Was that your "publishing" voice or "conversation" voice?

Perhaps plugging nicely to the post just below, Mashable posted a story about a woman getting sued for $50,000 for a tweet. The Twitterer was Abonnen and she had 22 followers.

The offense? She was tweeting to a friend:

"@JessB123 You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay."

Sounds like a tweet you could have written? Yeah, me too. Apparently, though, Horizon Realty thinks this was tantamount to defamation. Is it? That depends on the context of the word "moldy" and what Abonnen meant by saying "Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

It's like me telling my colleague: "You sure you want my moldy old sandwich in the fridge?" when factually, there really isn't any mold on the sandwich and "old" refers to the sandwich having been in existence for the past 5 hours.

What I'm alluding to is the tone and manner by which we converse on Twitter. Do we think of what we write in a "publishing" voice (the same way we might in a blog or an article) or do we write in a "conversational" voice, like how we'd talk to a friend and insert contextual quips.

You don't talk to your friends the same way you would write a press release. And often, sarcasm and exaggeration comes into play too. Twitter, being the social network it is, means people are often talking in their "conversation" voice. We're talking to like-minded people who understand the things we say and the way we speak.

Should we now carefully vet every 140 characters we post to ensure in no way can it be taken out of context and be construed as libelous? I wonder how this suit will change the face of tweeting.

Should we be afraid, very afraid, of #streamyxsucks?

No, tweeting isn't the end of journalism

So a couple of days ago, MPs went head-to-head with each other on Twitter during the Parliament sitting on Tuesday where Bukit Gantang MP Nizar Jamaluddin got kicked out.

Interestingly, a journalist mused whether this would spell the end of journalism on the competition MPs (and brands, companies, individuals) who could go directly to readers on a mass-distributed platform such as Twitter would bring to journalists in breaking news.

I'd add: would this actually mean the end of journalism as a profession? Well, actually - no.

In fact, I don't think there's ever been a time where the journalism profession has ever been so important. Yes, I could hear what Lim Kit Siang or Khairy has to say, straight from the horses mouth, on Twitter; but I also want to hear a 3rd party with an unbiased viewpoint provide a report of the proceedings.

As uppercaise so kindly points out: breaking news is just one aspect of journalism.

I'd want to hear a 3rd party commentary from someone who's trusted as non-partisan, non-biased and with my best interests at heart. That's what a journalist is (at least, that's how I was sold when I went to journalism school) and that's why people will keep reading news - whether on paper or online.

"Journalists serve as the main purveyors of information and opinion in contemporary society" (source: Wikipedia). They aren't the source

So it's sometimes funny how I hear social media is killing journalism. Journalism is a profession that isn't tied to its medium. People will still want to read gadget reviews from an expert, whether its on a blog or in a magazine. People will still want to read good political commentary.

What's changing is how a journalist does his / her job. Mind you, there can be no generalisation here - not every journalist needs to get a Twitter account. Rather, the journalist can reach his / her audience in the most relevant way possible. Even if that's handwriting news on papyrus. But new and social media are opening up new vectors to receive and disseminate news, and the best journalists will always be the ones who can get their news out in the most timely and relevant fashion.

And that could be tweeting.

Note: I've updated and edited this post to more accurately reflect Uppercaise' views.

Now, what's tweeting done to journalism

If you're a tweeting Malaysian, chances are you may have been following the many streams from various journalists and news organisations tweeting updates from the happenings at the Perak State Legislative Assembly.



Now, in the era of the internet, the blog and the news site, live updates are not something entirely new. I remember accessing my mobile and refreshing every 15 minutes to see the latest results during the March 8 (2008) elections. But Twitter is something altogether different. Here's why I think so:

Too fast for filtering?
It's instant. It's spontaneous. And with a 140-character count, the reporting is straight and to-the-point. With the speed the live tweets are sent out, and the tone they result in, I suspect a lot less filtering is happening.

Yes, live updates on popular news websites are fast, but I bet you there's a couple of eyes looking at those updates before they go live.

I doubt that @edgemy has any similar process where the journalist needs to get clearance from his / her editor to post a tweet. What we get is unfiltered reporting straight from the source.

These are real people reporting
The Star's Deputy Executive Editor Wong Sai Wan (@saiwanstar) made a good point. He tweeted: "...now people realise we who write are real people" and I can't agree more. Last year's debates over the freedom of our press often cast the newspapers and media as monolithic organisations that were pro-government.

