My friend… The World is Yours

31 03 2007
The World is Mine

Today, upon a bus,
I saw a very beautiful woman
And wished I were as beautiful
When suddenly she rose to leave,
I saw her hobble down the aisle.
She had one leg and wore a crutch.
But as she passed, she passed a smile.
Oh, God, forgive me when I whine.
I have two legs; the world is mine.

I stopped to buy some candy.
The lad who sold it had such charm.
I talked with him, he seemed so glad.
If I were late, it’d do no harm.
And as I left, he said to me,
“I thank you, you’ve been so kind.
It’s nice to talk with folks like you.
You see,” he said, “I’m blind.”
Oh, God, forgive me when I whine.
I have two eyes; the world is mine.

Later while walking down the street,
I saw a child I knew.
He stood and watched the others play,
but he did not know what to do.
I stopped a moment and then I said,
“Why don’t you join them dear?”
He looked ahead without a word.
I forgot, he couldn’t hear.
Oh, God, forgive me when I whine.
I have two ears; the world is mine.

With feet to take me where I’d go.
With eyes to see the sunset’s glow.
With ears to hear what I’d know.
Oh, God, forgive me when I whine.
I’ve been blessed indeed, the world is mine.

–Grover C Gouber

Selamat menyambut Maulidur Rasul

A long distant call from China…..

27 03 2007

After a short online chat with sister Marina this morning (Bon voyage and safe return sis), I received a long distant call from an ambassador who’s working in Beijing, China. This is the third call I received from him this year. As a freelance who had just finished clearing all the outstanding tasks, and now back to the normal “jobless” blogger, it’s a checkmate dude! What good explanation I can come out with now for not coming to meet him there?
Maybe I should tell him I’ll be there if I could travel in the soul plane. I would love the plane like the one in my dreams.

Yeap… more or less like this…….

Here is for the pilot Sheih and Rocky’s Bru

Here is the sit for Clemfour visitors

Meeting place for the “jobless” blogger

Dining place

Resting place for BigDog and Zewt

Siesta place for Zorro

The wash room

Here of course, for all my sister bloggers

THIS only one person so far qualified!!!

Would it be nice if all the “jobless” bloggers can have the experience to travel in comfort to meet friends?


Am I ready????

26 03 2007

Out of the blue, last Friday I received a text message from Sheih of Kickdefella’s blog. This is the opening of the sms “Sheih is searching for Al Ghazalli. His journey now taken him to ….”. So mission Al Ghazalli started and yesterday 25th march, he named the operation as Da Ghazalli Code.

In his posting he said, “In pursuit for the elusive Al Ghazalli, we will need Malaysians to volunteer to follow my Badak whenever he is in Perth. Preferably our volunteer will be Malaysians who are currently residing in Perth.

We need to know my Badak’s movement in Perth. We need to know where he sleeps and where he goes for his golf goofing sessions. If he ventures into the casino, we need to get a copy of the close circuit television recording.”

Here are some pixs taken in Perth where at the time the people of south Malaysia is suffering from one of the worst flood in Malaysian history.

Brother Sheih, thank you for the poster. One of these days you will see the face and the eyes behind the cloth. Will it be like this ??????

It’s all in the eyes… innocence…never lose it!

We are born with two eyes in front,
because we must not always look behind.
But see what lies ahead, beyond us.

We are born to have two ears,
one left one right so we can hear both sides.
Collect both the compliments and criticisms,
to see which are right.

We are born with a brain concealed in a skull.
Then no matter how poor we are, we are still rich.

For no one can steal what our brains contains.
Packing in more jewels and rings than you can think.

We are born with two eyes, two ears, but one mouth.
For the mouth is a sharp weapon, it can hurt, flirt, kill.
Remember to talk less, listen and see more.

We are born with only one heart, deep in our ribs.
It reminds us to appreciate
and give love from deep within.
—-unknown author—

In "bolehland" it just started ???

21 03 2007

It seem that in “bolehland” this article will not be applicable ???
I came across an article by Jay Rosen Associate Professor, former chairman, 1999-2005.New York University, Department of Journalism. I copy and paste it for my visitor to read.

