Citizens versus Netizens

Joel Gn from Mediacorp wrote an article on the merits of netizen views and how representatives they were in Today. His conclusion can be summarised into the following. 1. There is no face to face discussion and many netizens hide behind the veil of anonymity, especially with regard to policy matters. Thus their views were not credible. Ha, I choose to differ. It is exactly because of the culture of fear here that anonymous views are more real and representative of the truth. Many who spoke in public actually would not disclosed their true feeling and views for obvious reasons. 2. The views expressed in cyberspace are views of a few individuals. So, the views expressed in the old media are not the views of individuals? Even many of the crap surveys and pushed out as the people's views were views of individuals. Even national policies were views of individuals and not the views of the people. Agree? Remember, it is for your own good. Or shall we concede that the views expressed by the professional reporters and journalists were the views of the people, not their individual views? Joel Gn forgot that in cyberspace it is 'the message and not the platform' or the people articulating it that is important. Anyone, no matter how big his title is, if he talks nonsense in cyberspace, he will be declared a clown immediately by netizens. On the other hand, an unassuming person with no title or status but could articulate a sensible view, the view will be respected. It is the message, not who you are. And that is exactly what Joel Gn said. That is the strength of cyberspace. You can't fool anyone by virtue of your position of title. And currently, cyberspace provides the anonymity for truthful opinions and gut reactions to be aired. You can't do it in the old media. They will either be censored, or one will get himself into trouble for airing the truth.