But when journalists Twitter, you'd realise that journalists are real people who have feelings, opinions and ethics. Most importantly, they are right there on location.

Follow @melodysong you won't see just a nameless entity covering a potentially dangerous situation. You'll see a very brave journalist who's put herself on the line to report the truth. So much so people actually care about her safety.

The conversation ripple
The third thing that's happening to reporting thanks to Twitter is the conversation ripple that's forming. Okay, I invented that term. But what I mean is this:

Journalist A tweets. Person B responds. Person C retweets. Person D follows Journalist A because he saw Person B's response. Then Person D retweets.

Multiply this X 100 times and see messages fly back and fourth. If the event was #hashtagged, you'd have a pretty good gauge of sentiment (at least among geeks).

Now, this is probably no different from what happens at the mamak stall when you discuss the front page of the newspaper with your friends. But virtually, think of it as 1,000 people crowding around the same table, and the conversation doesn't happen the next day but as it happens.

I'm not @melodysong, and I don't know what it feels like to be out in the field reporting and getting live feedback from hundreds of voices, but I'm pretty sure it's different from those days of just going out and covering a story then coming back to file it.

Normal people can report too
Goes without saying, just like with blogs - even if you don't consider yourself a journalist, there's nothing stopping you from tweeting what you see right in front of you.

As a bystander in this industry, I'm pretty excited to see where this is all heading. As a citizen of the country, I'm hoping this will mean more transparency and accurate reporting in our country.

For posterity's sake

Hey, yes, thanks. I noticed. I'm glad you guys noticed too. And if you haven't, please read this excellent mainstream twitter story by @nikicheong published in last week's Sunday Star.

One thing I'd have to disagree though: I don't believe there are tens of thousands of Malaysian tweeters out there. Maybe 8,000 or so.



(Graphic taken from and is the property of The Star Online. Link)

PR people and bloggers: why engage in the first place?

First off, I'd like to remind you that I've got a disclaimer somewhere on this blog that anything and everything posted here is solely my opinion. This isn't work related, and does not reflect my employer's opinion. It doesn't even reflect my fellow PR colleagues opinion. Any similarities in opinion is purely coincidental.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I wanted to latch on to a timely post by Shaolintiger last week to put forward some thoughts on the matter of PR people engaging bloggers in Malaysia. And problems that subsequently ensue.

I believe the crux of the issue is that there is still largely misunderstanding on both sides to this core question: "What's the point of engagement?"

To the PR person:

It's no big secret that more and more clients today are asking agencies about engaging the blogosphere, twit-o-sphere or whatever "-sphere" you can think of.

Most clients don't understand social media, and I can't help but think the responsibility falls squarely on the agency to educate them. Both PR people and clients need to understand what social / peer media can and cannot do. Expectations, goals and objectives of any kind of engagement needs to be set right.

What's your goal in engaging the blogger? So that they can write a positive "write-up" about your client's products / services? If so, I'd say paying for the advertorial is probably the best way to go.

Let me give you an alternative viewpoint: what if your engagement with the social / peer media isn't so you can see positive blogposts, but so you can involve yourself and your brand in the conversation that's going all around you regardless of whether you take part or not, and add value?

What if the objective of holding a blogger event is to listen to what bloggers have to say about your product rather than having them go home and re-printing your press release?

Social media is about the conversation. Companies can participate, or they can pay some money and take an ad. Like what an editor once told me.

My humble advice is don't think the blogger owes you anything just because they attended your event. The onus is on you, the company and the PR person advising the company, to make sure what you've got to tell the blogger is worth the blogger re-telling, if coverage is your goal.

To the blogger:

Here's what PR people can do: pre-release scoops, direct contact with some top people (CEOs?), connect you to in-depth discussions with experts from client companies, get you product samples, previews of upcoming products, and ensure your feedback gets listened to and acted upon.

Here's what PR people don't do (generally): place advertorials or do advertising. This function is the media-buying agency, whom the client pays to insert advertisements / advertorials in the right places.

PR people shouldn't be out there to get free publicity. Many are (I won't deny that). But they shouldn't be. Bang them on their head if they try that stunt on you.

PR people are not out there to con you so that you write good things on your blogs about their clients, for free. If their goal is deception, they should be hung out to dry and rightly so.

PR people are there to facilitate conversations between a company and its interested audiences.

