Hello everyone.

My name is Louis. You guys probably can't put a face to my name as I was absent during the first tutorial. But I am glad to be included in this class blog.

From the previous post, I agree with Mabel on how the phenomena of blogging has transformed from a personal diary into an individualized self-published platform for the online public's eyes. Moreover, it has evolved even more by infusing an element of commercialization into this blogosphere with the whole new business of advertisements and PayPerPost etc. (BTW, I would also like to be a very famous food blogger and get really rich!).

But what I like to explore is whether new media, like blogs, has effectively replaced the 'old' media, such as the television and radio, in influencing the culture of society today.

Personally, I don't think so. Instead, I feel that new media has contributed to the shaping of culture by providing an additional force called globalization. Traditional media like domestic radio and TV still acts as a reality machine by disseminates information or even ideology. But with the rise of new media, we see  what was intended to be our culture reacting dynamically with these foreign influences/waves.

Interesting video!

New media merely allows us to peep into another reality. But it is unlikely to fully destabilize the present state of society in terms of culture, because the process is intricate and continuous. It involves a high degree of selectivity in adoption or rejection. For instance, the viewing of K-dramas (see video by BBC) and Bollywood movies wouldn't make us any less Singaporean even if a majority of Singaporean do so.

I feel that by identifying stereotypes in these media text is the first step to assessing the encoding and framing work residing within these texts. What are the intentions behind these media texts?
Is it really as simple as economic pursuits, or is it a thriving form of soft power? I think K-wave should be critically examined.