All these things STOMP has done (Part II).

Part I here.

Shu Fen has put up a list of STOMP's inanities over here. Do check it out.

Response from Singapore Press Holdings.

Question to all readers: is this the canned response that you got as well? Please share, and forward the e-mails to us if necessary.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: K---
Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Stomp Out Stomp
To: stompoutstomp@gmail.com

Hey,

Got this reply. Is it the canned response all the emails get?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Helen Tan NH <tannhh@sph.com.sg>
Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Fw: Disgusted by STOMP
To: K---

Dear Mr K---,

We refer to your email of 7 February to STOMP and ST Forum.

We regret that you see STOMP as an "unnecessary tool for surveilllance". The vast majority of STOMP users do not hold this view. Most see it for what it is -- a platform for people to air their views and interact with other users, even if at times their expressions may not be as sophisticated as some would like them to be. By doing so, these users highlight trends and happenings in our society and raise awareness of them. But this does not mean that the views and pictures they post on STOMP are "voyeuristic". They feature events and happenings in public places. Note that "voyeurism" is defined as "the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively" (American Heritage Dictionary).

We also need to explain the steps STOMP editors have taken to maintain standards. We ensure that postings that violate any law are taken down immediately. Salacious materials are removed, although not everyone will agree with the judgments we make on what is acceptable and what is not. We also do our utmost to protect minors -- for instance, our editors ensure that we mask the faces of minors who are featured in the site. We also believe in giving newsmakers the right of reply.

In adopting these measures, STOMP has distinguished itself from the vast number of other websites that Singapore Internet users have access to. It would therefore be ironic to shut down a site like STOMP while leaving other totally unregulated sites untouched.

We agree with you however that STOMP, which caters to a niche audience, is capable of doing more to meet the needs and standards of its users. Our editors do periodic reviews, and constructive feedback from readers is taken into consideration.

Thank you for sharing your views.

Regards,

Ms Helen Tan
Senior manager
Editorial Services

E-mail exchange with a reporter from Journalism.co.uk

From: Stomp Out STOMP!

Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Stomp out STOMP!
To: Laura Oliver

Dear Laura,

Thanks for taking the time to hear us out. In response:

1. Main Reasons against STOMP.
   
   • Has not met its aims. Upon its inception, STOMP was hailed as 'the next new thing' in citizen journalism in Singapore - it was expected to be a platform for Singaporeans to create news for Singaporeans, by Singaporeans. However, it seems that the type of 'news' that has been covered thus far ranges from the banal to the mundane, to the downright outrageous and inappropriate.
   • Has caused more harm than good. Instead of being a boon, the website has become a bane, turning into an unnecessary tool for surveillance, and has resulted in:
     
   • the encouragement of the culture of voyeurism in our society,
   • unnecessary intrusions into the private lives of Singaporeans, and
     
   • the inadvertent destruction of the lives of Singaporeans affected by the 'news' that STOMP reports on.
   • Infantilisation of Singapore society. STOMP may well be encouraging a possible infantilising of Singapore society by endorsing only a certain type of journalism from citizens - sensationalist and scandalous gossip which promotes low-level thinking. In terms of social responsibility, this is entirely inappropriate for an online publication under the umbrella of a national press that has close links with the government, given that one of our national aims is to leverage on the affordances that the Media provides in transforming Singapore into a Renaissance City.
     
     
2. Action taken.
   
   • Raising awareness of the cause through the use of social media and Web 2.0 technology. In particular, we are using a Facebook application called 'Causes' for this.
   • Encouraging users to send in e-mails of appeal to Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) with the following template, the rationale for this being - all other forms of protest are not viable in the Singapore state.
     
   
   
3. We will forward you an e-mail on how this has been received by the SPH shortly.
   

Do e-mail us again if you have any more queries. We will be glad to assist you.

Regards,

The Stomp Out STOMP! Team

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Laura Oliver <laura@journalism.co.uk> wrote:

Thanks so much for getting in touch,

I'm really interested to hear that there's such opposition to STOMP.

I have a few questions:

- can you tell me your main reasons against STOMP?

- what action are you taking against it?

- and how has this been received by the Singapore Straits Times?

Many thanks,

Laura

On 3 Feb 2009, at 10:26, Stomp Out STOMP! wrote:

Dear Madam/Sir,

I refer to your article at http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/53076.php .

Singaporeans are actually very against STOMP, and we have set up a cause to protest against STOMP. You may like to check out our blog at http://stompoutstomp.blogspot.com/ for more details.

Do feel free to e-mail us as well, as we are open to answering queries or clarifying certain questions you may have.

Thank you.

Regards,
The Stomp Out STOMP Team.