You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2009.
‘Defending what’s ours’. That is the new tagline from the recent advertising campaign for National Service. In an article on The Online Citizen (TOC), an article was written on the above topic and local blogger Sam Ho was cited. In his blog, Sam Ho voiced his unhappiness with the National Service. He quoted the oath all enlistees undertake:
“We, Members of the Singapore Armed Forces, do solemnly and sincerely pledge that: We will always bear true faith and allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore. We will always support and defend the constitution. We will preserve and protect the honor and independence of our country with our lives.”
Sam Ho then stated his thoughts on the oath and National Service.
“I think the oath has to be revised. We need to protect our economy, our foreign talents and do the jobs foreigners cannot and do not want to do, i.e. National Service. Mind you, time and again, the government has force fed us with the rhetoric and reason that foreign talents in Singapore are recruited to do the jobs Singaporeans cannot and do not want to do. Well, that is true to a large extent. If we saw beyond the xenophobia, we will come to realize, is it worth it defending what’s ‘ours’?”
“I do not share the same definition of ‘ours’ as the government and its self-professed state-independent military organization do.”
Inevitably, many would have their doubts and dislikes regarding National Service. The occasional tale of the death of a soldier never fails to generate a negative public response. Furthermore, most men in Singapore that have been through the SAF as part of their National Service obligations tend to dislike their time spent there. This general unhappiness with the SAF organization could be derived from negative personal experiences. I had to admit that my time in the SAF was not always a pleasant one. I personally do not believe in National Service. It tore me away from my family, my work and the things I love to do. I do not want to be part of any organization that promotes and reinforces dominant gender norms and norms. It is possible the SAF are failing in the aspect of organizational communication.
So let us take a closer look at organizational communication.
An organization is a system consisting of a large number of people working together in a structured way to accomplish multiple goals.
-Trenholm (2005)
An organization is interdependent and contains a hierarchical structure. Other typical characteristics of an organization include orders and ranks, specialization and bureaucracy. The SAF is such an organization.
In a successful system of organizational communication, members of the organization are subjected to organizational structure (hierarchy) and positions. Members should be driven not by personal goals, but by common or collective goals. Members should likewise be formal and deferential with a degree of relational distance and detachment.
Organizational communication employs formal channels of communication. Information flows through a structured chain of command made explicit in an organizational chart. In order to be successful, information should have downward flow, upward flow and horizontal flow. In National Service, there is usually a lack of upward communication. Perhaps it is because the management generally neglects upward messages. It is probable that subordinates who are ambitious, insecure or distrustful might distort or withhold upward information. Upward communication such as through progress reports, feedback and suggestions schemes could help to improve the organizational communication in the SAF.
Moreover, an informal organizational structure could improve organizational communication in the SAF. An informal structure is effective as it satisfies the individual’s personal interest and needs unlike the formal channels. An informal organizational structure would generate mainly useful information with minimum rumors. Although information may be incomplete, accuracy levels can be comparatively high (75% – 95%). Information can likewise be more reliable than formal channels.
Singapore is the most wired city in the world. And according to a media survey, young Singaporeans aged 15 to 24 spend an average of eight-and-a-half hours a day being connected.The Singapore government has been embracing and even adopting new media for its work. While it is still some way from fully tapping the potential, the government said it will gradually evolve its policies with a light touch, as the Web2.0 revolution constantly throws up new challenges. And the government has been using new media outlets such as Facebook, YouTube and forums to hook up with citizens.
On 21 February 2009 Channelnewsasia.com reported an article on the government’s new media policy. It was entitled ‘Govt says policies on new media will evolve as new challenges crop up’. ‘Light touch… tough talk’. That was the name of the article The Online Citizen ran on the government and its new media policies.
Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan launched the online resource on racial harmony on Saturday. While the government is gradually liberalizing its approach towards online engagement with its citizens, the minister added that one has to be responsible and careful when posting their thoughts online.”
Dr Balakrishnan said at the event:
“Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion. You will remember in 2007, we prosecuted three persons under the Sedition Act because of the blogs they put up which denigrated the religion of one of our communities in Singapore.
“The reason we did that was to send the message that your words have an impact; if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you.”
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is defined as any form of communication using computers and computer networks, including email, electronic conferences, newsgroups and web chats. CMC allows access and interaction between people and databases all over the world. The ideal example for CMC is the Internet.
