Define Your Identity

How does one define their identity? Is it by the way they choose to portray themselves, their cultural associations or their personality?

There are various definitions of the term identity. In the case of a popular Internet guide, The Free Online Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identity), there are six. They are:

“1. The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known

2. The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.

3. The quality or condition of being the same as something else.

4. The distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality.

5. Information, such as an identification number, used to establish or prove a person’s individuality, as in providing access to a credit account.

6. Mathematics

a. An equation that is satisfied by any number that replaces the letter for which the equation is defined.

b. Identity element.” 

In our project we will be looking at the first four points and how they are depicted by users based on their use of the popular social networking website, STOMP.

Amongst its numerous other features, the Singapore Seen feature, STOMP’s citizen journalism portal is the key text that we will be looking at.

STOMP’s Singapore Seen allows users to post their views, new stories and comments with the safety of an online persona. The user can choose whoever they want to be. This theory of the online persona has been discussed numerous times as trend that allows youths to express themselves.

Their contributions are also always valued, regardless of its newsworthiness or relevance as long as the editors do not see it as offensive. This gives the users a heightened sense of importance and therefore raises the need to be responsible for their posts.

The availability of a citizen journalism portal adds on to this as users feel that their contributions matter to the general public and they are carrying out a form of public service by posting news on STOMP. By tracking the response or comments to their news articles, users can judge how well accepted they are by the public.

And the beauty of this is that anyone can do it. There are no barriers to entry or requirements. It’s like a club for anyone and everyone and you can do anything you want.

This role in society that STOMP takes on is that of a public sphere, where one can express him/herself and feel a sense of belonging to a community that is as vast as the entire country. This is the perfect ground for one to try and establish who they are and whether their views matter to anyone else; a necessity for most youths today.

Youths are constantly looking to blend in with the ‘cool’ crowd (whatever their definition of cool may be) and at the same time create a spot for themselves in the world as an individual. They are often hampered by the fear of rejection and/or embarrassment. One would only have to view the auditions for Singapore or American Idol to prove this theory right.

STOMP is perfect because it allows the user to accomplish so much with the safety net of an online persona. In the world today, the internet is ‘King’ and STOMP has successfully used it to provide locals with something more than just a social networking site.

References:

The Free Online Dictionary, 2010. Identity. The Free Online Dictionary, accessed 25 November 2010, available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identity

Tabloid Central

What exactly is a tabloid?

The term tabloid was initially coined by a pharmaceutical company in London called Burroughs Wellcome & Co. They were manufacturing compressed tablets and therefore started calling them ‘tabloid pills’.

The term then led to the birth of the tabloid newspaper which was more or less a compressed newspaper that was simplified and easy to read.

“A tabloid is often a weekly or semi-weekly alternative newspaper that focuses on local interest stories and entertainment, sometimes distributed free of charge, or a newspaper that tends to emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sport stars, and other so-called “junk food news”.” (Chorazak, 2010)

Several theorists and experienced journalist have criticized tabloid news papers for sensationalizing stories and lowering the quality of news. This does not just apply to the traditional news paper but to all other mediums as well. There are various books written discussing the tabloid news culture and its effects on news readers.

Tabloid news is very popular. Everyone wants to hear about the latest scandal, conspiracy theory or ogle at paparazzi photos of famous people.

“As people always had been fascinated by death, adversity and tragedy, tabloid journalism has never stopped progressing. Sensationalism attracts an audience, and because media profits are based on large audiences, it has become a foundation of the commercial media: thrills build big profits.” (Chorazak, 2010)

Another point o view is that there is a “need to make distinctions between high and low culture has occupied for as long as we have recognized that phenomenon we call “culture”. Journalism is no exception to this rule.” (Sparks and Tulloch, 2000)

Let’s look at the local English newspapers. We have the Straits Times and the Business times, both traditional newspapers that are very credible. Then we have the Today paper, The New Paper and MyPaper. These 3 seem to follow the format of tabloid newspapers but the content does not necessarily correspond. Readers get a compressed and easier to read paper but they seldom get sensationalized or scandalous news unless it has already been confirmed. Whereas in the United States, readers are exposed to all sorts of tabloid newspapers that discuss anything and everything under the sun.

