I have personally taken to ignoring Patricia Evangelista. now that she has gone up the ladder of media empire ABS-CBN as creator and producer of Storyline (which does romanticize tragedy in its writing, camerawork, conceptualization), there seems to be no stopping this girl. yes, even when half the time what she does in her Philippine Daily Inquirer opinion column is rehash what it is that has come out in her TV show. signs of these media times? there’s is no explanation for cheap thrills. or notions of credibility.
but it is precisely because she is in these positions of “credibility” that sometimesit is just difficult to ignore Patricia, lest she be under the illusion that she’s getting away with saying things that limn over the bigger issues of the day, as she passes her opinions off as political and correct and valid. at the very least, she passes them off as well-informed and well thought out, when really, they are far from it.
in her last column “Chiz Escudero 2010” Patricia spent most of her space rehashing what Chiz Escudero said at his press con announcing his defection from NPC, then she summarized it by saying that all Chiz did was to say that “a man running for president must not belong to a party, because to belong to a party is to give up independence of action”.
that this conclusion glosses over the other things that Chiz did say at the press con in relation to being freed from party politics is just so un-journalistic, and goodness, just downright uncritical. this is a grave simplification of what it is that went on in that press con, an unacceptable display of an inability to see beyond one’s own biases – one that is for Noynoy Aquino (which we will get to in a bit).
so in the process of dissing Chiz, Patricia reveals that she can’t even respond to the more important things that he had raised: a brave stance versus contractualization and the oil deregulation law, versus the oligarchy’s ways of demeaning the jobs of those in the lower rungs of government service, versus the pork barrel, versus corrupt government officials. this is more than any of the presidentiables have dared say about their platform, about what it is that ails current politics, about what is all wrong here. an intelligent and critical reading of what went on at that press con would’ve meant looking not just at what Chiz announced, but at what else he did say.
and then Patricia reveals her simplistic analysis of Chiz’s defection: that since Chiz said that he has never been dictated upon by the NPC, this defection is meaningless. really now. to say that he has never been dictated by his party, doesn’t mean that there has never been any pressure to go with the party’s political flow and flaws. that Chiz has remained as part of the opposition despite NPC politics is a good thing, not a bad thing. that he now decided that he wants out, out of Danding country, out of party politics, is a good thing.
that in the process Chiz reveals the evils that exist in, the limitations of being part of, a party like the NPC is a fantastic thing.
was this all about him? absolutely. is it possibly about us too, as an electorate intelligently looking for options and wanting change? absolutely.
does Patricia know this? obviously not. in the end, she only revealed herself to be part of the youth who are closet-conservatives, unable to see the value of revolt, the importance of an ability to rebel, to break through the boxes that define who we are. these members of the middle to upper class youth are the scariest kind because they imagine themselves as intelligent voters, they imagine themselves critical, and the future of the nation. and yet when they are faced with the choice between revolt and compromise, change and the status quo, they will weigh things according to their own personal stakes: will i be able to keep my job, will i be able to keep my friends, will i be able to keep my reputation? and in the end they will choose the happy comforts of their old lives, stay where they are, blindly criticize those who shout based on the mere fact that they are shouting.
Patricia ends her tirade againstChiz’s defection from the NPC with
Mostly, I write this because, very frankly, I cannot trust a man whose mouth says one thing, and his eyes another.
now frankly, I wonder what it is that’s in Chiz’s eyes. or in Noynoy’s for that matter – he who is obviously Patricia’s candidate because, as she says, Chiz’s decision to defect is sold as
another touchstone of national change on the heels of Noynoy Aquino’s rise as the nation’s moral, if less articulate choice.
in the guise of being objective, i.e., acknowledging how Chiz’s defection is being seen, Patricia only reveals her own biases: that Noynoy is only a “less articulate” choice, and nothing else.
I wonder if she realizes that in the process of assessing Noynoy as such she has put her foot in her mouth, proving to us all that she has yet to even assess Noynoy as her candidate, over and above what he says.
oh, but wait, maybe that is the point: Noynoy has yet to have anything to say. At the rate the Aquino campaign is going, we’re hearing more of Kris. or is Patricia happy enough listening to her? and pray tell, what do Kris’ eyes tell her? and while she’s at it, since when were people’s eyes the reason for endorsing a candidate? this is not naiveté. this is carelessness. and irresponsibility.
go for it young media practitioner. there’s nowhere to go but up.