singularity industries

"To learn and do good."

Building the Future Media Organisation

One of the most cracked lenses we see “new media” with today, is that for those of us who advocate it, don’t necessarily understand how traditional media used to operate.

We have not necessarily explored at length, the impacts of convergence and the shift. But this post is not about that, but more the discussions that transpired during Ogilvy’s latest Open Room, “Journalism is from Mars, Social Media is from Venus“.

If you will bear with me, this is by no means a disciplined study of the media phenomena, merely a hypothesis built around observation. (that is one of the hallmarks that social media has – publishing perpetual beta)

So before we build the future, we have to understand what went wrong.

The birth and growth of mass media
The first instance was the Guthenberg Press, where movable type was used to print on paper. Mass printing found its way to the public. These big cumbersome machines by no means match up to computers, fibre optic cables or satellite links the connect and disseminate information to the globe. But it was revolutionary, and forms the fundamentals of mass communication.

Of course, monetisation of the media came when certain publications established themselves as independent voices and observers, it grew into a profession of news collection and sharing, and the journalist was born. Further to that, entertainment, news and other media products were shared on TV, Radio, Print, and now, the Internet.

Traditionally, media channels main revenue streams are from advertisers, who spend to buy a media spot that reaches their target audience. They have never owned that platform, perhaps in the interest of cost and keeping the ideal of the Fourth Estate in effect (arguable).

And then more and more media popped up. In retrospect, this could have been a bubble. Consumers fed media consumption, and advertisers responded and fed the media. It was a three way relationship, and it was good. (and may I add, somewhat obese)


The bubble bursts
Analog gave way to digital. In a nutshell, the dam of information broke and consumers were no longer bound by physical geographies. We could access information anytime, anywhere, and best of all, for free. Emails, blogs and Twitter all aided in the dissemination of information, but they aren’t to blame for the machine breaking.

Simply, the nature of digital information was a pandora’s box they turned the tripartite relationship on its head.

The first casualty is of course traditional media channels. The very product that they produce was being given away for free. They’ve never had more readers, but 20% of their revenue stream (Subscribers) basically went down the toilet. But it’s the lack of advertising that will definitely land the final blow.

As advertising spend declines, more media outlets will die off around us.

And the third casualty will of course be us, the consumer, because when established news organisations don’t exist, who verifies and publishes your news to exist? Can we really, live on blogs and tweets? A look at Digg or Ping.SG reveals just the sort of news that makes user-aggregated communities. Editor-aggregated communities on the other hand, produce The Huffington Post and Tomorrow.SG

The death of a democratic media, sounds the death knoll of democracy itself.

Solutions (Closed Beta)
If you’re still with me, we can finally start talking about possible solutions. Much of the Open Room discussion culminated in, perhaps traditional and social media can work together. I think there’s some truth in there.

There are strengths and weakness for both traditional and social media. The future media organisation, leverages on the strengths of each. These are my observations:

Traditional Media
Professionalism: Ethics will come into play here as well. But, as much as journalists do it out of passion, I dare say the main unspoken motivation is professionalism. Produce quality, verified media on time. 24 hours is perhaps the bare minimum after a story breaks, but quality accurate reporting to be verified and disseminated.

Accountability: Media owners need a license to publish, and thus operate their business. They have to be accurate, and cannot publish rumours, or they will be held to task. (eg. publishing insider trading, unverified hear-say that slanders an individual.) If the media is still in business, the news will be delivered on schedule. That is quality worth paying for (both monetarily and our attentions.)

This whole “Twitter News Network” almost sickens me, but it makes are loud cry for getting those journalists on the ground, and giving us reports, holding the powers that be to task. The forth estate in action, but it’s expensive, and with a 24 hour turnaround time, this is perhaps the new standard.

Social Media
Speed: I’m really talking about the pulse. Physically, journalists are constrained by only being able to be one person, and being at one place at one time. A network of global correspondents is effective, but challenging to maintain. However, now that we can publish anytime, and anywhere, we’re something like correspondents, and at various times, capable of making very newsworthy stories.

Conversations: This is something traditional media doesn’t do very well. Perhaps it’s to remain objective, but I doubt that’s the case because we have many journalists who ARE social media advocates. But it’s in conversations that we find the value of perpetual data, viral stories, candor and to some level, authenticity.