January 21, 2005

Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over

“I have been an observer and critic of the American press for 19 years. In that stretch there has never been a time so unsettled. More is up for grabs than has ever been up for grabs since I started my watch.”

This is the essay I wrote for the Blogging, Journalism & Credibility conference Jan. 21-22 in Cambridge, MA. (Participants.)

Bloggers vs. journalists is over. I don’t think anyone will mourn its passing. There were plenty who hated the debate in the first place, and openly ridiculed its pretensions and terms. But events are what did the thing in at the end. In the final weeks of its run, we were getting bulletins from journalists like this one from John Schwartz of the New York Times, Dec. 28: “For vivid reporting from the enormous zone of tsunami disaster, it was hard to beat the blogs.”

And so we know they’re journalism— sometimes. They’re even capable, at times, and perhaps only in special circumstances, of beating Big Journalism at its own game. Schwartz said so. The tsunami story is the biggest humanitarian disaster ever in the lifetimes of most career journalists and the blogs were somehow right there with them.

The question now isn’t whether blogs can be journalism. They can be, sometimes. It isn’t whether bloggers “are” journalists. They apparently are, sometimes. We have to ask different questions now because events have moved the story forward. By “events” I mean things on the surface we can see, like the tsunami story, and things underneath that we have yet to discern.

That’s why we’re conferencing: to find the deeper pattern, of which blogging and journalism are a part. So that is what I give you: my best attempt at scratching out a pattern.

I have been an observer and critic of the American press for 19 years. In that stretch there has never been a time so unsettled. More is up for grabs than has ever been up for grabs since I started my watch. And so it is fortunate that we meet next week on blogging, journalists and the social dynamics of user trust. For this is an exciting time in journalism. Part of the reason is the extension of “the press” to the people we have traditionally called the public.

By the press I mean the public service franchise in journalism, where the writers and do-ers of it actually are. That press has shifted social location. Much of it is still based in The Media (a business) and will be for some time, but some is in nonprofits, and some of the franchise (“the press”) is now in public hands because of the Web, the weblog and other forms of citizen media. Naturally our ideas about it are going to change. The franchise is being enlarged.

It was a sign of the times for everyone watching when on January 1, Dan Gillmor, a participant in our conference, and one of the most respected technology journalists in the country, quit the San Jose Mercury News, and quit Knight-Ridder, for a grassroots journalism start-up, funded not by any media company but two entrepreneurs in the tech biz, Mitch Kapor and Pierre Omidyar.

For years, Big Journalism had been losing great people when they ran out of room for their ideas. It was believed that these losses did not threaten the enterprise. Gillmor was gone because he had reached the limits of professional press think. The journalism he was interested in developing lay outside the capacities of a traditional media company. He left for the same reason Mark Potts, co-founder of, is starting a hyper-local news operation where the content is to be citizen-provided.

But then it’s the same reason newspaper editor John Robinson of the News & Record in Greensboro took up blogging, formed ties with the local blogging culture, and announced a shift in direction toward open-source and participatory journalism at his newspaper, which will mean gambling on a whole different kind of online operation. (See his column to readers about it.)

Not sovereign

They all sense it, what Tom Curley, the man who runs the Associated Press, called “a huge shift in the ‘balance of power’ in our world, from the content providers to the content consumers.” If there is such a shift (and Curley didn’t seem to be kidding) it means that professional journalism is no longer sovereign over territory it once easily controlled. Not sovereign doesn’t mean you go away. It means your influence isn’t singular anymore.

Orville Schell, dean of the University of California at Berkeley’s journalism school and a conference participant, told Business Week recently: “The Roman Empire that was mass media is breaking up, and we are entering an almost-feudal period where there will be many more centers of power and influence.”

When 90 percent of the op-ed style writing was done on actual op-ed pages, editorial page editors had sovereignty over that region of public dialogue. With blogging and the online space generally, that rule is gone. Opinion in reaction to the news can come from anywhere, and the bloggers are frequently better at it than the sleepy op-ed page ever was. Newspaper op-ed pages can still have influence; they can still be great. But they are not sovereign in their domain, and so their ideas, which never anticipated that, are under great pressure.

When Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks and a figure in the news, wants to speak to fans, players or the community, he doesn’t do it through the reporters who cover the Mavs. He puts the word out at his weblog. For the beat writers who cover the team this is a loss; Cuban hardly deals with them anymore. Here, however, the balance of power has shifted toward a figure in the news, once known as a source. A weblog helped shift it. (Blogs of a corporate executive, and an officeholder who have done the same.)

If my terms make sense, and professional journalism has entered a period of declining sovereignty in news, politics and the provision of facts to public debate, this does not have to mean declining influence or reputation. It does not mean that prospects for the public service press are suddenly dim. It does, however, mean that the old political contract between news providers and news consumers will give way to something different, founded on what Curley correctly called a new “balance of power.”

Others have seen the change coming. In a 2003 report, New Directions for News said, “Journalism finds itself at a rare moment in history where … its hegemony as gatekeeper of the news is threatened by not just new technology and competitors but, potentially, by the audience it serves.” The professional imagination in Big Journalism wasn’t prepared for this.

  • Armed with easy-to-use Web publishing tools, always-on connections and increasingly powerful mobile devices, the online audience has the means to become an active participant in the creation and dissemination of news and information.

Meanwhile, the credibility of the old descriptions is falling away. People don’t buy them anymore. In 1988, 58 percent of the public agreed with the self-description of the press and saw no bias in political reporting, according to the Pew Research Center. (And that was regarded as a dangerously low figure.) By 2004, agreement on “no bias” had slipped to 38 percent. “The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto,” wrote Howard Fineman of Newsweek, Jan. 13. “Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things.”

Big Notion death was a theme in journalism in 2004, coming not from the margins but the middle. Geneva Overholser of the Missouri School of Journalism, former editor of the Des Moines Register, former ombudsman of the Washington Post, said it:

  • This was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, “objectivity” makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional.

If objectivity, once the “ethical touchstone for journalism,” has finally collapsed, then we have conditions resembling intellectual crisis in the mainstream press. Steve Lovelady, managing editor of, and a former editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, agreed that the press in 2004 “was hopelessly hobbled by some of its own outdated conventions and frameworks.”

When people like Fineman, Overholser and Lovelady—who are elders of the tribe, and products of its recent history—are saying about a key commandment “that’s over,” and “our belief system has collapsed,” we can assume the causes are deeper than some spectacularly blown stories or the appearance of more nimble competitors. Loss of core belief is related to loss of editorial sovereignty.

“The paper doesn’t have a voice.”

“I live in Winston-Salem,” begins a blog post from Jan 13, which I submit as material for the conference. Jon Lowder writes:

  • I have the Winston-Salem Journal delivered every morning. But I don’t feel like I know anyone there. The paper doesn’t have a “voice,” at least not one that I can hear. The closest thing to its voice is the editor’s column in the op-ed section.

The problems of finding a believable voice are fundamental in Big J journalism today. Jon Lowder admitted that one reason the Journal seemed so voice-less to him was the juxtaposition with the Greensboro News-Record, which had begun to reach him from the next town over through weblogs he read. (There are five and he subscribes to them all.) These he received via the wire service of the blog world, known as RSS, a truly disruptive technology for the news business. (See this.)

“I get all of the N&R blogs via RSS,” Lowder said. (It stands for real simple syndication.) “I don’t get their paper… yet. But I still feel closer to the N&R, and in a way I feel it is my hometown paper.” And this is what his post is about: not blogging, or RSS, or journalism, but a shfting sense of “hometown paper” for the user. Lowder explains how the Greensboro paper (see my reports on them here, then here and here) has infiltrated his world. “It would probably pain the editor at the Journal (I have no idea what his/her name is) to know that I feel like I’m on a first name basis with the editor of the Greensboro News & Record (Hi John!).”

That would be John Robinson. With his Editors Log he is talking to Winston Salem more often than the newspaper editor in Winston-Salem does. Lowder speaks of the News & Record coming to him, while the Journal site just sits there, static.