Local readers are not really exposed to the kind of tabloid news that is available in other countries. Could this be the reason for the saturation on trivial “junk food news” we see in STOMP? As a citizen journalism portal, users can post whatever they want or whatever they believe people will read. A rise of tabloid-like news could possibly mean that Singaporeans are to a certain extent deprived of tabloids. Or maybe the issue at hand is something else completely.

References:

Chorazak E. (2010), A Brief History of Tabloid Journalism, Helium Inc, accessed 05 December 2010, available at http://www.helium.com/items/1362082-brief-history-of-tabloid-journalism

Sparks C. & Tulloch J. (2000), Tabloid Tales: Global Debates over Media Standard, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Reasons behind the success of STOMP

The award-winning STOMP is Asia’s leading citizen-journalism website with user-generated material fuelling its success. It is successful in its own unique way via social networking, enabling thousands to come together to interact and bond both online and offline in Singapore Seen. STOMP connects, engages and interacts with Singaporeans in a style, an approach that is different from conventional news websites. The strong growth reflects not only its popularity but its resonance with Singaporeans. The STOMP application empowers everyone, the citizen journalists on the go, and contributes stories, videos, photos and views with simply just a few clicks away.

1) High Accessibility STOMP brunches out its accessibility on iPHONE application, making it even easier and convenient for STOMPers to contribute, snap photos/ videos, read and comment. STOMPers can now post their comments or contribute photos/ videos instantly via this iPHONE application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Wide Range of Contents/ Sections within STOMP Within Singapore Seen alone, there are thousands of news available to read and comment about. Be it news contributed by STOMPers or news reported by full-time STOMP journalists. Various sections are available within STOMP, for instance discussion forums like ‘Just Talk Lah’, ‘Talk Back’ and many others, attract all kinds of readers and will never be out of pages to read about.

3) Low Restrictions As long as the contents are within the usual legal perimeters (e.g. usage of vulgarities, sensitivity on political issues, racial issues and etc), STOMP values all sorts of contents and comments.

With the above mentioned qualities within STOMP, it allows us to understand further how STOMP and its today’s success came about. The strengths of STOMP has shaped itself in a uniquely ‘Singaporean’ way, which no other citizen journalism sites could easily be adapted.

Civic Engagement on STOMP

After exploring how STOMP is shaping to be the new public sphere, perhaps even being the most successful platform in encouraging Singapore youths to express their opinions and ideas to date, let’s look at how STOMP has propelled civic engagement amongst the same group.

Civic Engagement can be understood to be “a process, not an event, that closely involves people in the economic, social, cultural and political processes that affect their lives.” (UNDP 1993; cited in Malik, Wagle 2002) The scope of this term is best understood on a continuum spanning information-sharing to empowerment. (Malik, Wagle 2002)

Humanistic psychologist, Abraham Maslow, believes that people are motivated by the urge to satisfy needs, from basic survival to self-fulfillment. In Amy Jo Kim’s Community Building on the Web, she uses Maslow’s Hierachy of Needs to illustrate the goals and needs of online community participants (Bowman & Willis, 2003).

• Physiological: food, clothing, shelter, health (translate it to online communities = system access; the ability to own & maintain one’s identity while participating in a Web community)
• Security & Safety: protection from crimes and war, the sense of living in a fair and just society (translate it to online communities = protection from hacking and personal attacks; the sense of having a “level playing field”; ability to maintain varying levels of privacy
• Social: the ability to give and receive love; the feeling of belonging to a group (translate it to online communities = belonging to the community as a whole, and to subgroups within the community)
• Self-Esteem: self-respect; the ability to earn the respect of others and contribute to society (translate it to online communities = the ability to contribute to the community, and be recognized for those contributions)
• Self-Actualization: the ability to develop skills and fulfill one’s potential (translate it to online communities = the ability to take on a community role that develops skills and opens up new opportunities)

STOMP seems to be able to motivate STOMPers to participate actively with the potential of fulfilling most of the needs in the checklist above. Interestingly, it is STOMPers’ need for self-esteem that propels them to promulgate their ability to contribute to the STOMP community in a bid to gain respect and recognition for their efforts (Bowman & Willis, 2003).