Solutions (Open Beta)
The strengths of both Traditional and Social media, complement each other where each has failed. There’s no reason why the two shouldn’t exist, not just as a hybrid model, but as a more closely knit “media ecosystem”. I definitely view social media publishing as equatable to any media channel (some even better), and that all of us are able to add to the media, as much as subtract.

Further to that, I’d like to see traditional media sources putting timely and accurate information out for free, but putting a premium on quality content, research reports, engaging with the social media, leveraging on the pulse of non-professional journalists, and even raising the quality of social media. If brands have to build relationships with their consumers, then perhaps so should media organisations.

Case Study: Monocle
Monocle just does things differently, and has three identifiable strengths: putting a premium on their content, building a strong brand, diversification.

1. Premium Content: Started in February 2007 by Canadian journalist and entrepreneur, Tyler Brûlé, they publish 10 issues a year and distributes to 50 countries worldwide. However, the monthly gap between each issue is premium journalism, feature stories on real politicians, industry movers and shakers, and even combines a strong cultural, art and design focus for those of us with a more cosmopolitan / global outlook.

The interesting bit is their subscription model. Only print subscribers get access to their online archives and some enhanced web content. If not, most of their articles remain as print stories. Detractors may say that’s proud, and that information should be free, but I see that as taken pride in their craft, and giving quality to those who see value in paying for quality.

However, they balance their online presence very well, by sharing RSS feeds of their audio and video podcasts, some produced in collaboration with brands and government bodies. Some might be advertorials (revenue stream), some are sponsored by brands (revenue). Add that they use their own media player that doesn’t allowing embedding, owning the content and visitor equity to

2. Branding: Premium content for subscribers, and even non subscribers (eg. me – i buy magazine, but still have access to some of the web content) has built a relationship with me as a reader. It’s easily the smartest thing I read on a regular basis. And while I’m my own story, I’m impressed that I’ve formed a relationship with a media product and brand. They have my attention, and respect me enough to suggest various forms of advertising and advertorials without influencing me that I need to own these products and services. The tone of their content, suits the brand image they wanfit to exude.

3. Diversity: As a print magazine, they didn’t just stop at a working web model, but also branched out toward collaborations with designers to create Monocle merchandise, and finally have three shops around the globe. Also, they work by correspondents more than journalists, attracting the best in each city to create a network of news gathering deep in each industry that the monthly reports are so timely, there’s no need for a 24 hour turnaround. (context: based on what they do and want to achieve)

Their editor in chief himself writes a monthly column with the Financial Times, that can be loosely translated as a personal blog and keeps the magazine / brand current with the world and social media.

In my observation, this media channel has taken the first steps into the future as a bureau. It extends far beyond what any media channel calls itself, and uses the strengths of the Internet the connects the world, while still selling a quality service and product.

For more conversations around this topic, check this link


Filed under: media, , , , , ,

Live from Barcamp: How to bluff your way through an interview on Information Architecture

By: Coleman Yee, Room 3, 02:00PM

Why does anyone need an information architect?

Ans: The basic goal is to make a website user friendly. Make information easy to find.

Going further, it’s easier to build small houses than large complexes with plenty of rooms, wiring, pipes, etc… It’s the same with information architecture. How do you design a system that stores and retrieves information that saves you time and money?

2:15 Coleman just shared as a good example. Do we go to Amazon to get something we have in mind, or do we go in there knowing already what we want? Amazon knows this.

2:17 The information architect can present information that’s drawn from previous databases, studying trends, and present that relevant information to a relevant customer. It automates the “recommendation” function you might find from a store helper, much like and although these examples are more closer to the semantic web.

2:20 Coleman asks, How would you go about redesigning your website?
– There’s context. What is the goal of the website? Usually the goal of the company. Look into the company’s stakeholder interviews to find out what a company’s key messages and positions are with regards to their stakeholders.

– Beyond strategic direction comes content. Current content on a current website is probably not enough. You need to conduct a content audit / inventory

– Next comes the users. Who are the people using the website? You can conduct Surveys, Focus groups, Interviews and Observations. (I wished he could expand more about this, but he’s moved on to another example now.)

2:26 Coleman cites an example of ship captains who use the Internet via satallite and need information that is not data packet heavy. IA helps tackle such requirements.

2:27 Design. – Hierachal? The information architect has to come up with a reorganisation of the content database that increases productivity and user experience.

Wireframes – No design element. Shows text layout, functionality.. it kinda looks like a black and white skeleton of how your website would look without skin.