If you're a blogger who's heard about the upcoming cool new phone and think its worth your time and space to blog about it, the PR person is your best bet to get you that hands-on with the device before its even launched.

If you have a grouse against a certain company, the PR person is the person that should be listening and taking the feedback back to the company and making sure there's follow-up. Even if its to tell you they can't do anything about it.

If you're not interested, tell them and the PR person should go away.

This doesn't mean clients shouldn't advertise on your blogs and pay PR people to get free publicity. Advertising still exists and will continue to exist. It just isn't the purview of the PR agency. Rather, the right people who should be placing advertisements on your blogs are media buying agencies who might work for the same client as the PR person. Of course, this doesn't stop you from proposing an advertising package to the PR person you're working with if you think its something that will add value to the client.

So what's the root of the problem?

I can't help but think its the PR community's fault for bringing this onto ourselves in the first place by setting expectations wrongly when working with the blogosphere.

ShaolinTiger is right when he says:

...the sooner YOU poorly informed PR hacks educate yourselves the sooner you will reap real benefits from engaging bloggers and forming relationships with them.

The key word is understand. Social media is not as simple as the one event = 8 write-ups formula many 'PR' agencies peddle to clients. On second thought, even your traditional media isn't as simple as that. We could all do with a little more thinking, research, and just asking ourselves: "Would I do this to myself if I was on the other end of the stick?"

Please feel free to discuss if you've something to add. Comments welcome.

The day an opposition rally made front page

Correct me if I'm wrong but today's made media history by my calculations. Here's why, the Malay Mail arrived at our office just only and I saw this:



Yes. The photo isn't doctored. That's a picture of a big 'ol opposition rally on the front page telling you that there's a 15,000 strong turnout. Previously, big opposition rallies have never been picked up by local newspapers, let alone having the numbers confirmed. Only place I ever saw those pictures was on the internet. (Click here for a video)

So what does this mean?

Firstly, I'm pretty sure the fact that The Malay Mail is now owned by Blu Inc has something to do with this. But more importantly, there does seem to be a trend where the national newspapers are opening up and covering the opposition more and more.

The question is, how much more? And are they being covered in context?

Digital shift makes radio like never before

The music industry just isn't what it used to be decades ago. In your dad's time, an artiste asking a radio station to pay royalties was unheard of and would promptly result in the artiste disappearing from radio waves and seeing CD sales tank.

Today, CD sales are tanking anyway. And the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) wants radio stations to pay up. Simple logic really. It used to be that both the recording industry and radio stations had a symbiotic relationship. Radio stations get to play songs for free and make money off selling ads. The recording industry got free publicity from radio stations and sold CDs to make money.



In about 40 years, this has changed. Today, CDs are not the only way people buy music and radio is no longer the only way for people to hear about a great act. The internet means word-of-mouth is much more effective and distribution doesn't have to be physical.

So, along comes the RIAA with the idea that since it no longer relies on radio to make CD sales, and since, this essentially means the radio stations are making money for free off their content, they should get a cut of the advertising revenue. Genius!

This has stoked quite a lot of debate, and while its a sad situation for radio, I do think that industries do need to adapt to the realities ANY social shift incur upon them. In this case, the internet, the proliferation of personal media players and the digitisation of music have put the radio stations in a spot. But if the old business model breaks, then the new business models must come on.

My suggestion would be that radio stations start thinking about how to disassociate proprietary content from music. Funny hosts, witty scripts and the opportunity to interact is what makes most of the charm of radio. With music now being such a personal thing, and iTunes helping people sample and enjoy songs much more than ever, radio stations need to think of making relevant content.

What about a couple of talk show podcasts? Quality content people can listen to anytime, anywhere. Or branching out to video?

We're certainly seeing that now in Malaysia with the effort Media Prima puts behind developing gua.com.my but there's definitely a long road to tread. Still, with the ruckus the RIAA is creating in the US, it'd be wise for radio broadcasting industries in other countries to start preparing for the inevitable - when a media consumption format starts to go the way of the dodo.

So did you study blogging in Uni?

Read a funny story in the New Straits Times today about Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) might soon allow students to take blogging courses as part of their subjects.

Vice-chancellor Datuk Seri Prof Dr Ibrahim Abu Shah said something interesting, and I quote:

"Anyone can become a blogger now," he told reporters after a seminar here yesterday.

But this did not mean bloggers could write about anything, as they first needed to master several aspects of writing, such as language, ethics and accuracy of reporting.
Ibrahim said he supported any proposal to offer courses on blogging and that it was the most suitable time to do so.

