get with the times universities

You’re probably getting tired of reading this sentence “in this digital age, media has …” or anything along that lines by now, but guess what is going to be another post related to digital age.

As far as I can remember I have been using Wikipedia for all my secondary school report if need be, heck school teachers thought I did really extensive research on the given topic and praise me for my hard work when all I did was spend some time reading it all on Wikipedia.

Now, we can’t use Wikipedia in university and stuff but it goes to show that we the younger generation will not hesitate to search the internet for information when we need it. Thus, does this make university life easier? In a way yes, it has made life so what easier for most students. I can’t even remember the last time I spend hours in the library looking for a book or a journal. All I have to do is just go online and key in the keywords and there you go information to complete my assignment.

The internet is just full of resources, millions if not billions (that is exaggerated) of information exist on the internet for the taking. As stated by Miller everyone is equipped with a handheld convergence device that can provide immediate access to everything stored on the internet (Miller 2010). Like I mention earlier I can’t remember the last time I was at the library looking for journals and books, that’s because UOW do have an e-library with unknown numbers of journals and we the students can access to all the journals for free (Cause the best things in life are free). Also, some resources on Internet are open sources and users can get them for free but takes a little bit of luck.

A few times I have encountered and more rather hit a brick wall when I found a journal that would be perfect for what I need for my assignment only to discover I have to pay for it. Ain’t nobody got the cash for that! Imagine paying for a journal that will most likely be of one time use only and after that is of no use to you. Take for example Elsevier, a leading journal and book providers who charges an exorbitant amount of fee to use the journal or books they have. With such charges expensive charges (like $31 for a journal, which is like RM90 Malaysia) may cause library and universities to unsubscribe and the quality of education to drop. Harvard announced it will be unable to afford its academic journal subscription in a recent memo: Many large journal publishers have made the scholarly communication environment fiscally unsustainable and academically restrictive. This situation is exacerbated by efforts of certain publishers (called “providers”) to acquire, bundle, and increase the pricing on journals (Szkolar 2012). Cambridge mathematician, Tim Gowers, was so fed up with Elsevier’s sickening practices that he started a blog post summarizing criticism of the company, publicly announced he would no longer publish in their journals and asked other mathematicians to follow his example.  As a result, the Cost of Knowledge, was launched and more than 10,000 academics have pledged to boycott Elsevier (Neylon, 2012).

Thus more researchers should seek publishing open access repositories as Harvard themselves are encouraging their own to seek publishing on open access repositories (Szkolar 2012). We they should, academic information like these should not be expensive as they are for learning (this isn’t a formula to get rich fast anyway).

In Conclusion, I feel extremely lucky to have the likes of E-library or the UOW@Library to assist me with all my assignments but it also pains me to know that the university is paying so much just so we the students and lecturers can access to these academic journals and when I say it pains me it also means I now know why I paid so much tuition fee every month so the university can keep their subscription to these publishers. But for how long? If Harvard, one of the richest and most prestigious universities in the United States, cannot afford scientific journal subscriptions and the situation is dire enough to outweigh the shame in publicly announcing this, what will happen to not so rich universities?

Reference

Miller, R 2010, ‘The Coming Apocalypse’, Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp143-151

Neylon, T 2012, ‘Life after Elsevier: making open access to scientific knowledge a reality’, The Guardian, 24 April, accessed 24/4/2013,

Szkolar, D 2012, ‘Academic Journals are too Expensive For Harvard, Elsevier is Mega Greedy, and Why this Stinks for Future Librarians’ School of Information Studies Syracuse University, 29 May, accessed 24/4/2013

Is there a future left for the press?

The passage of time has a way of throwing custard pies at those who predict the future. This is particularly true in the hype-ridden world of the media. In the 1940s, the Hutchins Commission, an august body of public intellectuals, predicted that the facsimile newspaper delivered by wireless would rejuvenate the American press. In the 1970s, citizen’s band radio was said authoritatively to be ‘‘taking the US by storm’’, and was poised to recreate a sense of community. In 1982, Britain’s Technology Minister, Kenneth Baker, informed the Commons that cable television ‘‘will have more far-reaching effects on our society than the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago’’. In the 1990s, American industry experts like Tom Laster said that the CD-Rom was going to spell the end of the book in schools. And in the mid-1990s through to the mid-2000s, it was predicted repeatedly that red button TV interactivism was leading to a fundamental shift of power from the TV director to the consumer in the home (Curran J, 2010).