  • I hear from the N&R several times every day, all via their blogs. I hear from the Journal in the morning and that’s it… As a result I know more about Greensboro’s city council than I do about Winston-Salem’s. So for now I’d say that the N&R is my hometown paper. It’s not too late for the Journal, but they better act fast or it will be. I’d love to write the editor and share some ideas… anybody have a name for me?

Distributed journalism. Open Source journalism. Citizens media. Citizen journalism. We media. Participatory media. Participatory journalism. These are the new names for the discussion that first grew up around blogging. Steve Outing of the Poynter Institute noticed it:

  • The earthquake and tsunamis in South Asia and their aftermath represent a tipping point in so-called “citizen journalism.” What September 11, 2001, was to setting off the growth and enhanced reputation of blogs, the December 2004 tsunamis are to the larger notion of citizen journalism (of which blogs are a part).

The cartoon dialogue

Chris Willis, co-author of a key report, We Media, said in a recent interview with a Spanish journalist: “What is the most unsettling thing for media professionals is not change but how the change is happening and where it is coming from. Change is not coming from traditional competitors but from the audience they serve. What could be more frightening?”

And some of that fear had crept into bloggers vs. journalists, making it a cartoon dialogue. One reason I jumped at the chance to do this introductory essay is that I felt I had some hand in creating what John Palfrey of the Berkman Center called (in his letter inviting me) the “totally inadequate language that is used like a blunt instrument to describe both journalism and blogging.” (See this PressThink post, and this one.)

Included in that is the simple, tempting and ultimately useless question: are bloggers “real” journalists? To put it that way is unnecessarily antagonistic. But it’s worse than that. It’s reductive, and smart people have been calling it that for years. Scott Rosenberg, managing editor of Salon and a technology-aware writer, said it back in 2002:

  • Typically, the debate about blogs today is framed as a duel to the death between old and new journalism. Many bloggers see themselves as a Web-borne vanguard, striking blows for truth-telling authenticity against the media-monopoly empire. Many newsroom journalists see bloggers as wannabe amateurs badly in need of some skills and some editors.
  • This debate is stupidly reductive — an inevitable byproduct of (I’ll don my blogger-sympathizer hat here) the traditional media’s insistent habit of framing all change in terms of a “who wins and who loses?” calculus. The rise of blogs does not equal the death of professional journalism. The media world is not a zero-sum game. Increasingly, in fact, the Internet is turning it into a symbiotic ecosystem — in which the different parts feed off one another and the whole thing grows.

“Participatory media and journalism are different, but online they exist in a shared media space,” wrote Rebecca Blood, author of the Weblog Handbook and a careful student of the form. (“Shared media space” puts it well.) “I have no desire to conform my weblog to journalistic standards, or to remake journalism in my image. I want to find ways to leverage the strengths of both worlds to the mutual benefit of both.” I think that is the right attitude for our conference to take.

In an earlier essay, Blood showed how difficult it was to identify journalism exclusively with journalists. If we focus on practices that meet a certain standard, she said, then it is easy to tell who is who:

  • When a blogger writes up daily accounts of an international conference, as David Steven did at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, that is journalism. When a magazine reporter repurposes a press release without checking facts or talking to additional sources, that is not. When a blogger interviews an author about their new book, that is journalism. When an opinion columnist manipulates facts in order to create a false impression, that is not. When a blogger searches the existing record of fact and discovers that a public figure’s claim is untrue, that is journalism. When a reporter repeats a politician’s assertions without verifying whether they are true, that is not.

Instead of wrestling with blogging’s actual potential in journalism, we have tended to fight about bloggers’ credentials as journalists. This is a matter of far less importance, although I would never say “credentials don’t matter.” Even fights about credentials matter, sometimes.

But that is a poor way to go about discovering what blogging means for journalists and the future of the public service franchise. Today there is every reason in the world for journalists to finally get religion about blogging while bloggers get their thing with journalism straight.

Departure points for Friday morning (Schedule.)

I recommend the following points of departure for our discussion. There are five.

  • 1.) Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and blogging means practically anyone can own one. That is the Number One reason why weblogs matter. It is the broadest and deepest of all factors making this conference urgent.