I find this statement self-contradictory. First, Dr. Ibrahim is right by saying "Anyone can become a blogger now." That's absolutely right. Your plumber could be a blogger. Your mother could be a blogger. And don't be surprised if one day the pope starts a blog.

So if this is right, then why add requirements to becoming a bogger by saying that "they first needed to master several aspects of writing, such as language, ethics and accuracy of reporting?"

Does this mean if my English, Bahasa Melayu or Mandarin sucks I can't be a blogger?

Or if I don't hold on to the same "ethics" you subscribe to, I'm not credible (maybe in your eyes, not that of my fans)?

Or if I report on rumours and wild speculation, that I cannot be a credited as a blogger? Tell that to these guys - their blog is practically a rumour mill! And a very good one at that.

What does it mean to be a blogger? Some very enlightened people I listen to put it very well: blogging is just a publishing tool. Just like how anyone can write a book, anyone can blog.

Furthermore, not all bloggers are journalists. Some a diarists (they use the blog as their personal diary), some are story-tellers (ever read a blog that was pure fiction), some are commentators (they put forth their opinion on whatever subject they see fit), some are fanboys (they blog about their hobby, their pets etc) and very, very few bloggers will claim to be journalists.

Tom Merritt (links to episode 720 of Buzz Out Loud where comments were made) has a good solution for this. If a blogger wishes to be accorded the rights and pr0tection that's afforded journalists, then they must adhere to the same ethics and regulations that journalists adhere to.

If a blogger says, "hey, I'm not a journalist, just someone who writes!", then they are pretty much free to do what they want, but then they can't expect the protection journalists get (like the ability to "protect sources" even while subpeonaed).

One thing is clear though, this blanket definition of bloggers has to end. Not all bloggers are media. Certainly not some of our most famous political leaders (who have or recently started blogs).

(I mean, at least I won't consider those bloggers media).

Update: Thanks to the wonder of Twitter, some feedback with Twitter-people led me to this thought: Would being a degree-holding blogger entitle you to more money from blog-advertising?

Say hello to the new Malay Mail

Were you Malay Mail readers welcomed by this new masthead today?



Just got back from the launch (or re-launch) of the Malay Mail - that well-loved tabloid with a 112-year history.

As background, in case you haven't heard, earlier this year, The Malay Mail was sold to publisher BluInc by the Media Prima Group. Tonight's event is the the second time the paper is reinventing itself in the space of two years, but I'm glad to report that under the hood, it's the same, familiar faces (with new notable additions) pushing the paper along.

The big change: The Malay Mail is going back to becoming that afternoon paper we all know and love. The key operating word being afternoon.

Getting to the venue, I was pretty impressed with the setup - a corridor muraled by previous editions of The Malay Mail. Sort of a mini-history lesson for me.



And the hall was packed with people:



But getting to the content of the evening, the person sitting next to me could not help but mention to me: "Why is Mr. Ibrahim mentioning "bloggers" and "internet" so much in his speech?" Actually, I couldn't help but notice that too. In my humble opinion, that's a good thing.

I sorta picked up that Mr. Ibrahim also talked about how The Malay Mail's heritage as an afternoon paper meant they were delivering people more current news than the rest of the market (remember reading yesterday's World Cup results off The Malay Mail because The Star didn't have any?) According to the man, The Malay Mail's emphasis on its online site to deliver current news was going to mirror this role it used to serve.

Flipping through the actual printed paper, the changes are quite apparent. There are quite a number of new columns - one even covers the blogosphere - from fairly opinionated people (I think I spied Amir Muhammad on the list). My favourite section - the complaints section - is back with two full pages. What's The Malay Mail, after all, without customer complaints?

Overall, I'm going to have to say that I'm slightly disappointed with the lack of lifestyle pages. Still, the focus on commentary and news is certainly welcome - if the paper can deliver on Mr. Ibrahim's promise to give us the "alternative opinion / viewpoint" that Malaysian readers today crave.

On a totally un-related matter, I also realised at the event that if you stick a huge enough logo anywhere, you can get people to camwhore in front of your logo. I'm just wondering if this is an idea that could be turned to a stunt:



On another TOTALLY unrelated matter, did I mention that the SWAG bag was stuffed with goodies. I think it puts some of us PR people to shame the sort of SWAG we give out. Here, have a look -the silver box is a 1GB USB drive:

Playing to the Tune of Green

Was catching up on Buzz Out Loud episodes from the past couple of days in the car just now when Molly Wood made an interesting comment that wasn't part of the actual story.