2:32 So, like a real life architect, the information architect comes up with the blueprint, and a contractor helps build the site, designers can help skin it.

2:34 Coleman has a sense of satisfaction when people tell him when a site is user friendly. Awwwww… Group HUG! (courtesy of iantimothy)

That’s it! From the people next to me. “That’s the most educational talk i’ve heard at Barcamp.” “IA is awesome!”

Filed under: technology

Who is killing our newspapers?

Let’s get one thing straight first: in order for an ideal democratic society to exist, we require a reliable and independent media reporting objectively on public events that help a society’s stakeholders make their own informed choices (represented by their elected government.)

“The media, however, contribute also in positive ways to the functioning of politics and public life. The media provide the setting or stage on which public life is played out, (emphasis: my own) and they continue to provide the scrutiny and critique of the players in public life that is central to the democratic process.” (Craig, G. 2004, The Media, Politics and Public Life, Allen & Unwin, pp.22 – 23)

Yes, i’m quoting from an actual book source and not a hyperlink to a recently published blog. I think this demonstrates the weight of an accredited publishing source, and not just a whim. (ironic though, that i choose a digital and free medium to publish my own thoughts.)

But regardless of the benign point I’m trying to make of which medium deserves our due attention, i hope to set the stage for a concern far more pressing, and that is the implied death of democracy that comes with the death of journalism.

And with the slow decline of the print medium, is a generation of good journalism going to die away with it? It’s under this question that I hope to frame my concerns and make some sense of what is happening around us today.

it’s disheartening when you read an article like this, and realise that a lot of good journalists are being retrenched because advertising rates are falling and newspapers cannot support their organisational structure anymore.

as consumers, i don’t think we really think much about the state of journalism.. but i’m here to make a case that journalism is a valued profession in any society. democratic at least. without good quality journalism, we can only rely on ourselves to mediate the events happening around us.

like how we’ve been praising new media for highlighting the issues that really matter on the ground, that’s what good journalism did before web2.0

but somewhere along the lines, journalism, with print, tv and radio all became bloated and i think many media companies lost the plot as they realised that mass communication went hand in hand with mass consumption. in some sense, as a society, we consumed media at an alarming rate, and that gave rise to inflated budgets, ideas and egos..

what we have today, is the mob (us) turning our backs on journalism as we find free sources of news. it’s a similar thing that happened with the record industry.. but somehow i don’t feel that bad about losing redundant label executives.

but tell me that i’m losing good journalists, and i sit up to take notice.

a vast majority of us might not care about good journalism, like some of us do not care about good music. and that scares me.. or at least makes me wonder what this future’s going to be like.

a possible future
1. journalists have to diversify in skill sets. it’s no longer enough to just be able to write, you have to start being a adept photographer, podcaster, videographer and technologist. why do i say that?

because one of a journalists’ job is to capture the spirit of the times. and sadly, you can’t just do that with words alone. if the standard of journalism is to rise above citizen journalism, to produce content that not any man on the street can recreate, the professional journalist has to function under such conditions.

2. newspapers will have smaller readerships, multiple services, stronger brand presence and perhaps independent.
Almost everything that afflicts the media today is a bloated industry, that has flourished in terms of content because of the investment. But as free content continues to take centerstage, quality content suffers.

media outlets have to regroup, reorganise and deploy resources where they matter the most. such actions will need to address the fragmenting audience that plagues every media channel because ultimately, that leads to advertising rates.

by diversifying, ad revenue can be collected from multiple sources, and also, while an audience is fragmented, they are still considered part of a larger collective that give their attention to a media channel.

ie. each channel gets less revenue, but multiple sources pay the bills. it’s only a modified revenue model.. but if you made money from TV, Radio, Web & Print.. it might change things.

This is by no means exhaustive, and I do appreciate if you can share your thoughts as well.

Filed under: media, , , , ,

Mass Effect: New Media Lemmings?

While watching Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig, I came across this dialogue in Episode 24 between Motoko Kusanagi and Kuze, where Kuze explains the manipulation of the masses due to the prevalence of information via the Internet. In it, he explains in rather far fetched terms, how he intends to save them all from such a demise by fully merging with the Net.

This notion of manipulation due to a lack of media and technological literacy is also perpetuated by Cass Sunstein’s analysis of the so-called “free net” in this article: “The Internet is Making Us Stupid

While Kuze’s solution is closer to the realm of science fiction, I do think he raises valid points about how most of us are using the Internet and Technology today. In no uncertain terms, everything is a large goop of grey with no real opinions, apart from those whom we follow.

