The five-letter words – either PRESS or MEDIA – printed on vests and ID’s of journalists that serve as free entrance tickets to certain star-studded events and first-rated incidents, sometimes also serving as free passes against traffic violations, is not a job benefit of being a journalist. In fact, the recent massacre of 30 media personnel in Ampatuan, Maguindanao proved otherwise.

Contrary to the belief of the majority, the stature of being a member of the media – also known to many as the “watchdog” and the “fourth branch of the government”, next to the executive, legislative and judiciary – is a liability, more than an asset, especially in this country. One primary reason: the world of the journalists is all about digging to uncover the reality while the world of the others, particularly those in power, is all about burying the truth.

The worst part is that the battle between those who uncover and those who bury is uneven, added to the fact that the battle should not exist after all. Until now, journalists who tend to do their job description usually find themselves facing a court charge, or more appalling, having bullets in their skulls or being buried in mass graves. Yet, many are still willing to venture this field even with imminent dangers faced by journalists these days. What, then, is the benefit of being a journalist?

The usual noble answer is “to be able to serve the people by telling them what they need to know”. I believe, though, that journalists have personal reasons when they chose to be in this field. Personally, I admit that I find journalism as an outlet of my passion for writing. It also satisfies the adventurist-side of my brain and, of course, the achievement felt after reading the byline. The best benefit of journalism, however, is unknown to many.

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger recently published an interesting and rather controversial article in the Wall Street Journal proposing a creation of an “American World Service that can compete with BBC and other global broadcasters.”

Bollinger argues that the presence of the Internet caused an “economic decline” in the print and broadcast media industry. He says what is needed is a publicly funded media organization not unlike PBS and NPR. He proposes a system revision that will consolidate the resources of these two organizations to develop a “globally competitive” media institution.

Bollinger himself noted the primary criticism of publicly funded (that's controlled by the government, making it state-funded) media organizations – government influence. Then he offers a very exemplary solution: we must trust the media institutions that they will still be the watchdog-slash-fourth branch of government even if their fund comes from the state. Outrageous.

Media organizations simply can’t receive funding from the government and maintain their status as ‘autonomous’ and ‘independent’. Nobody would buy that.

Bollinger is right in pointing out that with the Internet, the tri-media (TV, radio, print) is seriously deteriorating. Yet, I do not believe that the decline of the traditional journalism translates to deprivation of essential information. With the Internet, journalists have a venue where they can tackle pertinent issues in depth – one thing that can’t be done in traditional media because of space and airtime considerations.

From my perspective, Bollinger’s proposal is not just an attempt to salvage the traditional American journalism. I feel like it’s also an attempt of the United States to re-capture the global media domination currently held by BBC. This is a personal concern. What will happen to the currently-in-question foreign policy of the United States when a state funded American media institution dominates the global media industry?

Daily Egyptian (DE), the student publication of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale (SIUC), publishes an eight-page 12x18 paper everyday. The first time I heard about this, I was really amazed because it was: 1) a very difficult feat for student journalists, 2) it really costs a lot.

I wasn’t surprised that DE is working with an annual budget of around $1.5M. What is shocking is that all of the money comes from advertisements that cover around half of the entire issue.


I have been a student journalist for more than seven years. And the idea of putting advertisements on the pages of campus publications isn’t new to me. After all, the reality is that mainstream newspapers earn more from advertisements than subscriptions.

Another reality, however, is that campus publications aren’t part of this mainstream group.

A lot of student publications in the Philippines accept the notion that paid advertisements, especially from politicians and major corporations, have no space in our pages. It’s partly cultural, as Filipinos have the tradition of feeling indebted to someone who ‘helps’ them. It’s quite evident with the mainstream media, where they usually block negative stories if it concerns their major advertisers.

Most student papers, especially the progressive ones, simply do not want pressure and manipulation from these sectors. That’s very different from the views of some journalists that I talked to here in the US. They say the media remains free despite the presence of advertisers.

I don’t know if that’s true. If we’re to assume that it is, well, to put it bluntly, it works quite different in the Philippines.