With blogging, an awkward term, we designate a fairly beautiful thing: the extension to many more people of a First Amendment franchise, the right to publish your thoughts to the world.
Wherever blogging spreads the dramas of free expression follow. And this will happen in journalism. There will be struggles with freedom of speech. A blog, you see, is a little First Amendment machine. And some of the roots of blogging are in the right to speak up, the will to be heard. In some cases, heard over the din of journalism. Dave Winer, conference participant, in a 2001 essay, “The Web is a Writing Environment,” tried to get freelance interpreters interested in becoming sovereign on the Web:

  • What if you’re a freelancer, you sold a piece on wireless computing, and that’s it, but what are you supposed to do with the knowledge you’ve accumulated as the market you wrote about is developing? Or flipped around, what if you’re an engineer and the press is covering your category without any depth, do you just sit by and watch the opportunity dissipate? What if you’re a human resources manager in a large corporation, and want to publish a column for your constituents, but the internal development people are always too busy to work on your project?
  • In all these cases you can take the power into your own hands, start writing for the the Web, and see what comes back to you.

I think there’s always going to be tension between bloggers and Big Journalism. It’s in the DNA.

  • 2.) Instead of starting with “do blogs have credibility?” or “should blogging obey journalism ethics?” we should begin in a broader territory, which is trust. Trust as it is generated in different settings, online and off, in both blogging and in journalism— or in life.

When a student leaves NYU’s graduate program and joins, say, the St. Petersburg Times as a staff writer, she benefits on her first day at work from the accumulated trust or reputation the newspaper has in its market, in the community around Tampa Bay. The circumstances in which this asset was created have long since passed from view. The trust transaction lives for new employees mostly in the form of professional standards they are to meet, which in theory maintain the brand.

This is the number one asset of the news organization: stored trust, reputational capital. Any competent journalist knows how to benefit from that: your calls get returned… like magic! But as to how that capital is created, or the transaction of trust that involves people and their connection to the news, the professional journalist is minimally involved.

We start telling students in graduate school they won’t “have” credibility unless they meet professional standards and obey the rules, but this tends to be interpreted as: “if we obey the rules of journalism, and meet the standards of our peers, then we have credibility.” And that is not true. (Your peers may have the wrong standards.) If it were true, having a wall of journalism prizes would be equivalent to having the public’s trust.

In a 2002 essay in Microcontent News, John Hiler observed: “For bloggers, it’s all about trust too: except weblogs are starting from zero, building their reputations from the ground up. Blog responsibly, and you’ll build a reputation for being a trusted news source. Don’t, and you won’t have a reputation to worry about.”

Here is one advantage bloggers have in the struggle for reputation— for the user’s trust. They are closer to the transaction where trust gets built up on the Web. There’s a big difference between tapping a built-up asset, like the St. Pete Times “brand,” and creating it from scratch. Bloggers are “building their reputations from the ground up,” as Hiler said, and to do this they have to focus on users. They have to be in dialogue. They have to point to others and say: listen to him! The connection between what they do and whether they are trusted is much alive and apparent. In journalism that connection has been harder to find lately. Journalists don’t know much about it. They do know their rules, though.

  • 3.) Look around: blogging partakes of a resurgent spirit of amateurism now showing in many fields earlier colonized by professionals. Why would journalism be immune?

We learn about it from a fascinating new study, The Pro-Am Revolution, a 70-page paper from Demos in the UK. It barely mentions bloggers or journalism, and so it is perfect for sketching a larger pattern into which J-blogging fits.

  • The twentieth century was shaped by the rise of professionals in most walks of life. From education, science and medicine, to banking, business and sports, formerly amateur activities became more organised, and knowledge and procedures were codified and regulated. As professionalism grew, often with hierarchical organisations and formal systems for accrediting knowledge, so amateurs came to be seen as second-rate. Amateurism came to be to a term of derision. Professionalism was a mark of seriousness and high standards.

