It is perhaps surprising for me that the word “blog” seems to come out very often in the conference. I mean, even though blogging is perhaps the buzzword (or is videoblogging now the true cool?) for many of the new participants of the Internet, it is perhaps not that powerful as an agent of voice. Yet, are we perhaps seeing a change where the blogosphere, with its timely reports of events that might not even be covered by the traditional media, might one day usurp the traditional media in the very quality that they look for in new values: timeliness?

Professor Kishore Mahbubani, the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in NUS, noted that the traditional media can still usurp the new media in terms of impact. Despite the rage and fury of the blogosphere in terms of the Virginia Tech incidents, the fact is that the traditional media has done more for the United States to take a closer look at gun laws. I am actually wondering about the voice of an online media, the very fact that whether an online voice will be influential.

Shekhar Kapur, one of the speakers in the forum, definitely feels that the online voice will be powerful. On my personal opinion, the realm of the online voice for now, and in the near future, will only remain online. The thing is that despite the proliferation of the Internet, the truth is that not even 1/4 of the world’s population currently has any form of access to the Internet. Much more has exposure toward the television and other forms of traditional media.

The Internet is also free, free to talk what you want. That is perhaps a good thing sometimes, but sometimes, this ability to be free creates a lot of junk. How does the common man defuse the rubbish from the truth. There is a common saying that 90% of all data is often rubbish. I believe in that myself, and I wonder if the online voice, without any form of editorial, can really rise up as a voice of influence in reality.

I have my doubts. What do you think?

All these made me think, how much does the concept of paying even when you get it for free depend on the convenience of the service (the same way I use iTunes to buy my music, because it’s so easy to download songs from the service), and how much depends on the goodwill idea of paying the creator for content, similar to dropping money into a busker’s hat? Take the tip-jar concept, for example: by the point you’re tipping, you would have viewed the entire content, so the entire payment is based on goodwill. Now how much is this like the Annalakshmi restaurants, where you pay a combination of how much you think your meal was worth and what you can afford? I’ve certainly given a tip to websites and blogs that have entertained me, but is this kind of behaviour necessarily very common?

And how much does goodwill and trust extend beyond borders? Would someone from China, say, be less willing to give money to content creators from Hollywood – whether because they are from a different culture, or because there’s a perception that Hollywood stars are much wealthier?

And how much does it depend on the existence of a tipping culture? If we’re used to paying service charges rather than tipping, can a tipping system work?
It’s one thing to work based on trust with fellow workers. But how much can one trust the consumer? I think we can, but I think that’s one of the things at the heart of some discomfort with new business models.

After the conference, this question is probably lingering around each and every one of us. What is perhaps the future of the new media? Will it be a benign or a malicious force, one that will swallow us whole in the near future? I will first talk about pornography and regulation, one of the issues that has popped up a few times in Deep Dive Session 2.

One of the main things that have been mentioned about the new media is the impact toward the future ways of regulation. A common fear is perhaps the protection of minors, and I believe that it is perhaps one of the future directions in which regulation must be closely noted. It is apparent that the growing sexual predators of children are perhaps using this new media to lure their victims. Even though this can be overly exaggerated by the traditional media, making it sound like something that is prevalent, the threat is nevertheless real. It is always a growing fear by regulators, who are probably breaking their brain cells up to figure out the best way of dealing with this.

The answer to deal with this is not yet found in the conference. I will believe that the person with the answer will be wanted by any nation in the world where the Internet is causing such a situation.

The high profile of R. Kelly’s sex video tape with a minor might be one of the highest profile sex cases in the past two years, but it might not have spread that widely if not for the proliferation of the Internet in terms of file sharing. The amount of hype created in the Internet, with the addition of uploading sites that can upload files easily, means that the ease of getting such a file or to find it is merely a google click away. The lack or perhaps the inability to restrict or fight with this problem, makes child pornography a huge threat globally.