Commenting on the Crave blog's story on HDTracks, a new music service that allows downloads of full-CD quality, uncompressed digital music files, Molly said something about "this is green too."

Being the (savvy?) PR practitioner that I am, my ears pricked. How does green music sound as a catchphrase to you? Would you buy more digital music online if I told you you were helping save the earth?

You know, on a second thought, it's probably quite an obvious connection. But why hasn't this angle ever been picked up by the good folks of already established online music stores (which I'm sure you'll have no problems naming)?

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever read an article covering green music and how much greener digital music tracks are compared to pressing CDs. I'm sure there's still an effect on the environment (heat release and energy consumption from keeping servers switched on 24/7 etc.) but compared to running factories pressing CDs, I'm sure the numbers will show some savings.

What would the impact be if the whole world went digital? And not just for music, but for videos, games and other digitally distributed content as well? How much greener would we be? (Sounds like a theme for next year's Earth Day?)

So, yeah, a thought-provoking topic to think about and I'm actually hoping that someone picks this up and goes run a study.

In the meantime, go home and ask yourselves - is my music green?

What? You mean what I'm consuming isn't mainstream (media)?

There was a bit of interesting banter on Episode 139 of This Week in Tech revolving journalists who do shows on the internet (like on TWIT or Cnet or Tech TV in the old days) jumping over to "mainstream" media to make it big.

But would folks like Veronica Belmont necessarily need to get a job as a CNN anchor to make it big? I thought CNet and Revision 3 was as big as they come!

Though this has been discussed much, it still struck me that these were the shows I am listening to or watching more and more of, to the detriment of the more "mainstream" TV3 or newspapers. An oxymoron perhaps? Or is "mainstream" changing?

Not too long ago, it was widely considered by marketers that your average working class adult would consume media on a daily basis at routine intervals. The morning paper. 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. prime time TV. The breakfast show on the way to work. Sticking an ad into any of these slots would cost more simply because the stats show more viewers were consuming media at these time-slots.

Personally, for me, this has changed. Yes, I still read the papers every morning (to keep up with current trends, for job's-sake) but that's about it. I hardly watch TV anymore. Instead, my morning drives to work are dominated by catching up with the latest tech news, miniature gaming news or world news via podcasts. When i'm bored, I surf the internet with RSSed links to sites like Soccernet. More and more, I'm building an echo chamber of the news that I'm interested in and filtering out everything else.

I wonder how many people out there are like me? I'm guessing few, but growing.

Here's why:

1. Content Syndication technology (RSS)
Thanks to RSS, content delivery can now be automated, giving rise tonew forms of media like podcasting (sticking an Audio file to an RSS feed) that give people access to timely information that can be consumed at their own time. It's like choosing the channels you want to watch, and then watching them at your own time. The bad thing is, you'll be limiting yourself only to the type of news you want to hear.

2. More personal media players and multifunction devices.
All the best content in the world isn't going to do you much good if you're going to be stuck at home on the computer to consume it. The good thing is, more and more people are now carrying portable devices that are capable of playing media. It could be your phone, your MP3 player, your PDA. The option is now there for you to sync your favourite RSS-delivered content and consume it wherever you are.

3. Mobile internet getting better and better.
People a long time ago predicted the death of the newspaper thanks to the internet. As it turned out, those predictions were unfounded mainly because people didn't want to be stuck at home reading the newspaper on their computers. They rather prefer to read it in their toilets.

However, if you take my two points above and mesh it with the fact that now you can get a decent 3G / WiFi connection in the toilet and your mobile phone / device is most likely with you. Heh. You can easily see how a small device can replace that paper you used to hold in the toilet.

So, how much do you consume "mainstream" media?

Blogs won't wipe out Newspapers

I've just read the Eric Alterman's fantastic treatise on the future of the American newspaper, conspiciously titled "Out of Print", and one particular phrase really piqued my interest.

Alterman writes:

It is a point of ironic injustice, perhaps, that when a reader surfs the Web in search of political news he frequently ends up at a site that is merely aggregating journalistic work that originated in a newspaper...

I thought: "Hey, that's me!"

What Alterman is pointing out is that the very bloggers who are being hailed as the successors to the established media institutions are in fact reliant on the very media they are tipped to succeed. But the gaping, unanswered question is - what happens when print goes?

