(1) The government's announced position is that they will leave internet chatter as it is--to quote in full:

THE Government recently ticked off a columnist-blogger going by the moniker of 'mr brown' for airing what were deemed to be cynical and non-constructive remarks. A minister argued that because the views appeared in the print medium, the writer had to be more responsible, as compared to the case if those views had remained Internet chatter. Clearly, the Government feels that bloggers have more wiggle room than mainstream journalists whose vehicle can 'push broadcast' to millions while bloggers can only 'pull narrowcast' mainly to the converted.

(2) A long spiel on the perceived failings of the blogosphere, the conclusion of which is this:

Of course, bloggers occasionally come up with gems. But in the main and on the whole, we over-romanticise all that Internet chatter if we think that somehow the alternative media will rise up and supplant mainstream media.

This is followed by the following transition:

For now, that is. For the blogosphere continues to expand.

(3) The views of one Dr Chris Atton reported (beginning "The significance of the fact..."; ending "both for oneself and for one's community") on the development of the blogosphere and its potential to impact the political sphere. I will quote it in full further down.

(4) Finally, the overarching conclusion, which is quoted in full:

So while blogging may not impact government institutions in radical ways for now, it has the capacity to change the polity in small, indiscernible ways that may accumulate to make a difference - even at the polls - some day down the road. With Technorati, the blog search engine, showing more than 940,000 blogs that are associated with the search word 'Singapore', it may be high time the Government began to take this more seriously than just chatter. As seriously as the mainstream media, perhaps.

I predict that there will be a lot of blogospheric attention on section (2). Much effort will be spent exposing the inaccuracies, falsehoods, lack of objectivity and unfairness in it. And rightly so. Nonetheless, I believe that to focus a critique of the article on this section is to miss the forest for the trees. Consequently, I will leave it to others to take section (2) apart. My concern is to make more explicit Ho's overarching argument--that being where the real beef of the article resides.

We can begin by getting clear about what is being argued for in the final conclusion--what does it mean for the government "to take [the blogosphere] more seriously than just chatter. As seriously as the mainstream media, perhaps"? Referring back to section (1), it can only mean this: the same or similar legislative restrictions that the government imposes upon mainstream journalism should also be imposed upon the blogosphere. With this in mind, we can now sum up Ho's argument:

(1') The government currently gives bloggers more "wiggle room" that it does mainstream journalists.

(2') Given all the (supposed) failings of the blogosphere, it is illusion to imagine that the alternative media will rise up and supplant mainstream media, which surports the government's stance in (1')

(3') But there are developments (reporting Chris Atton's views).

(4') Given the developments reported in (3'), the government should not give bloggers any more "wiggle room" than it does mainstream journalists.

Let's be very clear about it: Ho's final conclusion is not predicated upon all the supposed failings of the blogosphere he details in section (2). In fact, the entire drift of his argument is precisely that if all there is to the blogosphere is as detailed in (2), then the government would be right to give bloggers more "wiggle room" than it does mainstream journalists. Ho's final conclusion is predicated upon the developments reported in section (3). So just what are these developments? I will quote in full:

The significance of the fact that publishing on the web has become so easy is that the barriers of professionalism and specialisation have been removed such that 'ordinary' people come to see media production as something they can do and as part of the everyday, according to Dr Chris Atton, a reader in journalism at the Napier University in Edinburgh, Scotland.

As Dr Atton told The Straits Times, participating in this alternative media can 'shape one's political awareness by raising one's consciousness'. How? Liken the activity to glue, he suggested, but one that is subject to refinement to make it a more effective social glue. The activity itself provides an opportunity to research, write and reflect on issues that impact upon our status as citizens. It also encourages a more thorough going relationship with one's community. Finally, that communication also works outwardly to government bodies, city councils, business corporations and nonprofits, Dr Atton added.

Essentially then, blogging provides an opportunity for citizens to reflect on their place in the world and develop solidarity with and communicate their needs, demands or desires to others, he said. At the heart of this activity is creativity. It is not about joining a protest group or going to a demonstration. It is, Dr Atton said, about developing a personal voice through which to make sense of the world, both for oneself and for one's community.

For Ho, the government ought to impose the same or similar restrictions on blogging as it does mainstream journalism not because bloggers are an "amateur horde" that "will tell few new stories about something newsworthy", not because "the blogging world has no professional writers, publishers, printers or distributors... no top-down structure" and consequently, no editorial structure that "weeds out inaccuracies, lies, spoofs or plain bad taste - and bad writing", not because most of the time, "what bloggers offer is either misinformed, self-indulgent opinion or thoughtful but unargued ones".

In fact, Ho did not even say that the government ought to impose restrictions on blogging because blogs have an (alleged) increasing ability influence partisan politics in Singapore. At least that would actually 'make sense'.

Rather, blogging ought to be restricted because "the activity... provides an opportunity to research, write and reflect on issues that impact upon our status as citizens" that "encourages a more thorough going relationship with one's community", because "blogging provides an opportunity for citizens to reflect on their place in the world and develop solidarity with and communicate their needs, demands or desires to others", and all this even though blogging "is not about joining a protest group or going to a demonstration" but "about developing a personal voice through which to make sense of the world, both for oneself and for one's community."

These, says, Ho, are the very reasons why the government should not give bloggers any more "wiggle room" than it does mainstream journalists. Chew on that.