It is often tempting to believe that technology, in particular information and communications technology (ICT), is necessarily a panacea to life's problems, and consequently helps to improve quality of life for all humankind.

This is especially so in a world where, for instance, the daily drudgery of laundry is taken over from humans by machines, where communication between loved ones is made much easier and cheaper via e-mail, and where banking and financial transactions can be done from one's home computer.

So much hype has been generated about the usefulness and advantages of using ICT that many of us are left to feel "inadequate", "less modern" and even "less hip" if we don't keep abreast with the latest developments in ICT. In fact, ICT is often waved as a modern-day magic wand.

Hence, it was with much trepidation and, of course, concern that I read an article in the Sunday Star (July 9), written by one of its senior writers relating how much dependent he is on his communication gadgets such as a WAP-enabled cellphone, a notebook, an electronic organiser, etc. In fact, he suggested that this array of communication arsenal is a must for "modern journalism", without which, so it seemed, stories could not be adequately unearthed, filed, and subsequently published for public knowledge.

More importantly, also implied in the writer's flaunting of his newly-found fancy techno-tools is the naive and mistaken notion that technology, particularly ICT, will help improve journalistic practices, especially Malaysia's already tattered standards of journalism. ICT, presto!

This is a sad misconception, really, because we all know that it takes more than just electronic instruments to help one to be a good journalist. Good journalism, to be sure, has always demanded deep and unwavering commitment to truth, justice, fairness and a degree of human compassion. It is in this light that these techno-gadgets should be seen as merely a means to a noble undertaking, not as tools of self-deception.

Moreover, in a country where laws governing the role and development of its mainstream media are restrictive and punitive, a journalist also needs to have grit, determination, among others.

In the context of the present Malaysian journalism where breaching professional ethics is the norm and practising investigative journalism is a rare exception, many of those electronic gadgets are a luxury considering the fact that many of the Malaysian journalists have been socialised into resorting to, and depending on, PR handouts and prepared speech texts of ministers in their attempts to search for and write a story. Here, the faithful tape recorder would suffice as it is indeed an appropriate technology.

It might have been a lot more convincing, and justifiable, if a Malaysian journalist insists that he or she requires a notebook (the paper-based sort) and a WAP-enabled cellphone in his/her endeavour to investigate allegations of labour exploitation and sex discrimination in our local sweatshops that produce designer wears. The journalist may want to contact his or her counterparts or contacts in, say, Europe via the Internet in order to find out possible questionable activities of designer wear companies elsewhere. In short, serious investigative journalism.

Anyway, if it were true that good, resourceful journalists badly need elaborate electronic paraphernalia, we would have to think really hard as to what those two renowned journalists of the The Washington Post had when they made the famous Watergate expose in the 1970s. Were they clad in balaclava, armed with a super-duper computer, an earth-to-space communications gear, a truth-check monitor, etc? Batman underwear, anyone?

Of course, an electronic wizardry such as a notebook can be useful these days especially when a reporter, out on an assignment, can file a report faster and efficiently to the news desk. Not only that: Can you imagine the amount of spelling and grammatical mistakes in the major (English) newspapers if there were no spell-check and grammar-check facilities that come along with a word processing software?

I'm no Luddite, but I feel that it is vital to remind ourselves that having hardware such as a notebook is only a portion of the journalistic enterprise. The rest will still have to come from human creativity, imagination, a good grasp of the society concerned and professional commitment that are necessary for the production of good and intellectually-stimulating content or news story.

Human ingenuity, dedication, courage and a lot of imagination are also needed when negotiating with legal and political constraints that are put in place by the political masters.

One can think of a parallel in the local television industry. The advancement in ICT has witnessed the emergence of various sophisticated machines that promise, for example, good picture resolution, sophisticated digital sound system, etc. And yet despite all this technological sophistication, our Malaysian TV viewers still have to contend with many poor local programmes, fiction and factual alike, and limited variety, among others. The human input, in short, is still of paramount importance. No, we're not talking of those "sweet young things" who try passionately to act like news presenters.

The fascination with technology only reinforces the suspicion of many of us that form often triumphs over substance in the Malaysian society. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to assert that some people, journalists included, can be, and have been, trapped in the stail-mesti-ada syndrome. In practical terms, the electronic gizmo can function as an adornment, if not an albatross.

Perhaps one shouldn't be too pessimistic when it comes to technology use. Who knows, surfing the Internet for prestigious publications such as The New York Times , The Economist , The Los Angeles Times , to name but a few, might prove educational. They might at least alert local journalists and editors, particularly those who are ICT-savvy, that good reputation simply cannot be built on a heap of warped writing.