News headlines shouting out tabloid-worthy attention such as Couple behaves intimately on MRT: Guy even licks GF’s hand, Road rage: Aggressive tattooed man threatens driver with bat are attention seeking stories that always manage to generate ‘heated’/emotional thoughts, seen through the number of views and comments left behind by other passive or active STOMPers alike.

Again this brings us back the debate of “quality”. In this instance, “quality” of civic discussion content. Like most concepts, the concept of what civic engagement should be about, should lead to, began with works by ‘purist academics’. Hence the social issues in contention, observed in STOMP will once again draw disapproving looks from these critics.

After all, civic engagement is part of the construct of citizenship and the prevailing view of good citizenship holds that people should be actively involved in politics, they should be knowledgeable etc. (Theiss-Morse, Hibbing; 2005) Therefore in re-examining STOMP, it does not seem to display any of the identified, important values.

Rather it gives one the impression that these “trivial” matters seem to be of great national concern to its citizens as compared to information like the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) Index, inflation rate, latest political parties campaigning for the next general elections.

But civic engagement also encompasses the discussion of social issues. The social issues highlighted on STOMP cannot be simply ignored just because they don’t measure up to expectations. As i have been reiterating throughout most of my blog entries, instead of being fixated and quick to bring down the deemed ‘unworthy’, ‘not valuable’, look at them as a start to something good.

The fact that we are looking at a substantial level of participation, Singapore youths airing their opinions about ‘societal problems’ on STOMP goes to show that there is a potential for greater, better civic engagement in the near future.

STOMP deserves the credit/recognition in providing the communicative space that encourages civic engagement. Though the importance of topics in discussion are still highly debated, one must still recognise that STOMP was constructed to encourage participation, and has achieved that, no matter how ‘trivial’ such participation’s deemed to be.

 

References:

Bowman, S., & Willis, C. (2003) We media. How audiences shape the future of news and information. Reston: The Media Center at the American Press Institute, [Accessed 19 November 2010],

Malik, Khalid. & Wagle, Swarnim. (2002) Civic Engagement and Development: Introducing The Issues, United Nations Development Programme

Thesis-Morse, Elizabeth., Hibbing, John R. (2005) Citizenship And Civic Engagement, Annual Review Political Science 2005.8:227-249, Universit

Web 2.0 – A threat to the Internet?

It has been twenty years since the birth of the Internet in CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) took the world by storm. Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Internet, then had the vision of a “single universal information space” when he first submitted his proposed “World Wide Web” back in 1989. On 25 December 1990, with the help of Robert Cailliau and a young student at CERN, they successfully implemented the first communication between hypertext and the Internet. From then on, there is no looking back.  

Today, the revolution in the Internet consumption is becoming a far cry from Sir Timothy’s vision. As cited in an article in Creamgobal.com, Berners-Lee expressed concern that the way social network sites encourage the compartmentalising of data across the internet in a series of “walled garden” environments. (creamglobal.com, 2010) His beliefs hold true as we witness how these overzealous web application platforms such as Yahoo, Google, Facebook etc, operate in today’s Internet. They garner the users’ data and “owned” the rights to access to this information. Berners-Lee argued that this phenomenon will eventually lead to a fragmented web. In the same light, we can see that these applications are what we would identify as Web 2.0 application.