To be literate, is to understand what is happening around us, and having an opinion so that we can continue to make sense of this world that we live in. But information has changed from a prized resource into a cheapened commodity. Sure there is wisdom of the crowds, but in some aspects, we’re also facing mob mentality without really understanding why.

I suppose that’s what gotten Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) going apeshit over the reactions of netizens, professing disdain at our apparent lack of self-regulation.

But he does not understand that changes do not happen overnight. People conveying different thinking on the Net should not mean that we are lawless citizens, but the Singapore Government should re-look at how some of its policies really aren’t that popular or even beneficial to Singapore’s citizens. If anything, they should be glad that feedback is actually given and that they do not have a colony of lemmings. Oh wait, maybe that’s why they aren’t glad.

But as you will see from the dialogue below, if the masses begin to dig past the surface of information, and make meaning of the information they consume, interpret it in such a way that adds value to our cultures and societies, information will not be cheapened, and a much higher calling becomes clearer. For now, information is merely passed from contact to contact, but how does that affect us if we don’t start thinking for ourselves?

Motoko Kusanagi, Kuze

Motoko Kusanagi, Kuze

Kuze: “I went on a journey, just because I wanted time to reaffirm my motives, and to see whether I could execute the revolution or liberation that I had envisioned.”

Motoko: “What is this revolution you speak of?”

Kuze: “The transfer of people to a higher structure. What this means is that people should discard their rigid system, and unite with the Net.”

Motoko: “Unite with the Net?”

Kuze: “Due to the incident on the Peninsula, I began to look at life philosophically. I found a paradoxical order, exploitation by the strong, and corrupt structure. What disappointed me the most, however, was the irresponsibility. The masses didn’t try to create anything on their own, and don’t understand anything. And yet, if they find information convenient for themselves, they rush to ingest it, and are therefore manipulated. Without motives, they consume the infrastructure called the Net. Their actions may bring unintended results, but they feel no responsibility whatsoever. My revolution is also an act of revenge against such people.”

Motoko: “Revenge?”

Kuze: “I’ve always felt a disparity between my body and my mind because I’ve been a full cyborg since childhood. I’ve always wanted to discard this inconvenient body if I could and set sail for the sea of the Net. The Asian refugees gave me a reason to live. They said that my manmade face was a very good face and flattered me by saying my Ghost is expressed within it. I then realised, for the first time… that the body and the mind may be invisible, and I was able to think of myself as a human being with a physical body. However, even those people went in the direction of convenience once they encountered palatable information. It seems human beings were created to descend to lower heights from the very beginning.”

Motoko: “So how do you propose to enact your revenge?”

Kuze: “I will take the memories and ghosts of those who are connected to me away into the Net. If a nuclear bomb is dropped here, they will lose their physical bodies, but they will obtain a chance to force and evolution.”

Motoko: “What is the possibility that they can retain their individuality on the Net?”

Kuze: “That I don’t know. But as pioneers, they can become entities that enlighten those who remained in the lower structure and make them continually aware of the higher structure. In the same way man felt respect and terror toward spiritual entities in antiquity.”

Motoko: “So that’s your revenge and salvation for the ones who disappointed you.”

Kuze: “Yes, though I believe it to be a revolution.”

Filed under: culture, , , , , , ,

Singapore, I live in a great city.

i have a strange relationship with my country, Singapore. On one hand, i’m disheartened by the stories i read on STOMP, and on the other, there really is no place like this.

And then you read magazines like Monocle, who’ve created a one page city guide of how awesome Singapore is as a business city.

And yet, you read all the things that are wrong about Singapore, the control, the low pays, the way we just accept what our governments do and how apathetic we are that we cannot change anything.

Actually, there is as much discontent as there are about things that make Singapore a great city to live in. But I’m going to turn this one on it’s head by saying that we should change ourselves first as individuals rather than wait for circumstances.

Singapore should not be a great place because it’s got Sentosa, and upcoming integrated resort, a Singapore Flyer, and Esplanade, a small but thriving music scene, AWESOME food, nooks and crannies like Haji Lane, or the list that Monocle provided us.

It shouldn’t be a bad place because of the powers that be, the ERP we have to pay, the high cost of living, the strange employment regulations, or even the grueling and unforgiving education system we go through.