Yeah all that didn’t happen did it? So I would stop trying to predict what holds for us in the future when it comes to the media. But that isn’t the big issue here, oh no. The big issue here is about where we prefer to get our news from now. I like how George here puts it ‘‘For many years’’, he writes, ‘‘the local press has been one of Britain’s most potent threats to democracy, championing the overdog, misrepresenting democratic choices, defending business, the police and local elites from those who seek to challenge them’’. There are, he suggests, a handful of decent local newspapers. But in general, ‘‘this lot just aren’t worth saving’’ because they ‘‘do more harm than good’’ (Monbiot, 2009). This is very similar to what we are going through in Malaysia thus the younger generation has seek to user generated news instead rather than local newspaper heck even some older generation has seek user generated news as well.

User-generated communication is situational and contextual, as it usually brings together groups of people based on interest and opportunity (Quandt, 2011). This like Malaysiakini, a group of people who decided enough was enough and launched the first and most influential online news portal in Malaysia. Who in the past 10 years, it has established itself as a major online media player in the country with its speedy, in-depth coverage of on-going political issues in the country, culminating in its hugely successful reporting of the March 2008 general election which saw a massive change in the nation’s political landscape (Khabilan, 2009). And blogging as well has also become a tool for disseminating news (other than becoming an online dairy for all to read), reflecting its role as an alternative source of information, ideas, and opinions. In Malaysia, politically contentious Malaysian bloggers write stories and voice opinions not represented, or underrepresented, in the mainstream media, while also offering critical readings of how issues and events are addressed and discussed (Smeltzer, nd).

 So with all that going on, what does the Malaysian government do to curb all this? They came up with Section 114A, which is an amendment to Malaysia’s Evidence Act 1950, which enables law enforcement officials to hold one accountable for publishing seditious, defamatory, or libellous content online, as long as the allegedly defamatory content is traced back to one’s username, electronic device, and/or WiFi network. Well that’s a hit below the belt move isn’t it? Senior criminal lawyer Ranjit Singh Dhillon states that “the silver lining here is that 114A teaches people social responsibility, which is sadly lacking in the new IT age.” (Sharanjit, 2012) Yeah let that quote sink in for just a minute, ready? Look below for my opinion on this.

In my humble opinion, yes people need to be more responsible of what they say on the internet (we have too many stupid people on the net) but if that person has evidence to back-up their claims why should they be prosecuted or whatsoever? If they go through with this act won’t many of the local newspaper journalists be prosecuted as well (their news do end up on their own news portal right?)?

So what does the future holds for journalism? For me I think it is just going to get a lot more interesting from here as traditional paper struggle to stay alive in a time where information is disseminated ever so quickly and probably stick around at best a decade or so but user generated content would grow and become a preferred choice of information for the people.

Reference

Curran, J 2010, ‘The Future of Journalism’, Journalism Studies, Vol.11, No. 4, pp 464-476

Monbiot, G 2009, ‘‘I, Too Mourn Good Local Newspapers. But this lot just aren’t worth saving’’, Guardian, 9 November, accessed 17/4/2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/local-newspapers-democracy

Khabilan, K 2009, ‘New Media, Citizen’s Journalism and Democracy: The Malaysiakini Project’, Media Asia, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp156-158

Sharanjit, S 2012, ‘Section 114A can be both sword, shield’, New Straits Times, 26 August, accessed 17/4/2013, http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/section-114a-can-be-both-sword-shield-1.129309

Smeltzer, S 2008, ‘Blogging in Malaysia: Hope for democratic Technology?’, Journal of International Communication, Vol. 14, No.1, pp28-45

Quandt, T 2011, ‘Understanding a New Phenomenon: The significance of participatory journalism’, in JB Singer, A Hermida, D Domingo, A Heinonen, S Paulssen, T Quandt, Z Reich & M Vujnovic (eds.), Participatory Journalism in Online Newspapers: Guardian Open gates Newspapers, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, pp155-176

Too pink or not too pink?

I have to be honest here, I have no idea we had an issue with breast cancer (as if breast cancer was not big of an issue already) not until we had a lesson on “Pinkwashing”. Guess as media student we have to be aware and question everything huh? Anyhow, the term “Pinkwashing” was coined by activist used to describe the activities of companies and groups that position themselves as leaders in the struggle to eradicate breast cancer while engaging in practices that may be contributing to rising rates of the disease (Malkan, S 2007).

Note the part where Malkan says “contributing to rising rates of the disease”. And now you are probably thinking how can these corporation or groups contribute to that when what they doing is to eradicate breast cancer?

‘This is blasphemy! This is madness!’