It is interesting to note that the Father of World Wide Web is frequently caught in the intertwining debates surrounding the term Web 2.0. With relation to my previous post, “Web 2.0 and STOMP”, we can see that when Tim O’Reilly first popularized term Web 2.0 in 2004, Berners-Lee was not very much convinced. But five years on, when he was interviewed in the Web 2.0 Summit 2009, he was convinced that Web 2.0 was indeed indifferent from Web 1.0. And recently in Nov 2010, it seemed that he had swayed back to the negative connotation of Web 2.0, in particularly when he expressed concerns over a social networking website (probably Facebook, I assumed) or one search engine (maybe Google in this case) gets too big that it become a monopoly. Berners-Lee believed that this can be an imminent threat to the usage of Internet in the future.

In our case, would it be of a concern that a Web 2.0 driven application, STOMP, that impressively achieved record breaking hit of 60.8million page views (refer to “STOMP Bonds and Teaches” blog post), be too big one day, that alter and changes the way our new generation Singaporean Youth’s usage of the Internet for information? Certainly not, I hope. But with the capabilities of Web 2.0, it is a possibility.

 

References:

CERN (2008) Welcome to info.cern.ch, CERN 2008 Web Communication, assessed 04 Dec 2010, available at http://info.cern.ch/

ST. Andrew M. (2010) The latest threat to the Internet?, Creamglobal, assessed 01 Dec 2010, available at http://www.creamglobal.com/17799/23627/the-latest-threat-to-the-internet

Berners-Lee T. (2010) Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality, Scientific American, assessed 04 Dec 2010, available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web&page=1

STOMP: A Muse?

Close to two decades into the internet epoch, new media operations – blogs, news aggregators and alternative news media – have flourished. Americans have Drudge Report and Huffington Post, Britons collect insights from Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes, and our neighbours swear by their Malaysiakini.

Singapore, however, has nothing quite like them, up until four years and eight months ago.

In June 2006, STOMP was launched. According to some critics, it is an over-budgeted (SGD$2 million) web portal that prides itself on its journalistic pretensions. On its Singapore Seen page, where its journalism goes, visitors are told:

“You generate the content. You write the reports. You take the photos. You shoot the videos.”

It has been said that STOMP cedes journalistic responsibility to netizens. An amateur, untainted by professional prejudices, can try their hands at deciding what is or isn’t newsworthy, snapping shots to document the event and writing it into a short report. Some traditionalists have argued that these recreational sources do not become journalists because they skip middle man and broadcast their articles directly to the world. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not taking sides here. I am simply opening up a discussion here to share with you some of the on-going controversies, targetted at the platform that is said to promote “citizen journalism”.

It is true that STOMP lacks full autonomy over netizens’ journalistic work. STOMP editorial team still has the final say over every piece of information submitted. 

Academic and former Straits Times journalist Cherian George argues that this process then, is not absolute citizen journalism:

“I don’t consider STOMP to be citizen journalism, because it puts the public on tap, not on top. It merely introduces greater interactivity to traditional journalism. Citizen journalism in the proper sense does its own agenda-setting. Citizen journalists decide what questions need to be asked and what topics to pursue. They don’t just answer questions decided by mainstream editors.”

He went on to explain:

“To me, it is not the source of facts or opinions that distinguishes citizen journalism from the mainstream – just because a story or picture comes from a reader does not make it a piece of citizen journalism. Instead, it boils down to who selects and decides what stories to pursue and publish. Editorial decision making is what separate journalism from gossip. STOMP, like the rest of ST (Straits Times), is edited by professional ST journalists, not ordinary citizens.”

For a former Singapore Press Holdings employee to make a stand like this, it is almost like chopping off the hands that once fed him.

On the other hand, we cannot deny the fact that it only took STOMP four short years to rise to become one of Singapore’s top social networking sites, with over 60 million page views in a month!

Citizen journalism or not, activities within STOMP has definitely become a pop culture amongst youths in our local context.

Web 2.0 and STOMP

In 2004, Tim O’Reilly and MediaLive International launched the Web 2.0 Conference (now known as Web 2.0 Summit) with the intent to restore confidence in an industry that lost its way after the dotcom bust. (O’Reilly & Battelle: 2009) The term, Web 2.0, is closely associated with the usage and function of many web applications in the Internet. This hotly debated term has been contested among many media scholars and theorists that O’Reilly has to define Web 2.0 twice.