The assumption is most bloggers (myself included) are not news generators, merely aggregators. The modus operandi is to reference other news sites or articles found in newspapers and add an opinion. But if newspapers were not to exist anymore, where would this primary source of news come from?

"But," you say, "didn't this last elections demonstrate the fact that people trust online media and blogs more than the established institutions?" The answer is yes. But the rebuttal is that political news is not all the news there is in the world.

If I were to stop reading The Star, NST, The Sun, Harian Metro or any of the mainstream papers I read everyday, I'd never hear about the plight of a lorry driver, or reusable rubber gloves, or even the Sufiah Omar story which was broken by Britain's biggest-selling newspaper.

Which blogger is going to have the 1) organisational support structures 2) clout and 3) access to contacts in order to generate these news stories? Not every blogger is going to be invited to press events. Not every blogger is going to be able to wave a press tag and get clearance to check public records (investigative journalism, does it happen here?). Not every blogger is going to have their work checked and edited several times to ensure factual accuracy or quote multiple sources. Not every blogger is / was a journalist.

This is, of course, a generalisation and there are going to be exceptions. But, generally-speaking, if the newspaper disappears, so does the organisation that serves as our primary news source. And I'm predicting that can't happen.

We still need proper reporting (the lead story, quotes from multiple sources, verified numbers and facts). We need wide reporting (coverage from top political news, all the way to those human interest stories you know only a select few will read). We need a news vehicle that will push us news outside our interests (so we are exposed to the reality of the world around us).

This doesn't mean media organisations won't change. They have to, this much is clear. In this age of instantaneous reporting, expect to see the established media institutions using the online medium more and more. Expect to see some blogs (like Gizmodo) become media institutions (e.g. Gawker Media) in their own right.

Don't expect to see newspapers becoming blogs (though some blogging may happen). Blogs won't wipe out newspapers.

Media + New Media and the new age journalist?

Was listening to an old episode of Buzz Out Loud (timestamp 39:30) on the way to work and there was a really interesting discussion about the relationship between blogs and traditional news media.

You can click on the link above to listen to it (and if you're interested in PR and media etc., you should!) But an interesting point was brought up that some newspapers (in the US) could benefit from giving their journalists blogs, and these blogs could allow entirely credible media (say WSJ) to cover stuff that they normally wouldn't cover in print. Or provide opinions or commentary that wouldn't make it in print.

Would this sort of dynamic would work here in Malaysia (thanks to our own laws and controls over media)? I believe it can. I know at the moment when we say "blogs" people think "politics / opposition" but blogs don't necessarily need to cover potentially inflamatory topics like politics, race and religion; rather, they could serve a supplementary role to whatever hard news gets published in the actual print.

If you know me, you know I've been talking about this for the longest time. Newspapers could give their Tech Editors a blog and see where that takes them. A while back, The Sun had blogs setup for their editors (I've lost the link, if you have it and it's still alive, could you post it in the comments?) At least one local tech publication I know has a blog - check out The Zone.

Yes, I know many journalists have blogs of their own, but personally (as a reader), I'm interested in seeing the crossover between printed medium and the online happen. The print mag / paper is your product, but the online blog is the conversation that let's us engage with the people behind the product.

Especially for mags ( and I believe for pullouts), the community you build around your readers is going to be crucial to the success of the publication. In the old world, you'd put out a product and count your readers by subscriptions. In the new world, subscription and circulation numbers don't go away, but the web will let you make that connection with readers / fans in a way print doesn't.

By "connection" I mean this: Journalists have started to become personalities, and I think this is probably due to the way blogs affect publishing. I loved John C. Dvorak's column in PC Mag (the Malaysian Edition is now defunct). Now, even if I can't read his column, I'm able to follow his blog. I'm not just reading PC Mag, I'm reading Dvorak. In the same way, I'm listening to Robert Scoble, Leo Laporte, Tom Merritt, Molly Wood, Don Risinger and all these other really intelligent techy people. It started with a podcast or a blog, but I now follow them on Twitter as well.

I also follow some of our very good local tech editors like aggromonkey, fatcatlim and, across the causeway, eBolasaurus.

At the end of the day, I guess you could say it's about reading credible stuff intelligent people put up, regardless of whether its in print or online through blogs. But there's space for both and I think blogs convey a personality, opinion and enables feedback in a way print can't (technically, you could still write letters to the editor).