On Gender Equality and Equal Rights (SUSI New Media Techniques I output/07-01-10)

I stand with my belief that the idea of “equality” between men and women is unattainable. The thought, simply, is very subjective, if not, ideal.

Over the years, the issue of gender equality has always been a part of discussions in communities, classrooms and even the Congress. And while many tend to believe that once laws giving equal rights for men and women are passed, “equality” will follow suit. I don’t think it works that way.

Culture and tradition, among others, are playing a big role in this subject. The Philippines is a Catholic nation, and I personally believe that this religion strengthen the existence of machismo culture in our country. In contrast to that, several pre-Christian religions who believe in the importance of women in the society also exists in the Philippines. One way or the other, it is most likely that a particular gender would appear dominant.

I advocate equal rights between men and women. And that would mean I would not offer a seat to a lady unless she is pregnant, has a child with her, has a disability or an elderly. But that doesn’t seem to be a good move in a culture where every women expects to have a gentleman offering her a seat. This is contradicting the idea that women wanted equal rights. They, after all, in the said scenario, are not for equal rights but for special treatment. This special treatment, as my feminist professor puts it, is a self, social or cultural oppression that a lot of women in the Philippines are experiencing.

Men, sometimes, also experience this inequality. In several cases in the Philippines, women who are dominant in a group were dubbed as “patriarchal” – stereotyping men as dominant.

Victoria Shannon’s article (Equal Rights for Women? Survey Says: Yes, but…/NY Times: 2010) interestingly notes the gender inequality despite the presence of equal rights. Women, while they can have a job, are also expected to shoulder major responsibilities at home. This is a fundamental thought that proves the fact that while equal rights can be established, equality between men and women is a far-fetched idea.

Our new president was sworn in yesterday. And I am saddened with the fact that I wasn’t there to see Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo handing the position she had held for the last nine years. I am saddened with the fact that I wasn’t there to witness the smiles of my fellow Filipino people as we see a new dawn that, really, at some point promises change and brings hope to everyone.

And yes, I am saddened with the fact that this hope for change may be short-lived.

President Aquino’s inaugural speech doesn’t say much. And though I’d definitely post an analysis of his speech in a separate blog, I would like to focus on his promise on bringing back the “democracy” in our country.

In the last few years I have heard people who challenge the reality of the existence of democracy in the Philippines, regardless of who the president is.

Director of John Dewey Center of the Southern Illinois University-Carbondale Larry Hickman yesterday lectured on democratic theory, John Dewey and export democracy. And while I admit that I am not an expert in this democracy theory, I think I have made a few notes that are worth mentioning.

Hickman said that John Dewey, an American philosopher, social critic and political activist, has classified four factors that a “democratic” nation needs.

1. Political Democracy: The power of government is restricted and regulated by the Constitution, and the common will of the people is expressed through their elected representatives.
2.  Democracy of Rights: All the people are guaranteed certain rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of publication, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, and others.
3. Social Democracy: Democracy implies equality and demands the abolition of unequal social distinctions; it calls for equality of persons before the law and in personal relationships.
4. Economic Democracy: Democracy demands the right of every man and woman to a decent standard of living, and aims at the progressive elimination of marked different in the enjoyment of resources by the rich and the poor.

In the Philippines, we have all this written in paper. But from my observations, a lot of people in our government are using loopholes to blatantly reverse the effects of these supposed factors of democracy.

For one, the president of the country, or any other individual, has restrictions and should follow the law. But when investigations on anomalies on projects of the government are initiated by the legislative, the president suddenly uses her executive powers to evade questions using the now common term ‘it will compromise our national security’. And this is just one of the examples and a lot of others are always mentioning these loopholes in the “political democracy” in the Philippines.

I have also said yesterday, though in another lecture, that in the Philippines, the media has freedom in publishing anything whether in print, broadcast or online. Only that a lot of media practitioners disappear, are murdered or harassed. I don’t think I need to explain much.