In one of O’Reilly’s articles, What Is Web 2.0 ~ Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software (2005), he laid out several points that serve to define what is Web 2.0 and its core competencies. In the first attempt to give a compact definition of Web 2.0, he stated that:

“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.” (O’Reilly: 2005)

A mouthful of words as one would argue. Interestingly, that first attempt continued to receive several comments and suggestions (to better the definition) for the next three years. The term Web 2.0 had since been a fiercely scrutinized subject by many new media and Internet experts. Notably in July 2006, during a podcast interview with IBM, World Wide Web founder – Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, expressed his doubt over the hype of Web 2.0 and fault the term for lacking coherent meaning. He went on to explain why he felt that Web 2.0 is no different from Web 1.0. Coincidentally, in December 2006, O’Reilly attempted a second compact definition of Web 2.0:

“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called “harnessing collective intelligence.”)” (O’Reilly: 2006)

Alas, he nailed it. It seemed that O’Reilly’s second definition has pretty much silenced most critics or became more widely accepted – even Sir Tim Berners-Lee who went for the final interview in the Web 2.0 Summit 2009, had to concede that Web 2.0 is a useful term that has been proven over the last five years. Taking O’Reilly definition in perceptive, I believe our media text for the final research report, STOMP, is a good example of a Web 2.0 application. It is a business revolution by Singapore Press Holding to create a platform (STOMP) based on the set of rules (characteristics of a Web 2.0 application) that exploits social networking capabilities to harness collective intelligence.

Reference:

Anderson N. (2006) Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: “nobody even knows what it means”, Ars technical, assessed 01 Dec 2010, available at http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/09/7650.ars

O’Reilly T. (2005) What is Web 2.0 – Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, O’Reilly, assessed 30 Nov 2010, available at http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

O’Reilly T. (2005) Web 2.0: Compact Definition, assessed 30 Nov 2010, available at http://radar.oreilly.com/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html

O’Reilly T. (2006) Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again, O’Reilly, assessed 30 Nov 2010, available at http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/12/web-20-compact-definition-tryi.html

O’Reilly T. and Battelle J. (2009) Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On, Web 2.0 Summit, assessed 01 Dec 2010, available at http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194

Web 2.0 Summit (2009) A Conversation with Tim Berners-Lee, Web 2.0 Summit, assessed 01 Dec 2010, available at http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/9286

STOMP: The New Public Sphere

As Wikipedia puts it, most contemporary discourses and conceptualizations of the public sphere, are based on the Jürgen Habermas ideas in the book “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society“.

The idea of the public sphere may be conceived as a realm in social life where private people come together as a public to engage in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor. (Habermas, 1989)

With the understanding of how a public sphere should function, here are some of them I have identified, in Singapore:

• the almost defunct Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park

(many still have the impression that a permit must be obtained before ‘demonstrating’ with posters and banners not knowing that since Sep 2008, the management of the Speakers Corner has been handed over from the Singapore Police Force to the National Parks Board, hence many of the restrictions that the area once had, are lifted. see channelnewsasia article: Singaporeans can demonstrate at Speakers’ Corner from Sep 1)

• the online Speakers’ Corner

(one just needs to be a registered user to participate actively, comment and contribute, in the discussion forums. However one can still browse freely, if he (sic) is just interested in observing. Looking at the number of topics generated and the activity on the site, it seems like the online version of the Speakers’ Corner has taken off better than the actual space)

• The Online Citizen

(It is a platform which encourages advocacy journalism, championing causes and values like civic participation, open government and free media, reflecting the views and opinions of ordinary Singaporeans like myself who are concerned about issues that affect us as citizens)

• Comments Section of Internet Newspapers (like The Temasek Review), and/or articles and forum sections of online versions of existing mainstream media (such as TODAY, The Straits Times)

(readers basically comment on what they feel about the articles published, or air their thoughts in these forums. these online versions fulfill more of the criteria of a public sphere as they allow interaction and more discussion space as compared to the print counterpart of the Forum Page)

Does STOMP fit in then? (see: Navigating through STOMP & A Social Media Community in the making?) Can an indigenous social media community be the public sphere, as what Habermas (1974) summarizes in his encyclopedia article, for Singaporeans to engage in debate, conferring in an unrestricted fashion, as how (Habermas, Lennox, Lennox:1974) expressing their opinions about matters of general interest?