I think the intrinsic happiness and contentment comes from within ourselves. Regardless of social status, or academia, or material possessions, i think Singapore would be a great city if we were just genuinely nicer to each other. both locals and foreigners. if we had more community spirit and didn’t just look out for our own interests.


do you see what i’m driving at? money doesn’t buy happiness.. there are people who live in Nepal who lead simple lives, but yet.. they’re there for each other, they have REAL friendships and despite physical hardship.. they have something I envy.. a genuine smile from a stranger.. something that makes it seem that we aren’t alone in this world.

I hope as Singaporeans, we can be there for each other, we can be there for the rest of the world.. that Singapore as nation can smile to her children, and to the children in other parts of the world. And then not just this country, but this world won’t be such a lonely and unforgiving place.

We’re the same, can’t you see?

Filed under: culture, , , , , ,

Whose side are you on?

One day ago, TODAY newspaper announced the formation of The Association of Bloggers (Singapore). I’d actually been told of such an association forming before they went public yesterday, and when i was told then, i immediately drew a parallel to the Marvel story arc: Civil War

The parallel is startling because of my fascination with the themes associated with “the responsibilities of those in power.” I’m somewhat convinced that there are those of us online who believe that there is power in the words we type, the causes we support, the unity of our actions. Of course there are also online citizens who would very much like to be left alone, or don’t see themselves with that sort of responsibility. More power to them.. this blog post isn’t about telling you what’s right or wrong. You make that choice yourself.

Without going into vendettas that seem to be plaguing most of the online discussion over the formation of this group, I personally would not join the association. On the grounds that I am a free-thinking individual and I owe no specific allegiance to anyone. That is the beauty of blogging and exercising our right to freedom of speech. This sentiment is also voiced by one of The Association’s members, Xtralicious.

I do applaud the association for championing “more professionalism in blogging”, because I think that blogging has the potential to make things happen, and if you find a group of like-minded individuals, more power to you. And although that is in alignment with some of my own ideals, i realise my interest is not so much in being an activist, but more an observer, to even offer third party opinions.. or practicing the journalistic ideal of the 4th estate.

Again, I do not see the need to pay a membership fee to join the association simply because i do not want to join the association. I’m definitely not a “professional” blogger (whatever that is), I’m simply a blogger who’s sharing his opinion. I applaud professional behavior such as being civil, ethical and checking of facts.. but i don’t think “professional” blogging is an occupation that requires a membership to an association. What pre-requisites does one need to join the association? It’s not like a medical, accounting or law associations where you need certain credentials. And if all you need is “to be a blogger”, then that’s hardly a criteria.. and you can see where this circular argument is going.

One final concern I have about this action, is that after 24 hours, you can see the effects of splintering. There are those who support the formation of the association, and there are those who are vehemently opposed to it. Bloggers seem to be starting to take sides and there has also been a revisitation of old wounds, unaddressed issues, bloggers calling out for the motivations of starting the association, personal attacks, boycotts.. it’s a little tragic I believe, the symptoms of a civil war.

I doubt it will escalate to that, but it seems that some prominent Singapore bloggers are against the idea. Naturally, they also maintain an anonymous presence on the web. [Links: Rockson, Singabloodypore]

Anonymity plays an important role in exercising some level of freedom of speech. It allows you to say what’s really on your mind without the ramifications of personal attacks, political attacks, things that could harm your reputation offline. In an ideal democracy, I’d say there’s little need for such anonymity, but I don’t think that exists anywhere in the world today. On the flipside, many abuse anonymity and undermine the efforts of various organisations unnecessarily. This is where something like the association would come in handy.

But I don’t think the Internet will ever be a place of registered and unregistered bloggers. If it does, I’m inclined to think that some form of personal freedom is taken away. While i choose to reveal my own identity public, I never expect it of everybody. That is your own choice.

It is with this regard to freedom of choice, and freedom of expression that I find I would rather not join the association. My validation as a blogger comes through my own integrity and my audience. Not necessarily through an external body. It works for me, but YOU will definitely have your own opinion.

If you want to find out what works for you, I urge you to make your own decision and be true to yourself in your own blogging endeavors.