And while many tend to disagree on the status of “equality of men and women in the Philippines”, Filipinas, in general, are playing a big role in our society as compared to other Asian nations. That, however, doesn’t mean we have this “equality” in our country. There are issues of racial, religious and other types of discrimination. Also, of course, no one in the lower classes of society would say they are treated “fairly” by those in power.

And lastly, in the Philippines, the number of people below the poverty line, according to the Philippine government, is not very high. The problem, however, is that one government report back in 2004 said that to be considered poor, a person must be living below the budget of Php36 a day. That’s around 80 cents in US Dollars.

Yes, the Philippines has traces of all the four factors of democracy that John Dewey has organized. The question is, however, where do we draw the line between democracy and not?

This is the state of “democracy” in the Philippines. Personally, I believe that Aquino will have a hard time restoring this “democracy”, and that’s in the premise of ‘if we ever experienced one’. I am not much hopeful, but he’s free to try. Or as he puts it, we all should try.

A Supporters' Revolution (first published on May 6, 2010)

If massive fraud and manipulation is proven, I do not dispute the idea of a people power revolution after the elections. It’s a democratic right of the people. What I find troublesome is that certain groups are pushing for it not because of national intentions but for personal ambitions.

This “undemocratic” call for mass movements after the polls started when Liberal Party vice presidential candidate Sen. Mar Roxas said in a DZMM interview that if Mr. Noynoy Aquino loses his bid for presidency, it only means one thing: he was cheated. Roxas is demented enough to have this kind of attitude towards the Philippine elections. It was either a careless remark or a deliberate comment aimed to modify the minds of the voters, especially the supporters of Mr. Aquino.

The controversial statement of Roxas was not revised by the Liberal Party camp. Instead, after a few days, Mr. Aquino himself declared that he is certain that there will be people power if he is cheated. This doesn’t fit well with Roxas’ comment. Though separately made, it’s easy to string their statements together, if Aquino loses, there will be people power because, as Roxas said, he was cheated.

I do not undermine the capacity of our voters to examine the preposterous statements of LP’s standard bearers. But passion usually clouds reasonable judgment. We cannot deny the love of this nation to Mr. Aquino’s parents. However, Noynoy Aquino is not, and will never be, his parents. But no matter how hard we try to justify this, many, unfortunately, still believe the saying kung ano ang puno, siya rin ang bunga.

The recent developments have cemented the claim of Mr. Aquino that only cheating will prevent him from winning. The problem with the compact flash cards of PCOS machines has triggered the doubts of the voters on the efficiency of the automated election system. The Comelec has given Mr. Aquino a “solid” reason to immediately call for people power in case he loses. With the mindset of his followers that he will win, especially after the endorsement of Iglesia ni Cristo, definitely, one word from Mr. Aquino and a "supporters' revolution" is very possible.

We are in a situation now where many believe that the next president will be Mr. Aquino, unless he is cheated. I find it hard to digest that that “many” believe this claim. I hope that I am wrong with my assumption. I hope that the majority will realize that Mr. Aquino can lose his bid without any election manipulation. After all, surveys are not the results of the elections; Iglesia ni Cristo members do not constitute the majority of the voting bloc; and the automated election system can function efficiently even with the problems faced by Comelec a week before the polls.

For Mr. Aquino, please bear in mind that you are, undeniably, an influential figure of this nation. Please stop making, as Amando Doronilla puts it, "inflammatory, provocative and unduly alarmist" statements. You have no basis, nothing at all, that you will win this election. You have been careless in your remarks as regards to your candidacy. Unfortunately, your followers are buying those because your surname is credible enough for them.

As a student journalist, I have always been fighting for the freedom of speech and expression. But I know my limits, Mr. Aquino. I hope you know yours.

For the supporters, whom I think will "kill" for their candidates, I plead that you avoid any irrational and unreasonable actions after the May 10 polls. It will not help our nation. Let's not give the president a reason to proclaim military rule before the oath-taking of the declared winner.

Again, I do not contest a people's revolution if the cause is for the good of this nation. I will, however, vehemently oppose any "unreasonable" and "undemocratic" supporter's revolution that will serve the personal interests of several individuals.

###