Basically, both articles have discussed about the bad and good usage of new media. According to http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=92480&dict=CALD, new media means products and services that provide information or entertainment using computers or the Internet, and not by traditional methods such as television and newspapers.

Why have we switched from providing information on television and newspapers to blogs and online videos? The reason is simple. Newspapers and television cater to a large audience, to people of all ages. Like watching movies, certain information has different audience. Therefore, information must be evaluated of its appropriateness before publishing it on the newspaper or advertising it on the TV.
However, New Media is different. It is on the internet whereby the audience deem themselves mature enough to handle the content. Hence no one will be held responsible for their information and opinions published on the internet. Furthermore, the television programmes and newspaper can be censored by the government for political agenda purposes. For example, criticising a particular party while praising the opposition party. This would influence people to accept the opposition party with no doubts. This is where the bloggers play a big part. Since the internet cannot be censored and people are free to express their opinions, bloggers can express their opinions and views with almost no qualms about being held responsible for it as long as they remain anonymous. "Though they don’t often have professional training as journalists, many of them exceed professional journalistic standards, because they answer to their consciences alone rather than to corporate honchos and fund managers. We need to hear from such people, and the fact that there are more blogs out there worth reading than anyone has time to read is a hopeful sign," I conclude that bloggers constitute a very fundamental foundation of a democratic country as they can express views of the common people and create a diversity of opinions such that people can choose what to believe or take faith in. Hence the new media gives power to the people.

Unfortunately, we can see that people have abused the usage of new media to achieve their selfish gains. The author stated, "And behind Bush are the huge corporations that helped to put him into power, including those that own the MSM." This is the most dreadful thing that can ever happen to the internet, that is, to experience monopolisation.
According to Cambridge online dictionary, monopolisation is having (an organization or group which has) complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share. This is a disastrous phenomenon as the virtual platform would be demoted to be like newspapers- where views are controlled and manipulated. When views are controlled and manipulated, monopolisation of the internet is imminent. This would create social unrest in countries world wide and disrupt the norm as everyone would protest to what they see on the internet. Riots would be created to ask for self ruling as governments then would be unable to do anything if a paricular organisation or country controls the internet. In this light, new media would have devastating impacts if monopolised such that it overpowers the power given to people.

I agree with Mark Klempner that the net has proved invaluable as a way for concerned citizens to offer support to each other, and to act together for political and social change. Views and opinions are taken seriously online as we can see from http://www.themediaslut.com/2008/04/997, Xiaxue get globalised all because of a video review. “Fake Steve Jobs” hates the video so much that he thinks it deserved a mention on his blog.
Hence it is a platform for passionate citizens to gather support and act together for political and social change. However, don't you not see the similarity between Mark Klempner's claim and Ustaz Mohamed Bin Ali's claim on the internet aiding terrorism to flourish? Gathering citizens to support each other and act together for political and social change is akin to hosting terror-related activities e.g self-radicalisation. We can see that even though each internet connection serve as an intellectual life preserver, it also empowers the spreading of terrorism!


I agree with Mei yi that the internet can be used to educate and prevent and that we have to be able to distinguish propaganda from the truth. We can do so by reading the newspapers conscientiously so that we can gather more views and infer from our own which is reliable. Such skills come from source base skills derived from Social Studies. To prevent a future uproar internally in Singapore should conflicts arise from the internet, what our government can do now is to equip the teenagers with adequate skills, e.g. not accepting facts at face values so that indivduals have the common set of knowledge to distinguish right from wrong.
I would like to conclude that the new media is a constant threat to stability. However we cannot condemn and ban it as views of people are still important and valuable. We are talking about Democracy VS Stability here. If there is no democracy, how can there be stability in the country? Hence we should continue to support the new media. Whether or not it pose a threat to stability, it is up to individuals and their skills to deal with information and opinions on the internet rationally.