I say aye.

Well you might argue otherwise, especially since the quality of news and contributions on STOMP is often highly debated/questioned (see: “News Quality” on STOMP). However, understanding that a public sphere merely provides the conducive space for interaction without the strict enforcement or close scrutiny over the type of topics discussed, the idealist expectation of its activity has to be lowered/readjusted.

Besides Habermas (1996) did go on further, in his later work, to segregate the different levels of the public sphere, according to the density of communication, organizational complexity (Habermas, 1996, cited in Burgess, Foth and Klaebe, 2006) to differentiate the “Hard” and “Soft” subjects as various discourses, and included popular culture and everyday life encounters and connections that are ‘accessible to laypersons‘.

A public sphere’s ‘success’ ultimately thrives on the participation of the citizens. It needs the citizens to come together to discuss about issues, to engage in conversation, even beyond Facebook’s and Twitter’s capabilities. Not that Facebook is incapable of functioning as a communicative space, however its intricate design is such that one mostly only engage discussions with friends within the network and more often than not about private affairs. Whereas Twitter allows one to ‘follow’ and be ‘followed’ by a global audience, from private individuals to public companies, hence reaching out to any stranger with a Twitter account.

Since the term ‘public’ connotes ideas of citizenship, commonality, and all things not private but at the same time accessible and observable by all (Dewey 1972, cited in Papacharissi 2002) Facebook and Twitter therefore would not qualify as the public sphere that we have come to understand.

Hence if we were to analyze STOMP’s interesting structure,

• the fact that the registered users, STOMPers are all private citizens who contribute their news stories, observations (through citizen journalism, as the site promotes itself to be) in a public communicative space
• at the same time have these active participants engage in discussion (through feedback and commentary on articles posted in the more engaging section, Singapore Seen And the actual discussion forum of Talkback and other commentary on other sections of STOMP) on matters of interest

a melting pot of social media networking tools and features and elements of citizen journalism (to encourage interaction and participation from citizens as on the ground/’grassroots’ reporters) STOMP seems to be emerging to be the new public sphere, for Singapore Youths to ‘step out’ and start engaging in matters that concern them.

Even though brought up many times in various debates and discussions over the triviality of subject topics in STOMP by both academics and citizens alike, if a public sphere’s primary objective is to encourage participation from citizens (not judging the content’s quality) wouldn’t STOMP triumph as The New Public Sphere. After all it is by far one of the most accessed and talked about communicative space amongst Singaporeans, especially the youths.

References:

Burgess Jean., Foth Marcus., Klaebe Helen., (2006) Everyday Creativity as Civic Engagement: A Cultural Citizenship View of New Media, in Proceedings Communications Policy & Research Forum, Sydney. Queensland University of Technology, Australia. QUT ePrints. http://eprints.qut.edu.au

Habermas, J. (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere. An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger with F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1962)

Habermas J., Lennox S., Lennox F., (1974) The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964), in New German Critique, No. 3 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 49-55, Duke University Press and JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/487737

Papacharissi, Zizi (2002) The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere, in New Media & Society 2002 4: 9, DOI: 10.11777/1461440222226244, Sage Publications http://nms.sagepub.com/content/4/1/9.refs.html

Participatory Fandom in STOMP

We have learnt that fandom is the social structure and cultural practice created by the most passionately engaged consumers of mass media properties. Combining this concept with participatory culture, it becomes a group of zealous followers involving in broad participation in social media productions which start at the grassroots level.