The possibility of browser hijacking to show pornography is also real, as I have been infected by such viruses when I was not that well versed in the viruses and trojan horses of the Internet. A new trial has been given to the high profile Julie Amero, a former substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut who was convicted in January on four felony counts of risking injury to minors after she was unable to prevent pornographic pop-ups from showing up on a computer in a classroom in 2004.

The question is perhaps unsolvable in the means of government regulation. No matter how much you try to restrict sites, new pornographic sites will be up within seconds when they set it up. The lack of global cooperation in terms of regulating such content makes it impossible for any one country to fix the issue. This problem is here to stay and the only way that the nation can possibly do is media literacy.

This is perhaps a solution that has popped up many times, and will continue to do so. However, do you believe that any other way can be found to rid the Internet of pornography?

P/s: On the light side, there’s the Internet is for porn.

One of the feedback given by participants was the lack of time for the Q&A session. This is hardly surprising, considering the expanse of topics that were supposed to be covered within the short period of time.

Hopefully, by next year, we’ll have manageable bites of New Media issues to chew on and more time would be allocated for questions and discussions.

After sitting through Session 1, one issue that really struck me was how powerful Asia could be if a regional standard of new media was created for everyone else to follow. As what Dr Madan said to me, if there was a consolidation of responsibilities and involvement, Asia could very well surpass the EU in terms of technology and expertise. The crucial key to achieving that is to avoid making the same mistake that the EU is making. The latter’s progress in New Media has been largely hindered by bureaucratic policies and red tapes. These would only serve to slow down the various cooperatives planned by private industries.

Perhaps that’s why some business owners are so adamant that the government have no say at all in how the media business is run. Having seen the slowdown caused by inefficient policies, most private companies are more than happy to run the show by themselves.

However, knowing very well the kind of cultural context Asia has, media business owners might as well find a way to live with their civil service counterpart harmoniously. After all, a little public protection here and there for the time being might just help ease the society into media freedom, slowly. Who knows, governments would eventually feel that they are not needed when it comes to policing the media?

“He who predicts the future lies, even if he tells the truth.” An Arab proverb that was used generously (and rightly so) during any moments of prediction at the conference. I suppose it served as a form of disclaimer.

However, allow me to share an Alan Kay quote, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it”.

Perhaps after knowing the sentiments of delegates from all around the world, we are in a better position to create a more desirable future. A future that would have the right mix and balance of involvement, entrepreneurship, innovation and…. nanny-ing.

Which sounded good, upon first hearing it, but the more I think about it, the more a rights-based point of view seems flawed. Surely we do not really believe there is a fundamental right to being entertained in a specific fashion i.e. by Hollywood actors? With every right comes a countervailing obligation, and if it is a fundamental human right to be entertained in the exact same way around the world, then indeed one should make the same argument that the poor in Singapore or indeed in Hollywood itself (and, come to think of it, Hollywood and Vine has not always been exactly the most salubrious of street corners) should be allowed to walk into cinemas for free. Or that football fans should pay for their stadium tickets based on how much they earn.

That’s not to say I necessarily think the movie industry pricing strategy is a good one. Charging $20 may or may not be a bad business strategy in an age where content is so easily duplicated. (One could argue that cinemas thrived during the Great Depression because they had a smart pricing strategy.) But to couch the debate in terms of rights is not necessarily correct, in my opinion.

1. What is the biggest problem that traditional media companies face in a commercial context when it comes to the new media?

Their biggest problem is that they have legacy businesses to manage. It is easy, but unfair to write off traditional media companies (and their executives) as clueless dinosaurs because managing existing operations is always hard, and even harder when a company is faced with fundamental change such as that presented by the new forms of digital media.

Distracted by running the current business leaves very little room for imagining what is next. Shareholders don’t help either — they typically demand that the old business keep making money and also demand that the company do nothing to risk income (and stock price), so even the smartest executive at a traditional media company is in a real bind. And even if they should find time to figure out what the next big idea is, it is unlikely that their company will be willing to what is needed to get the strategy right. For example, they might refuse to invest in such a “small” thing, or perhaps do the opposite, smothering a small effort with too much money.

