For example, is it not ridiculous that when a group of people ask for nothing more than what is already promised, they are branded trouble-makers and inciters of hatred. While at the same time, another group who distort the truth and want to change things in a way that is neither legally nor ethically correct, are not blamed at all.
And that is just the beginning of the joke. We then have dire warnings given out by a fierce looking ministerial fellow, threatening newspapers for reporting certain â€œsensitiveâ€ issues and for giving coverage to those who simply wish to uphold the law. And this is all done with a totally straight face, which I appreciate because the mark of a really great comedian is a delivery so deadpan and serious.
Attacking blogs for being irresponsible does not address the issue of why people read the stuff and perhaps even believe the stuff (although there has been no study conducted as to how many people really believe blogs anyway). Maybe, just maybe, one is looking at the wrong goat to scape.
Could it be that people read blogs because they are looking for something more than what could be provided for in the mainstream media? If our newspapers were not so fettered in the first place, there may well be less of a need to seek out alternative voices in the sometimes unsavoury underbelly of the World Wide Web because alternative voices and views can be printed and not downloaded.
The web, with its free flow of information, is a tremendous tool; and to attack it just because of a few idiots, idiots who we can ignore if we so choose, is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would make for a comedy of Pak Pandir-type proportions. (Dr Azmi Sharom is Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya.)
Read the whole column from The Star.Â I am copying just a gist of it.