Calm down let me explain, as far as we know breast cancer is not just genetic, as research has shown that environmental exposures to toxic chemicals (through air, water, food, furniture, cosmetics, plastics, cleaners, and workplace exposures) are contributing factors in a large number of cancer cases (Lubitow, A & Davis, M 2011). And that includes breast cancer. Let’s take Avon for example, Avon is one of the most recognizable corporate entities participating in the breast cancer awareness industry and according to the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition (MBCC), more than 250 of Avon’s products listed in a database assessing the health risks of cosmetic products are listed in the ‘‘highest concern’’ category due to the presence of hormone disruptors, neurotoxins, and possible carcinogens (Lubitow, A & Davis, M 2011). So, instead of helping to reduce the cause of breast cancer these corporations are more like “helping” to increase breast cancer. Is just like the hybrid car issue whereby corporations tells you hybrid cars saves you fuel and the environment, but they didn’t tell you that by producing those batteries used in hybrid cars have harmful waste product that not only endanger the environment but to us as well. And don’t get me started on all those pink products they release specifically for breast cancer awareness campaign (heck even KFC joined in and luckily for us it was the bucket that was pink not the chicken).

Another bit highlighted was where do all these profit go to? You know that favourite line they always say the money donated will be used to find a cure for breast cancer. But does the money really go into research?  Going back to Avon again, they managed to raise millions of dollars for research which also allows them to dictate how and where that money is spent. In 2009, less than 7% of the $27.6 billion worth of funds disbursed by Avon went to research investigating the causes of breast cancer, environmental or otherwise (Lubitow, A & Davis, M 2011). Only 7% went into research how sad is that? And the rest of the money goes back to the company so profits and good image is attained by the company but research to find prevention for breast cancer still not happening.

So let’s wrap it here, corporation today love to jump in the bandwagon when there is a trend. It doesn’t matter if it is saving the environment (greenwashing), breast cancer awareness (pinkwashing) or saving bees, trees, whales or even snails. They are all out to gain profit and to improve their corporate image. Sure they do care about us their target audience to a certain degree but ultimately profits is what they want, if there is no profit to gain to begin with why would they even bother to invest in it when they can invest their time and money on other matters that could benefit them.

Reference

Lubitow, A & Davis, M 2011, “Pastel Injustice: the corporate use of pinkwashing for profit”, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 139-144.

Malkan, S 2007, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, CAN

Media Freedom: fact or fiction? with a twist of self regulation

What day and age do we live in today? An age where we can build towers that touches the very sky we see every day, an age of what was once science fiction in the past is now a reality today, an age where media plays a key role in shaping the minds of people. Today, the role of the mass media has become so prominent not only for disseminating information for the public and private organisations but also for increasing the degree of literacy among Asian people (Syed Agil Alsagof 2011). The role of the media helps us to understand how public relations may support organisations to build economic transition in developing countries because it is a powerful tool to shape public opinion (Sriramesh & Vercic 2003).

So what about the media freedom in Malaysia? A study done by Freedom House in 2003 entitled “Freedom of the Press 2003” gave Malaysia press the status of “Not free” (Mohd Azizudin Mohd Sani 2005). Because media has such capabilities to shape the way we think, the media in Malaysia has been heavily controlled. Netto (2002) argues that media freedom in Malaysia has been restricted in three ways:

1. Through restrictive laws.

2. Through ownership of media by political parties and connected business individuals.

3. Through self-censorship exercised by editors and journalists themselves.

With such restrictions, there is close to no media freedom at all in Malaysia. Some would argue that it is due to the Malaysian culture and sensitivities that such restriction is required. I agree we live in a country where people’s egos are easily bruised but I am certain that we can find a way to work around it if we truly want it. Because I believe that the media should be committed to upholding human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, and not just for a certain groups of individual.

And what of self-regulations in Malaysia? Self- regulation is intended for the media industry bodies to be recognized by the regulatory authority that they have implemented the industry voluntary codes of practice regarding various matters relate to the subject of regulations (Syed Agil Alsagof 2011). But of course there is a loophole and that they didn’t bet on the likes of the internet which cannot be regulated like the press or broadcast. Which has made life difficult for some individuals, as one cannot fully control the internet as it is equivalent to trying to control space.

So let’s wrap this up shall we? Media freedom, Malaysians have come to their senses at last that they want more transparency in the media. But for self-regulation I think this one is important because regulation has to be standardized to a certain degree of professionalism but not for the protection of certain groups.

Reference

Alsagoff, SA, Abdullah, Z & Hassan, MS 2011, ‘The growth and development of the Malaysian media landscape in shaping media regulation’, Global Media Journal – Malaysian Edition, vol.1, no.1, pp32-55.

Azizudin, MS 2005, ‘Media Freedom in Malaysia’, Journal of Comtemporary Asia, vol.35, no.3, pp341 – 367.

Netto, A 2002 ‘Media freedom in Malaysia: The challenge facing civil society’ Media Asia, vol. 29 no.1, pp17-23.

Sriramesh, K & Vercic, D 2003 ‘The global public relations handbook’ New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.