The participatory fandom in STOMP has grown to centre around many areas of human interests and activities. Fans are typically interested in details of non-mainstream Singapore happenings. Spend significant portion of their time and energy  on STOMP, often as a part of social network. The subjects of fan interest vary widely – from celebrities, to hobbies, fashion, everyday sightings or even neighbourhood grapevine.

In the past, members of a fandom associated with one another by attending fan conventions and publishing and exchanging fanzines and newsletters. Communication was done primarily on print-based media. However with the emergence of Web 2.0 has migrated this interaction online.

There are 19 sections under STOMP. You can browse through most sections without having to register as a STOMPer. However, if you want to participate in terms of leaving comments, submitting information/ tip-offs, etc.,  in other words, attain full access,  you will need to become a member, by registering with your unique Singapore NRIC number. This is to prevent creation of pseudo accounts. STOMPers are then accountable for their words and behaviour on this website.  

An exclusive local community is thus formed.

Each of the 19 sections contains areas of interests across different fields.  It is almost impossible for a Singaporean to not be able to find one that appeals to him/her. Let me lift some examples.

MOVIE CLUB – For movie lovers/goers:

• Receive movie reviews on the latest big screen titles
• Watch movie trailers
• See quotes from stars in the latest movies
• Enter contests to win movie tickets

CLUB STOMP – For party-goers:

• Check out the latest/newest and most popular night spots
• View party pictures
• Check out the hottest party outfits/attires
• Sign up for Club STOMP card and receive perks

COURT ROOM – For the more intellectual individuals (who aspire to lawyers?):

• Keep up to date with the progress of the latest court cases, all over the world

TALKBACK – For the attention seekers:

• Voice out on any issue you feel strongly about
• Leave comments if you agree/disagree

LOVE-IN – For the singles/romantics:

• Read about love stories
• Make new friends
• Take part in blind dates/ speed-dating

STOMP Bonds and Teaches

A nation building tool that affects positive change for the greater good of the public. Yes, we are talking about STOMP. There have been various controversial reviews on the site of late following its recent success. Nevertheless, let’s look at two possible schools of thought that sum up the collage of views out there.

1) STOMP’s a platform for tattlers who have nothing better to do than take pleasure in the way others goof themselves.

2) STOMP’s a platform for constructive speech that helps iron out the rough edges in a society known to lag behind its economic exploits.

Like all sociological case studies, there can never be a ‘clear cut’ solution, or some might say, explanation to the intricacies of human behaviour. Every individual is unique. However, individuals can be united under a singular ‘unique’ cause and bind themselves under a common identity – something which we habitually refer to as a ‘community’. I’d say that in STOMP’s case, it is the ongoing participatory culture that ‘forges’ these bonds which have gone on to make the site what it is today.

There was a full page article today in My Paper (3 December 2010) – probably a biased written one given that it’s also a subsidiary of Singapore Press Holdings – citing “10 Reasons Why Stomp is No.1”. Bias or not, the site did reach a record breaking 60.8 million page views in the month of November alone. That’s almost 12 times the current population residing on our tiny island. If you were to compare it with the rest of the local online portals then yes, STOMP is No.1.

I couldn’t help but smile when writer, Kenneth Tan, jotted down Reason No. 6 and 9.

Reason No. 6:  “STOMP EFFECTS POSITIVE CHANGE – Through STOMP, readers can be sure that their concerns will be heard by the relevant agencies and businesses, as well as other Singaporeans.”

Reason No. 9: “LEARN AS YOU STOMP – STOMPers can browse through thousands of queries and answers, and submit their own questions, in educational features like English As It Is Broken and Ask Libby…”

Reason No. 6 sums up the positive side of user generated content on the site.

Reason No. 9, on the other hand, talks about a learning culture where exchanges with one another on the site can actually help boost one’s intellectual capacity.

It really depends how one takes a stand when it comes to scrutinising STOMP but no one can deny its voracity and influence as Singaporeans take on Web 2.0.

References:

Tan, Kenneth (2010) My Paper: 10 Reasons Why STOMP is No.1, Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings, pp. A19, 3 Dec.