The new SingaNews - 13 views
started by Weiye Loh on 15 Sep 09
started by Weiye Loh on 15 Sep 09
Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group
started by Weiye Loh on 15 Sep 09
started by Weiye Loh on 15 Sep 09
Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/give-singanews-a-chance-says-ceo/
As new media students, I'm sure most of us are already aware of the latest online news media SingaNews, the CEO of which, is none other than our very own Mr Matthew Yap.
For those of you who are not aware, Mr Yap is one of the graduate students in CNM. He also tutors some classes (I took NM2220 under him).
Arguments around it include speculations that the news portal is another fundamentalist website wrapped under the guise of secularism (Source: http://temasekreview.com/?p=13601), perhaps not unlike http://www.christianpost.com/, or http://www.onenewsnow.com/ . Although the latter two are actually more open about their Christian beliefs, while SingaNews claims to be more secular.
Nevertheless, these are but speculations. So we won't know until they start publishing articles.
I for one, am all for Voltaireism (although I do have some fear).
Sam (another graduate student) has more thoughts on this topic here: http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/09/singanews.html .
So the question is not whether or not fundamentalists should be allowed freedom of speech, but rather, to what extent should we acknowledge our positions i.e. our privilege before we claim to speak the "truths"? Is such an acknowledgment necessary in the first place? If not, how do we ensure objectivity?
I fully agree with your reply. However, there are some issues I will like to raise.
"It seems a Christian cannot do anything in the secular realm without drawing criticisms or at the very least, suspicion, surrounding his true agenda. While Atheists are given free rein to assert their stance, even applauded for it, Christians frequently invite backlash for even squeaking Jesus' name."
It seems that an atheist cannot do anything in the religious realm without drawing criticisms or at the very least, suspicion, surrounding his/her true agenda. While Christians are given free rein to assert their stance, even applauded for it, Atheists frequently invite backlash (from Christians) for even squeaking Jesus' name.
Same different.
Yet, I disagree (partially) with your statement that atheists are given free rein to assert their stance. For such stance, I believe, are usually taken after a great deal of questioning, reasoning and rationalizing. For logic is the foundation of science and even more so, I opine, for humanities. Questioning is necessary before one can make any scientific/ rational claim. In that sense, free rein is not really free without its due doubts and critiques.
Similarly, secularism demands concrete evidence for decision, especially political ones, rather than a self-defeatist "because-god-says-so" argument. I don't believe that secularists are especially critical of any specific religion. They should be critical of all claims, including (but not especially) those that appeal to faith. Such appeals depend on irrational thought and produce intransigence. That said, it does not exclude religious people from participating in the secular. The only criterion for participating is, as mentioned, the presence of supporting evidence and sound reasoning in their claims. The same applies to all other participants regardless of their religious belief(s) or the lack of.
It is perhaps then, impossible for the secularist to be less critical of anyone and any claim. For criticality is crucial in secularism. =)
P/s: I am a self-identified Christian but I am nevertheless very critical of the religion and am 100% for secularism.
Valerie Oon wrote:
> I don't believe there's true objectivity.* For that reason, I would be more sympathetic to a writer who lays out plainly his circumstances/beliefs/position so that any reader will be sufficiently informed about how the article is framed and how to go about interpreting the text. So yes, I believe such an acknowledgement is necessary but not because it is a means to achieve objectivity.
>
> About Matthew Yap, I think maybe it's about time we Christians are given a break already. It seems a Christian cannot do anything in the secular realm without drawing criticisms or at the very least, suspicion, surrounding his true agenda. While Atheists are given free rein to assert their stance, even applauded for it, Christians frequently invite backlash for even squeaking Jesus' name.
>
> I say this boldly because I was once on the other camp. I was once critical of overzealous evangelists. And Atheists do have a louder voice (at least the ones I know haha). I still do not agree with Christians who push their religious agenda unnecessarily in domains that should remain secular for good reasons. At the same time, i also think it would help if people remember it's just the few who get a bit too overzealous and be less critical of the bulk of us who just want to be plural and get on with our lives because it is gets tough for us to balance that with spiritual commitments too.
>
>
> *p/s i think Howard Becker's 'Whose side are we on' is apt here
>
>
> Weiye Loh wrote:
> > http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/about-singanews/
> >
> > http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/give-singanews-a-chance-says-ceo/
> >
> > As new media students, I'm sure most of us are already aware of the latest online news media SingaNews, the CEO of which, is none other than our very own Mr Matthew Yap.
> >
> > For those of you who are not aware, Mr Yap is one of the graduate students in CNM. He also tutors some classes (I took NM2220 under him).
> >
> > Arguments around it include speculations that the news portal is another fundamentalist website wrapped under the guise of secularism (Source: http://temasekreview.com/?p=13601), perhaps not unlike http://www.christianpost.com/, or http://www.onenewsnow.com/ . Although the latter two are actually more open about their Christian beliefs, while SingaNews claims to be more secular.
> >
> > Nevertheless, these are but speculations. So we won't know until they start publishing articles.
> >
> > I for one, am all for Voltaireism (although I do have some fear).
> >
> > Sam (another graduate student) has more thoughts on this topic here: http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/09/singanews.html .
> >
> > So the question is not whether or not fundamentalists should be allowed freedom of speech, but rather, to what extent should we acknowledge our positions i.e. our privilege before we claim to speak the "truths"? Is such an acknowledgment necessary in the first place? If not, how do we ensure objectivity?