The Barisan Nasional ruling didn’t change – it suffered the worst electoral defeat in its history. That defeat would not have taken place if social media was not used by Malaysia’s opposition – that’s the entire point of the article.

And also… asian correspondent is still the MSM for me… not a good sign…

Do you think the article aptly exemplifies malaysia as a POSTER CHILD for transformative media???

Take out the part of the poster child bit and I would agree with you… But as is… the article title reflects poorly on what is being written in the article. Such a hyperbolic title is apt to invite ridicule.

And again, the party changed… and? It’s like American’s creating a brouhaha about how much racism has vanished because Barrack H. Obama got elected… The policies continue and corporate politics is still a shining star. so what?

But the article DID say that it was about the transformative power of social media…in the title, no less.

You ask what changed. The answer is simple – the very fact that the Barisan Nasional suffered its biggest electoral defeat, in history, in 2008. That simply wouldn’t have happened with the hegemony of the existing state-sanctioned media.

You’re entitled to your view about the article and the title – I simply maintain that criticism of it is misplaced without evidence that the internet did NOT play a part in BN’s defeat. As to whether it would sell to an audience or not – I agree it would not be interesting for a mainstream audience, but it was never meant for a mainstream audience. The publication PR Week targets a specific industry and readership.

EDIT – hang on, it seems a general-audience publication has picked it up:
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/socialmediathailand/malaysia-s-social-media-landscape-under-the-microscope

But back to the article again… I still think IT WAS poorly made…

“Malaysia is rapidly becoming the poster-child for the transformative power of social media”

If the transformative power of social media is the case then just say so…. I think the real reason the title was hyperbolically made so was because the article in itself would never sell to an audience. It’s too damn boring and useless. Yes, the whole Barisan Nasional in 2008 thing was great… But what changed???? Is that all that transformative power has? The changing of a political party???? What about politics itself? Has it changed in Malaysia??? What change is there?

I respect you view, but really… This is a tripe little article that does not give any real bite except for the absurdly hyperbolic title that makes you think your coming in through Alice’s looking glass to find the mad hatter, when you’re really only stumbling on a pebble…

THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING THEN! (especially my nausea when the MSM start frolicking in short and perversely mis-representational news-bites!)

with regard to IRAN and MALAYSIA:
Even if Malaysia had more political change does it make it a POSTER CHILD? you are not answering the relevant question again.

I wouldn’t say the article is poorly made…rather, the criticisms made of it are misplaced.

In the first instance, it’s a weak rebuttal to ask for an invalid comparison to the topic of the article. As Arum has stated, the article is about social media’s ability in Malaysia to allow opposition politicians to circumvent traditional media. The most effective rebuttal, if you find the article’s arguments too offensive or disagreeable, is to provide evidence that transformative political change has not taken place, NOT to say “hey what about Indonesia?” Social media in Indonesia is more about empowering grassroots movement and increasing political participation – not about overcoming the limitations of state-controlled media to bring about political change. That’s why any comparison with Indonesia is invalid.

If you must make a comparison – Marissa’s suggestion of Iran is pertinent as both Malaysia and Iran have beseiged oppositions and a repressive government. Even then, Iranian dissident use of Twitter has served to increase awareness about their plight outside of Iran – but it has NOT caused the type of electoral defeat handed to the Barisan Nasional in 2008.

Extending the headline to refer to Malaysia being compared to repressive regimes won’t work, for several reasons. First, as Arum pointed out, it’s too long. Second, it’s redundant. If someone writes that a country demonstrates the “transformative power of social media” then it’s abundantly clear that it is referring to countries with authoritarian rule. It’s not the obligation of the writer of the press release to spell that basic implication out for readers.

Finally, I want to refute Pembela Indonesia’s assertion that I am pro-Malaysian.( “about the neutrality… I doubt it. Since the beginning of your posting I know that you side with Malaysia.”) Taking a look at excerpts from my postings, I have to wonder what Pembela based that claim of “siding with Malaysia” from.
For example:
“bear in mind Indonesia’s media has, since the downfall of the New Order, been extremely free – while Malaysia’s continues to be restrictive.”
“Indonesia is better compared to a country like India (both democracies with free media industries, and both Third World countries) rather than Malaysia with its much more developed economy and infrastructure, and much less space for political discourse”
I’m still looking for evidence of my supposed bias towards Malaysia – if you find it please point it out.

“please stick to the original issues and don’t stray to unrelated or subjective matters”
I don’t think you have any credibility asking anyone to stick to the topic – for example the article’s original issue was whether transformative political change took place in Malaysia – yet you jumped in to suggest that if the headline was amended in the manner you described it wouldn’t work because it would upset Malaysians. What does upsetting Malaysians have to do with the original issue? You might want to practice what you preach, before trying to lecture others on sticking to the topic (something you are clearly unable to do).

I stand by my comment that you are anti-Malaysian or pro-Indonesian – that’s not a subjective comment, it’s to be expected when you use a name like “pembela Indonesia”. And seeing as you claim that you are not offended, that’s fine. In fact, you are even…

“really proud of myself if you believe that I’m an anti-Malaysia (sic)”

Really? Next time, instead of getting me (sic) rather personally, please, stay focused on the original objects

“you can’t use the same principles for a media release as you do with an academic work” is a response to Marissa’s comment that a hypothesis needs to be tested. She’s right – it does, in a thesis or in an academic work. Not in this instance (for a media release).

But it has nothing to do with my earlier comment (which was not in response to a point by Marissa about hypotheses needing to be tested). For you to pretend that both these comments contradict each other is either disingenuousness, or stupidity, on your part.

The earlier comment does NOT confuse media releases with academic work. Instead, it was a general response to how it is wrong to compare Indonesia and Malaysia when the social environments are different – and asserting that I could make that claim because I have researched it.

Anyone with half a brain would realise the earlier comment wasn’t mixing up the requirements for a hypothesis (ie. the topic of Marissa’s comment) in a thesis, with the need to test a hypothesis in a media release.

This is what you said:

You can’t use the same principles for a media release as you do with an academic work.

And this is what you had said previously which is inconsistent:

The environments in which that impact takes place, taking into account how much space there is to begin with for social change to occur, are completely different. I should know-I did a PhD on it.

So, look who confused what with what in the first place?? Perhaps if you said that we should not confuse academic works with ‘media release’ your comment had gone sour from your first comment!