And of course this happened in journalism in the 1920s through 1940s. University training, professional societies, codes of ethics emerged. This movement created my institution, the J-school, as well as the standard of neutral, nonpartisan professionalism of which Howard Fineman spoke. Demos on the shift:

  • But in the last two decades a new breed of amateur has emerged: the Pro-Am, amateurs who work to professional standards. These are not the gentlemanly amateurs of old – George Orwell’s blimpocracy, the men in blazers who sustained amateur cricket and athletics clubs. The Pro-Ams are knowledgeable, educated, committed and networked, by new technology. The twentieth century was shaped by large hierarchical organisations with professionals at the top. Pro-Ams are creating new, distributed organisational models that will be innovative, adaptive and low-cost.

In other words, they cannot be dismissed. “Knowledge, once held tightly in the hands of professionals and their institutions, will start to flow into networks of dedicated amateurs,” says the report. “The crude, all or nothing, categories we use to carve up society – leisure versus work, professional versus amateur – will need to be rethought.” Written about other fields, these words should be read into journalism, which is being hit hard by the Pro-Am trend.

  • Professionals – in science and medicine, war and politics, education and welfare – shaped the twentieth century through their knowledge, authority and institutions. They will still be vital in the twenty-first century. But the new driving force, creating new streams of knowledge, new kinds of organisations, new sources of authority, will be the Pro-Ams. (p. 67)

Bloggers vs. professional journalists is over. But there’s power in the revolution Pro-Am.

  • 4.) If news as lecture could yield to news as conversation, as some have recommended, it might transform the credibility puzzle because it would feed good information to journalists about the trusters and what they do and do not put their trust in.

Professional journalists confronted with the confusions of the online world have consistently maintained that the “traditional” news criers will do fine on the new platform, even with more competition, because, the feeling goes, the bigger the onslaught of information online, the greater the need for some authoritative filter, like the daily newspaper.

William Safire, for example, wrote a “nah, we’ll be fine” column about it. “On national or global events,” he said, “the news consumer needs trained reporters on the scene to transmit facts and trustworthy editors to judge significance.” Indeed, everyone needs an intelligent filter to find what’s good and make sure nothing essential is missed. Journalists reckon, “that’s us.”

Sound reasoning. However it doesn’t tell you how the filter does the filtering for the filterees. I mean… “editors to judge significance” based on what? Big Journalism’s answers have been: Knowledge of professional standards in journalism. Knowledge of our community. Knowledge of the story. The knowledge that comes from experience. In other words, the filter is reliable because it is operated by a professional editor who knows what to do.

But online a filter becomes more intelligent by people interacting with it. To judge significance, it helps to be in conversation with the people you are sifting things for. One might propose: over time a blog teaches a journalist how to become an intelligent filter by forcing interaction with the Web and its users. If the traditional press expects to survive on its filtering skills, and to be authoritative, it will have to devise a way of interacting more with the filterees. Ask not how professional or experienced the filter is, but how interactive. We need filters that learn from users. Trust, I believe, will flow from that.

  • 5.) Among bloggers there is the type “stand alone journalist,” and this is why among journalists there now stands the type: blogger.

Some journalists are identified with a brand, like MSNBC. Others, as Chris Nolan figured out, stand alone. Many of the practical problems of bloggers are the problems of standing alone. If there were solutions to those, there might be better blogging all around.

Writing about the Iraq war in his blogger’s manifesto (2002), Andrew Sullivan explains the advantages of the stand alone style in blogging:

  • The blog almost seemed designed for this moment. In an instant, during the crisis, the market for serious news commentary soared. But people were not just hungry for news, I realized. They were hungry for communication, for checking their gut against someone they had come to know, for emotional support and psychological bonding. In this world, the very personal nature of blogs had far more resonance than more impersonal corporate media products. Readers were more skeptical of anonymous news organizations anyway, and preferred to supplement them with individual writers they knew and liked.

It’s not all about providing good information. Responding when people are “hungry for communication” also builds trust online. In certain ways, which we have yet to learn much about, the stand alone journalist may be easier to trust than a corporate provider.


Because bloggers vs. journalists is over, better and better comparisons can be drawn between the two. Simon Waldman of the Guardian said that the tsunami disaster “has shown both the greatest strengths of citizens’ journalism, and its greatest weakness.”

