totally agree. I think slang and chatspeak as you call it have to be separated even though they can evolve for similar reasons. In both cases, they are substitutes for normal or proper language, but at least in the case of slang, most people can understand the context more often than not. Slang can also filter into normal everyday conversations. But chatspeak is very limited. I think it's mostly used by teenagers to have a cute way of writing to each other and in that sense, it's immature. When I find a web site or message board that uses chatspeak, I leave immediately! I can't take anyone seriously that writes in chatspeak.

C:
Chatspeak is for the illiterate. At least it seems that way, and unfortunately, people who use it a lot sometimes forget how to spell. Believe it or not, I've come across it in nursing notes - which are technically legal documents. They shouldn't be there. Hate it. Slang speech is ok in writing though as it can help define a character

D:
True enough. Your own character, Shark Johnson, is a great example of using slang to define a person. In the beginning of the series, he uses it quite a bit, as he is still rather rough around the edges. As he matures and educates himself, he uses it less and less.

E:
I personally find chatspeak illiterate, and when people start writing stories using chatspeak, it shows how unseemly the whole thing is. It also shows how if people don't practise writing properly they begin to forget how to spell, and start writing in chatspeak everywhere. I hate seeing people writing or typing chatspeak, it reminds me of how society is slowly slipping away.

As for slang, there's nothing wrong with using it in dialogue, in fact I think it's great to use in dialogue. It gives character to your...well characters. But it's unwise to use it outside of dialogue, but not unheard of.

http://www.italknews.com/view_story.php?sid=6693

Learning Many Languages Makes One More Human?

Learning other languages can make one express oneself very well – better than the native speaker at times. It can be akin to "people watching gorillas or ants 24 hours a day." However, learning many languages is an altogether different issue

Why do people need to learn so many languages? To rule the world?
What do people want to do with the many languages they’ve learned? Why don’t they just aim for one international language that almost everybody understands? Or go simplistic with just two or three, and stop from there?

Obviously, there is effective communication when both source and receiver are homophilous or have a common frame of reference. Beyond this, however, what motivates one to keep on learning many, many languages?

Whether they make sense to one or not, people learn languages for a multitude of reasons. With them, not all reasons have to be economics-driven.

One said, the more languages one knows, the more times one is human. However, not everyone agrees, where one noted that those who knew several languages tend to be very proud and took every chance to display them.

"Human" was explained as giving one a better understanding of humanity as a whole. Still, it does not necessarily follow that the more languages one knows, the more one becomes human, because then it implies that language learning should have solved the many problems that plague society at this time.

One international language would be a nightmare for me, one said, as it would be a bit boring. Diversity is something that should be embraced, not shunned, he said. "Using nothing but English would make the world a very boring place and I can't see why we should overlook languages spoken by millions of people just because they aren't 'international' enough," he continued.

The reasons given for learning many languages were: to be able to talk to people, read newspapers, magazines and books in the language one has learned; write e-mails, and letters, listen to particular music, write little stories with them, and make translations. One is also able to study in a university, move to a place, impress other people at parties.

However, language learning is not always a leisure activity but can be a must sometimes. For example, one had to learn a particular language as an obligation to relatives and nationality, to enhance one’s career prospects, to work on an on-line translation dictionary, and in order to get a slick international job.

French, believed to be dead, is still "a pretty widespread international language" for one. People keep studying it because of its language’s features. Irish was one’s choice because "I felt I had an obligation to my relatives and my nationality." One had to learn Chinese or Korean because he might find himself walking along in a Chinese border town bordering North Korea.

Here’s one multi-language speaker who saw world affairs in language learning -
"A Persian proverb states that 'har zabaan-e-digei, zendegi-ye-jadidi e' - each language is a new life. Although I do not have much practical use for many of the languages that I have learned, (what practical use is there anyway for any language other than English and Spanish in Southern California?), every language that I have learned has taught me how to react with other citizens of the world better, as well as give me a new perspective on how to understand other people and to be 'quick on my feet' when speaking. Middle Eastern languages have given me a unique perspective about world affairs. For example, it is surprising how much power women really have in countries like Iran."

http://www.italknews.com/view_story.php?sid=6831

Owners of Data

Honesty is a value lost in most of us. Honesty in what should have been revealed, however, takes qualification. If what should be revealed solves something, gives added benefit to most, then by all means reveal it and be relieved from keeping it.

Personal secrets do not need to be revealed if it does not help, however. They may be mistakes that are part of growing up. One writer wrote of being relieved after telling her secrets, which she said, made her a prison all her life. This included revealing her mother’s being an alcoholic and not knowing who her father was. Certainly, one must be selective in choosing whom to reveal secrets.

Messages like these have to be handled carefully. As it is, the data about her mother belongs to her, and without her consent, she may not just tell anybody. The data about not knowing who her dad is belongs to her and it is up to her how she may dispense with it. There are so-called owners of data and this should be respected.

Before feeling obligated to communicate secrets to anybody, what one must consider is what the situation needs, and that is acceptance of those secrets – by oneself. Then and only then will one be able to look at them honestly. This is where honesty first applies, before getting things complicated on the level of having to tell others. As earlier pointed out, communicating secrets may involve some risk if not handled properly.

The reality is that not everybody knows how to handle information passed on to him or her.