2. If you are giving a pitch to someone going into Web 2.0 as a new start up, what will be the warnings that you will give to this wo/man?

Know the risks and assume that the company will fail. And assume that coming in second is not good enough. Just ask all the companies who, like YouTube, were doing personal video upload/display. Youtube’s founders got the glory (and money), but everyone suffered because YouTube’s success sucked the oxygen out of the space. So by all means take the risk, but don’t be blind to the implications of the risk you are taking. If you are young, then going for the risky option is probably a good thing, as you have less to lose and even if the company should fail, you will learn much.

3. What do you think are the key advantages of jumping into the business of Web 2.0 rather than the traditional media?

Easy — are you a builder or a maintainer? Do you want to stay home or explore a new frontier? Do you want to tell your grandkids someday that you sat on the sidelines while a whole new industry was invented? Imagine you were in silicon Valley 25 years ago — looking back where would you have rather been? IBM, or Apple? In mainframes or PCs… So, by diving into the new media space you will learn much, help build a new industry, and maybe even do well financially.

4. Despite the Arabic phrase “He who speaks of the future lies, even if it is the truth”, what is your prediction on the state of social relationships in the Internet and how it will evolve?

First of all, what a ridiculous phrase (and I hope the person who uttered it was joking). This is a moment when we all must look into the future, or we will never solve our current problems, much less invent the new ideas/inventions/industries we need in the future of our survival. One should never imagine they know what the future holds, but one must look ahead to identify the range of possibilities — both risks and opportunities– or the result will be disaster. It is like driving a car… as you are driving, you are constantly looking into the future, but if you took the advice implicit in this idiotic saying, then you should simply close your eyes, press harder on the gas pedal, and pray…

Now, about relationships, this could be a very long answer, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that beyond all that is changing, there are underlying principles and desires that will remain constant. We will still want close friends and casual friends, people we can rally count on, and others who fit into one part of our life mosaic, but not others. A good way to make sense of the changes to today is to look closely at earlier media revolutions and the changes caused by the advent of reliable postal service in the late 1700s, by the arrival of the telephone a century ago, and then email two decades ago. Even non-obvious information technologies like typewriters and file cabinets are instructive — before these two technologies, office work was done exclusively by men, but when typewriters arrived, women came into the office workforce. And proof of just how big the shift was was demonstrated by the technology that disappeared — spittoons! Before women worked in offices, male workers regularly spit into spittoons!

Now, one small example to think about. This time around, the area I am most intrigued by is what effect does automating relationship/network tracking have on the outer ring of friends and social relationships? With a computer whispering in my ear, reminding me why I know someone lead to a more effective network of casual friends?

Mr Chow feels that it’s not only for the big boys, but it’s for people with the passion for it. Web 2.0 wasn’t started by the big boys but by various businesses. Nevertheless, like it or not, without the real world, the virtual world doesn’t exist.

He also added that relevance is of essence, whether you are the new media or the old media. As long as you are relevant to the media landscape, and of course, the society, you will still find a place to play in this ever changing field.

Paul Saffo discusses reverse-mentoring – where the young teach the old. Take the 19-year-old to be your guide through the new media. To make it work, it has to be part of both persons’ job evaluations throughout the year.

Lucas Chow notes that traditional media should remain flexible and relevant, no different from any other industry. For example, Mediacorp has launched “visual radio” that delivers visual information to cellphones. It’s not a question of traditional or new media, but of finding relevance and use within the society and community we live in.

John Kao notes that doing new things in any organisation is an invite to a clash of cultures. People will design the innovation process so that there are parallel organisations or ‘skunkworks’ (citing Xerox PARC and Lockheed-Martin), so that by insulating the innovative activities, you can do things that are edgy, and let both sides of the house flourish.

A rep of the French broadcast service notes that the average French person listens to radio 3 hours a day, and notes that they broadcast in both traditional and ‘new’ media. Without new media (whatever that is!) they have no future.