  • The great strength is clearly the vividness of first person accounts. And, in this case, the sheer volume of them. Pretty much every story of everyone who experienced the tsunami is moving in someway or other – and thanks to blogs, text messages, camcorders and the overall wonderfulness of the net, there have never been so many stories recorded by so many people made so widely available to whoever who wants to find them, whenever they want to find them.

This is the revolution in supply, via self-publishing on the Web. “The great weakness, though, is the lack of shape, structure and ultimately meaning that all this amounts to. It is one thing to read hundreds of people’s stories. It is another to try and work out what the story actually is.” That won’t come from a revolution in supply because it’s about reducing information, distilling it down, as “happens in traditional media.” Waldman is clear on the advantages of professional journalism’s sense of discipline:

  • The disciplines of traditional media—space, deadlines, the need to have a headline and an intro and a cohesive story rather than random paragraphs, the use of layout or running order to give some sense of shape and priority to the news—aren’t just awkward restrictions. They add meaning. They help understanding. Without them, it’s much, much harder to make sense of what’s happening in the world.

Xeni Jardin, co-editor of the hugely popular BoingBoing, told John Schwartz of the New York Times that arguing about whether blogs would replace the major news media is like asking “will farmers’ markets replace restaurants?”

  • “One is a place for rich raw materials,” she continued. “One represents a different stage of the process.”
  • Blogging from the tsunami, she said, is “more raw and immediate,” but the postings still lack the level of trust that has been earned by more established media. “There is no ombudsman for the blogosphere,” she said. “One will not replace the other, but I think the two together are good for each other.” (Link.)

Amen to that. My closing thoughts are the peaceable ones of writer, blogger and Web philosopher Mitch Ratcliffe, who, like so many of us, is trying to keep track of a dizzying scene. “The point of innovation in media is to expand, not simply to displace, the voices that existed before,” he writes. Politics, by contrast, is where we replace one group of voices with another.

  • I’m feeling more Buddhist all the time about this whole journalism v. blogging debate. The middle way in the metalogue that is emerging—the miraculous opening up of “the media” that’s going on—is plenty wide for all sorts of writing, the objective, the disclosed and the personal.

The price of professionalizing journalism was the de-voicing of the journalist. The price for having mass media was the atomization of the audience, who in the broadcasting model were connected “up” to the center but not “across” to each other. Well, blogging is a re-voicing tool in journalism, and the Net’s strengths in horizontal communication mean that audience atomization is being overcome.

It’s an exciting time in journalism. As the great social weave from which it arises changes form, the thing itself comes up for grabs.

The rest of the article read here

BIOS POST freezes…..

18 03 2007

Still feeling disappointed, so I decided to take on some challenge today. Yesterday I collected my AcerPower SD from the repair shop. The technician told me it’s beyond repair. Well, they charged me RM30 for the inspection and cleaning up the spider webs.

It all started with the power failure. When the power was back and when I was trying to start up the PC, bios post freezes.

BIOS ROM checksum error
Keyboard error or no keyboard present

Detecting floppy drive A media…

And it will hang there forever.

So I had to go to back to basics in computer hardware. Luckily my faithful old 286AT had some notes about how to become a hacker and bring my machine back to live. I know mostly people are confused about the word “hacker” and “crackers”. The basic difference is hackers build things and crackers break them. Unfortunately, many writers and journalists have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers endlessly.

So I dismantled all the components and start to put it back together one by one. When I tried to start it up, the screen still showed the same error message. So, leaving me with no option to flush the BIOS. I started with the easy part of fixing first that is, by removing the battery and also changing the jumper. Both didn’t work.

I downloaded the utility to update the bios supplied by the manufacturer, unfortunately it doesn’t work with my machine. I was a bit lucky today because I found a freeware utility to flush and update the bios. With a bit of tweaking, I managed to make the program run. It was a success. The computer is running and I’m happy and the kids are happy too. Less fighting for the computer now.

What had happened to our leaders nowadays ?????

“Don’t listen to the stories in the internet, they are all myths,” That’s what Najib said in Pekan about internet rumour regarding the rift between him and Abdullah. Read what 3540 Jalan Sudin got to say.

Last night In Tv3 the battle between Lim Keng Yaik and M. Kayveas.

