Of papers, ethics and Habermas...

This is the "aerial" view of my bed currently. That orange bit in the corner is the pasar malam shorts I don each night as I sit and synthesis all these words for my last project for Graduate School.

I sleep with the papers each night, I don't mind, my only peeve is that the words do not translate into synthesised ideas much needed to graduate.

Sigh.

But I like coming "here". And two things I want to do. First to reflect on the unique way the world works. Second.. we will get to the second in a bit.

Ten minutes before this post, I received a call from an industry contact on whether it was feasible to stop presses on a particular "incident" took place outside Malaysia.

I am using cryptic terms, to maintain my no-name policy, for reasons I will explore in my second purpose of this post. Please bear with me.

Back to the story, the industry contact received instructions from the head honcho for fear that the accident, if published on the front page of a publication the next day, will paint a bad light on for investments in the general industry. It is obvious here that the accident, which led to several fatalities, had impacted this industry.

As a journalist, using my rather jaded news sense, if this instruction was well-thought as this incident obviously has news value in it to be posted in public domain. Issues of such high level newsworthiness do warrant attention, debate and action.

It puzzles me each time when I hear of such suggestions. I do not believe that I am of any different standards than the average person. A resounding hmmm is warranted at this juncture.

Anyway.

As part of school assignment, and also for healthy thoughts, the rationale behind cryptic languages on a blog should explained. In the last couple of months or so, I have sat through many coffeeshop and academic-like chats over ethics and blogging.

As both a writer and semi-regular blogger, could I have been a little more accountable in naming names or do I used my blogging license to write as I please.

It is a horribly dynamic and fluid world - this thing we call cyberspace.

Has it resorted to a degeneration of the public sphere or is it an alternative idealised public sphere as explained by German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas.

Why degeneration? Because it is so free and fluid that accountabilty and responsibilty over public reporting take a backseat. Virtually anything and everything can be posted here.

Is that a sign of a progressive society or are we discussing nothing really substantial in the first place?

Or has the world become flat, as American journalist, Thomas Friedman points out, where information flows freely guided by a different working standard or ethics from before the advent of the Internet.

Food for thought.