Insert 21 January 2009, 10:29 AM: After reading the comments, I realise I made a poor job articulating that I don’t see this as a black or white issue, and that I’d hate to see us having to take sides. There is a massive clout of grey in this discussion, and I believe most of us exist in the “grey” paradigm. There is no need to call for boycotts or call each other un-patriots. The Net exists as an ecosystem of free thought, some unsavory, some enlightening. Just thought I would make that clearer -)

Filed under: affairs, , , , , , , , ,

Two essential skills for better social media

If you’ve ever been interested in social media, i’m sure you would have come across guide after guide of exhaustive lists of what tools you should try, what tactics you can use to make your content more sharable, or perhaps even how to write better content.

that’s all well and good, but if you’re feeling swamped, i encourage you to go one step further back, and that’s to know what works for you, and how you want to address those issues.

so what i’m talking about is essentially media literacy and better communications.

media literacy
if you can read and write, i’d say you’re literate, and you’ve been the product of your education system. but media literacy, that’s the ability to make sense of the changes around you, the trends around you so that you do not get caught in an echo chamber.

increasingly, with all this talk about social media, best practices, tips and strategies, and basically everyone else banking in on the brilliant concept of “social media”, i’m afraid we’re being caught in an echo chamber. where it’s only media practitioners raving about social media with other practitioners. basically just jumping onto the bandwagon.

does a video you saw on the Internet mean it’s real? what if it’s been planted by a PR or Advertising agency? and even if it has been, does it really matter?

i work in public relations, and online conversations are one of the most exciting aspects of real communications. it helps when i know where the video came from, and what the agenda of the video is. then it allows me to interact in a purer form.

i’d say, being media literate, is to know the agenda, intents and purposes of the source of communications.

i think that’s what’s missing in our interactions with the media.. that’s why we become skeptical of corporations.. and instead of digging deeper into the truth, we usually just take it at face value.

it’s easy to type without thinking, but understanding the power of our words, the channels and tools at our disposal is essential to being better media practitioners. and in today’s day and age, we’re all media practitioners. so what separates the good ones from the bad ones?

it’s very easy to ramble on a blog, and there are little checks to do quality control on the message we’re trying to get across.

if you’ve become a blogger or netizen that wants to contribute fairly and positively to the Net, then we have to become better communicators.

i believe it comes down to better communications.

say only what you need to say, and get to the point.

i love writing, and i love reading.. and i think the above statement is somewhat subjective. but without the need for guidelines or rules, let’s bank on our commonsense to communicate in a manner that addresses the issues we blog about.

let’s censor out all those personal prejudices and attacks that make for good drama, but ultimately loses the plot when we’re trying to make a point.

the desire to reduce bad content on the net begins with ourselves. we’re all flawed and not perfect. let’s look at ourselves first before pointing the finger at someone else. let’s listen to what’s really being said before we craft our response. let’s communicate with as little assumptions as possible.. and then we can get onto the things that matter.

Filed under: media, , , ,

2009: why start a new blog of all things?

welcome to the brand new singularity industries. with more and more blogs being started everyday, why would i add one more? how is one more blog going to make a difference or be heard amongst the hundreds of millions of other blogs out there?

you know what? i don’t care.

i don’t care if this gets read or not, whether i’m a digital influencer or not. that’s the beauty of blogging, i have the power to publish, and if an audience finds this a worthwhile blog, then great.. we share a relationship of audience and publisher. but my advice to anyone out there reading this is that, no one can take away your power of personal publishing, only you yourself can kill your own blog. kill your own voice.

it’s not that i don’t care about the audience. i think having an audience is great, because we can discuss ideas through a two way channel. but if i were to visualise a sphere of influence for this blog’s audience, it would be myself at the center. individually, we are always the primary audience if we are to maintain our integrity and unique voice.

it’s that same uniqueness that i believe we loved reading blogs in the first place. but more on that next time.

so why did i start a new blog? i could have done it on harmless? bananas!, but i always felt schizophrenia.. like some of the new ideas i developed didn’t seem to find it’s place on the other blog. in a sense, ideas would get diluted because of the myriad of other blog posts, sometimes not meaning anything at all, just self expression.

it’s also because i can experiment with this medium, that i did. instead of keeping all my content centralised, i’m decentralising it and letting the conversation flow wherever it takes me.

and that’s finally why i’m doing this. to make sense of all the noise that exists on the net. while our perception of noise is subjective.. i’d like to remain idealistic that i can be a signal to some. and because i care about my world, i’d like to publish what i think is responsible social content to see if there are like-minded people out there in the world, who are interested to make sense of all the signals and noise that exists in our increasingly mediated world today.

Filed under: media