The Ridge
The Ridge has always struck me as being a very wannabe publication.
For one, they constantly attempt to appear on top of the latest trends to the point where it's blitheringly obvious they're biting off more than they can chew.
Take for example, the latest issue. In the editorial, they rehash the previous issue's cover featuring the Committee of the Year plaque, and proclaim this issue a "watershed", claiming that it vindicates raised expectations, yada yada yada ad nauseum. They boast "exclusive" interviews. With? The NUS IVP track captains. I always thought the idea of exclusivity was when everyone wants a piece of the pie and only you get some, not when you just happen to be the only quasi-journalist who wants any.
This issue's pride of place is an introduction (I'd scarcely call it a review) of the much vaunted Microsoft Tablet PC. The Ridge makes such a big deal out of the fact that they got exclusive pre-release shots of the Tablet PC, emphasising constantly that they have "beaten the bigwigs at being the first to ogle at it". I wonder who the "bigwigs" they refer to are. Did they really expect us to believe that of all the big industry players, none got to look at the Tablet PC before an NUS student publication?
At the bottom of the page, the article carries, in harsh white letters boldprinted against a black box, the exhortation to save the trees by using the Tablet-an exhortation which bore no relevance to the article proper. It really came across as a feeble attempt to latch onto an environmentalist trend. When the computer was invented, it was touted as a device which would make paper obsolete. The Tablet PC is less of a technological innovation than the PC, and this will make paper obsolete?
The same article boldly proclaims all pens and paper shuddering in the fear of extinction, but in truth it is far from that. There are some things technology cannot replace without degenerating into a sterile, clinical world (which must be the utopia of the Ridge's Wired Desk Editor). The warm intangible of pen writing words on paper, watching the ink flow forth, is one of them. When people feel e-mails are impersonal, as he rightly observed, it's not just because of the handwriting or lack thereof. Pen and paper will never become extinct, not as long as there are people who feel.
Another article champions the intrusion of technology into more and more private domains, the examined case being the toilet. "Who needs courtesy and consideration if cool technology can do the thinking for you?" asks the writer. We wouldn't have to "go through the pains of learning boring social courtesy", so it "sounds pretty good" to her.
If I could send a message to them both, I'd tell them technology may cure some ills, but it's not a universal panacea. Far from it, for with every problem it solves, it creates another elsewhere.
On the other hand, ET pointed out that the Ridge is strangely silent on issues of controversy. It is supposed to be a student publication commenting on pertinent issues, but in truth there is no commentary at all, no point of view on pressing issues. Everything is presented matter-of-factly, without value-adding a critique to the news. Just take the recent AUP hooha. The Ridge obviously felt that it only warranted a short notice toeing the official line reminding everyone to accept it, not deigning to address any student concerns, e.g. the privacy issue. Even funkygrad.com does more in that respect. At least it brings out the issues and value-adds an opinion.
"A publication cannot build a reputation on what it is going to do," says the very first line in this issue. You know, they're absolutely right, and they're sure doing a lot to prove it.
The Ridge says the Tablet PC is so alluring you'd rather give up sex so that you wouldn't have to put it down.
I wouldn't.
For one, they constantly attempt to appear on top of the latest trends to the point where it's blitheringly obvious they're biting off more than they can chew.
Take for example, the latest issue. In the editorial, they rehash the previous issue's cover featuring the Committee of the Year plaque, and proclaim this issue a "watershed", claiming that it vindicates raised expectations, yada yada yada ad nauseum. They boast "exclusive" interviews. With? The NUS IVP track captains. I always thought the idea of exclusivity was when everyone wants a piece of the pie and only you get some, not when you just happen to be the only quasi-journalist who wants any.
This issue's pride of place is an introduction (I'd scarcely call it a review) of the much vaunted Microsoft Tablet PC. The Ridge makes such a big deal out of the fact that they got exclusive pre-release shots of the Tablet PC, emphasising constantly that they have "beaten the bigwigs at being the first to ogle at it". I wonder who the "bigwigs" they refer to are. Did they really expect us to believe that of all the big industry players, none got to look at the Tablet PC before an NUS student publication?
At the bottom of the page, the article carries, in harsh white letters boldprinted against a black box, the exhortation to save the trees by using the Tablet-an exhortation which bore no relevance to the article proper. It really came across as a feeble attempt to latch onto an environmentalist trend. When the computer was invented, it was touted as a device which would make paper obsolete. The Tablet PC is less of a technological innovation than the PC, and this will make paper obsolete?
The same article boldly proclaims all pens and paper shuddering in the fear of extinction, but in truth it is far from that. There are some things technology cannot replace without degenerating into a sterile, clinical world (which must be the utopia of the Ridge's Wired Desk Editor). The warm intangible of pen writing words on paper, watching the ink flow forth, is one of them. When people feel e-mails are impersonal, as he rightly observed, it's not just because of the handwriting or lack thereof. Pen and paper will never become extinct, not as long as there are people who feel.
Another article champions the intrusion of technology into more and more private domains, the examined case being the toilet. "Who needs courtesy and consideration if cool technology can do the thinking for you?" asks the writer. We wouldn't have to "go through the pains of learning boring social courtesy", so it "sounds pretty good" to her.
If I could send a message to them both, I'd tell them technology may cure some ills, but it's not a universal panacea. Far from it, for with every problem it solves, it creates another elsewhere.
On the other hand, ET pointed out that the Ridge is strangely silent on issues of controversy. It is supposed to be a student publication commenting on pertinent issues, but in truth there is no commentary at all, no point of view on pressing issues. Everything is presented matter-of-factly, without value-adding a critique to the news. Just take the recent AUP hooha. The Ridge obviously felt that it only warranted a short notice toeing the official line reminding everyone to accept it, not deigning to address any student concerns, e.g. the privacy issue. Even funkygrad.com does more in that respect. At least it brings out the issues and value-adds an opinion.
"A publication cannot build a reputation on what it is going to do," says the very first line in this issue. You know, they're absolutely right, and they're sure doing a lot to prove it.
The Ridge says the Tablet PC is so alluring you'd rather give up sex so that you wouldn't have to put it down.
I wouldn't.