From the Star: Just answer allegations, Pak Lah tells Johari

Most of all I still like TDM on corruption and other issues.

“I didn’t know he was corrupt” – that was former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s response when asked as to why he appointed Zulkipli Mat Noor as the Anti-Corruption Agency chief in 2001.

“They never told me that he was corrupt,” he said.
Mahathir said from the reports given to him, he was under the impression that Zulkipli was clean and the right person to helm the agency. headlines “

Here is the URL video clip from

Zealously Errant Rodent Oligarchy (ZERO)

Only deception since W’s Presidential inception.
Fake WMD’s and other sleaze.

Medicare lapse, coming collapse?
Integrity in short supply, makes one cry!
Corruption eruption!
Exploding debt, financial threat!
Angry unemployed, slowly destroyed!
No child left behind, W says, ‘Ebrythang iz phine.’
Declining schools, because of these fools!

—- by Mark H. Wilson.—-

Always to be happy

16 03 2007

Thank God it’s Friday….. This morning I bumped into a friend of mine who used to be a reporter and journalist with Bernama, and is currently an educationalist with one of the International University. I was asking him whether he has read the article by Rehman and wanted to know his opinion about it. He told me that the article is a lousy spin from a Not So Talented Person. Well since my blog sisters Marina Mahatir, Noraina Samad, Elviza and many more Malaysian bloggers in the blogosphere had given their piece of mind. All I can say is Rehman, be a true Malaysian and go with the progress of the modern technology.

The things I’ve planned for the weekend are all ruined. My significant other is not around. She flew to KL just now for the education fair. Well, duty calls so I must be happy always. I found something at and would like to share it with Clemfour readers and friends. You may have seen these before, but a reminder is always good now and then. No harm in that.


No one can go back and make a brand new start. Anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending. God didn’t promise days without pain, laughter without sorrow, sun without rain, but He did promise strength for the day, comfort for the tears, and light for the day.

Disappointments are like road bumps, they slow you down a bit but you enjoy the smooth road afterwards. Don’t stay on the bumps too long. Move on! When you feel down because you didn’t get what you want, just sit tight and be happy, because GOD is thinking something better to give you.

When something happens to you, good or bad, consider what it means. There’s a purpose to life’s events, to teach you how to laugh more or not to cry too hard. You can’t make someone you love, all you can do is be someone who can be loved, and the rest is up to the person to realize your worth.

The measure of love is when you love without measure. In life there are very rare chances that you’ll meet the person you love and loves you in return. So once you have it don’t ever let go, the chance might never come your way again.

Its better to lose your pride to the one you love, than to lose the one you love because of pride. We spend too much time looking for the right person to love or finding fault with those we already love, when instead we should be perfecting the love we give.

When you truly care for someone, you don’t look for faults, you don’t look for answers, and you don’t look for mistakes. Instead, you fight the mistakes, you accept the faults and you overlook the excuses. Never abandon an old friend. You will never find one who can take his place. Friendship is like wine; it gets better as it grows older.

Remember the five simple rules to being happy:

Free your heart of hatred.

Free your mind from worries.

Live simply.

Give more.

Expect less.

Online friends

13 03 2007
Dearest friend,

What a great day…… Finally manage to change from a 2 column to 3 column template. What a relief.. So just a minor touch left. Luckily it is a school break so have more time with the PC.

Guess what happened this afternoon. It was an honour for me to be online with sister MarinaM of RantingsbyMM. Even though I had not meet her in the real world, but she really light up my day.

Again as I was going thru the other old 286AT machine (Yes Zewt, I’ve 2 units running) I got this from a friend…I got this minutes before I log off from that computer. It hit a nerve then and when I read my friends email…it triggered the tears.

Online friends are people we may never meet….
We see pictures, we see cams…It isn’t the same….
We grow close…We care and love one another….
One day we may not hear from one another….
Our hearts will break…
All we see is a name on messenger
but the person we don’t see anymore…..
We pray…..”Please come back”….
All I ask is you remember me in the good times we had…..
Keep me close to your heart….

Friends forever…

Pass this on to all your friends….
If I get comment on this entry….
I know you care .