Skip to main content

Reducing Importance of Print Media, PAP turns to Social Media for a bigger catch.

gear shifting.jpg


    We need to see the recent events in print media as a total package. Singapore Press Holdings, Mediacorp and the People’s Action Party are three in one. When there are changes, we cannot view them as business decisions. These are propaganda shift and the new strategy is to occupy and control the social media.     

    It is easy to make SPH profitable by just given them a piece of good land or good deal. It is even easier to make Mediacorp cash rich by just providing more funds in the Budget.  

    However, the PAP has to consider the return on investment. The same money spent on print media can also be spent in social media, even with a lower budget. But the print media has reached its peak while social media has greater and faster influence with less demanding quality control.

Some of the retrenched journalists can be sponsored into social media activities. Just take 20% or 30% of the cost saving in SPH and Today and invest in social media, the impact will be bigger than continuing their employment. These social media sites can be a one-man show or a group of individuals and work alongside with the 50 Cent Party.  

This is a strategy shift, from a once successful propaganda print media to possible Fake News makers.      

    Print media always claim they have quality control, especially the Straits Times. They are proud of themselves but to the PAP, they are just tools. However, we have to admit from time to time they do provide useful information. They can write their reports 20% right 80% misleading; 80% good news 20% bad news; good news first bad news last. You can see these examples in their MRT reports or parliament reports or poverty/inequality level.

    However, for social media reporting, Fake news reporting can totally on the 80% misleading, ignores the 80% bad news and only report on good news. The public, without further check and consideration, will believe all the PAP good news. Alternatively, they can also concentrate reporting on bad news about the oppositions. The easier one is suspected sex affairs, suspected corruption, suspected mismanagement of town councils.   

    The PAP’s strategy is actively moving into social media which with careful observations, you can see they already achieved some successes.   

    This is why even making profit, SPH still wants to fire journalists. Having easy money from the government, Today still wants to go digital without print version.

    The PAP does do their homework. They consider tradeoff and cost-benefit analysis. Today’s last day of print is the last day of September. Why? It can still be useful if there is no walkover in PE2017.   

    From the strategic point of the PAP or Lee Hsien Loong, print media carries negative return or less importance as compared to the past.  They have less influence over the younger generation.

    The same money can be best spent on sponsoring social media in Singapore. These sponsored sites not only can attract younger voters, they can also create fake news as independent news to either confuse the public or create the image of open society. Of course, with the standard decline of our foreign and diplomatic judgement, we certainly need more foreign correspondents to have more foreign feedback.

If you look at SPH as a part of the PAP government machinery, it is better to refocus efforts on productive areas. Print media has lost its usefulness, except perhaps, for the older generation.  For example, there is no intention to close down or merge the two evening Chinese papers.

The treatment of retrenched journalists is less important. The PAP government, since the day of Lee Kuan Yew, has only considered them as a political tool. The PAP can turn them left, right or center as their wish. And, Singapore journalists never say NO.

Being a tool, you have no control over yourself. You have to accept the treatments the Master gives them to you.  

Journalism in Singapore is a job, an occupation not a duty. Like what the PAP is promoting, you can be rich in every field, provided you do your job right - right politics, right economics.   

### How news has changed.

 copyright: coursera@Michigan

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...