CMC has changed our understanding and perception of effective human communication, especially in our perception and understanding of personal identity, the community, knowledge and information. CMC has caused a shift in the basic definition of the individual. It provides anonymity but information is ‘traceable’ through our digital footprints. As we can noticed from Dr Balakrishnan’s remarks, we know that the anonymity is not possible online. The government is able to track and monitor our activities online and even hunt down individuals.
CMC has greatly positively impacted our lives CMC has infiltrated many aspects of the community life, including, family, social life, education, governmental, medical and legal areas.
I believe that the government should not over regulate CMC such as the Internet. CMC such as the Internet has contributed to societal progress. It can be used as a form of receiving unbiased feedback as netizens tend to speak their minds freely on the Internet. I believe that the government should focus their attention on ideas, suggestions and thoughts expressed on the Internet. Although I agree some restraint is needed as a netizen, clamping down on free speech on the new media would have adverse effects. And making what could be deemed as a threatening remark at netizens is inappropriate.
Do you have any views on this topic?
When one thinks of mass communication or the mass media, the big boys such as Time Warner or CBS or even News Corporation comes to mind. Nevertheless, in Singapore, the only local mass media companies are Singapore Press Holdings and Channel Newsasia. These corporations are much smaller in size and often focus their coverage on a regional scale, unlike the other global giants.
Mass Communication is a form of communication through which institutional sources address relatively large, heterogeneous and anonymous audiences physically separated from one another.
Here are some characteristics of mass communication.
Institutional sources are the media sources such as newspapers, magazines, radio, TVs, etc. We are familiar with these, we see and consume them everyday. Receivers of these institutional messages are ‘invisible’ and have little or no direct experience with the media sources. Media messages are heterogeneous, anonymous and are not individualized. Receivers’ relationship with sources is voluntary and communication can be terminated at will. Media channels are interposed, employing different technology to transmit or receive messages. Technological access is usually required to encode and decode the message.
Lets look at some of the media theories:
The first one is Magic Bullet Theory (Powerful Effects Theory), this was used in the 20s/30s era. It was popular after the second world war. In this theory, the media is powerful while the audiences are powerless. Audiences are passive and will do or act out desired behaviors expected by the media. It predicts strong and relatively universal effects of mass communication on all audiences. We’re controlled by the media.
The second theory is Uses and Gratification Theory (Limited Effects Theory). It was introduced in 1950s/60s. This theory is the opposite of the first one. The media is thought to be powerless while the audiences are powerful. The audiences are active and discerning enough to resist the media messages. They use media for some reasons, to gain more information, to improve personal identity, build stronger relationship, to escape from something,etc. They use media according to their needs practicing self-censorship, and sought out competing media messages.
The third category is Moderate Effects Theory models. The strength of the media and the audiences are almost the same. The media has the power to influence the audiences and the audiences have the power to select or resist the media.
There is a term called Agenda Setting Function, it is the ability of the media to raise the importance of an issue in public’s mind. Media tells us what to talk about in daily life. The power of the media to influence us depends on our experiences too. If they are talking about something that we do not related to, we tend to ignore that message. The media is extremely successful in controlling what we think about.
The Media Hegemony Theory, the media is seen to represent the views of the powerful elite; it is influence by those who hold economic and political power. The media strives to monopolise opinions and drive society in a way that benefits them. Powerless groups are silenced in media hegemony.
Media Determinism Theory states that the medium used is more important than the message in communication. Marshall McLuhan argues that ‘The Medium is the Message.’ The medium used in communication has the power to change the way we live and experience the world.
The Spiral of Silence Theory predicts that the public have the tendency to refrain from expressing unpopular views or ideas. The decision to speak up is influenced by public opinion. The media can be said to influence behaviour by supporting certain views.
Lastly, we have the Cultivation Theory. This school of thought says that messages in the media do not influence audiences attitudes directly but, cultivate an opinion indirectly. The media can have the mainstreaming effect, creating a way of looking at the world that eventually becomes the commonly held view. The media adopts the resonance effect as audiences’ everyday experiences match those they consume on the mass media, creating a ‘double dose’ effect.
I believe that the Magic Bullet Theory definately do not apply in modern day Singapore. The local mass media, although very successfuly influencial, does have it’s limitations. Local audiences are also well educated and more dicerning with the messages. Moreover, many other mass media channels are available to the locals through cable television and the Internet. The local audience are media savvy, they consume multiple channels of different mass media. They do not just take the messages for the truth and tend to be relatively well informed with a questioning spirit.
So which of these media theories do u think is representive of the mass media in Singapore?
