Category Archive for: media

komentaryo

Anong problema sa walang harapan?

Full of themselves, is what ABS-CBN seems to be, after the presidential and vice-presidential candidates cancelled on their tandem debates for Harapan 2010. In truth, if I were these candidates, I would’ve backed out too, in favor of a miting de avance or campaign sortie in a far-flung province or city. The point is simple: who watches TV, a debate of all things, and who will go out and listen to the music, watch the fireworks, see artistas on a stage?

What this points to, quite simplistically, are markets, is access, is social divisiveness.And the middle class illusion that everyone has equal access to technology.

After all, ABS-CBN’s disappointments is borne mostly of its celebration of its use of new technology that has people actively responding to the debates they have been able to mount so far.

But where I work, teachers who lost their television sets to Ondoy have yet to buy new ones – it is in fact, far down in their list of appliances to buy. Where I work, we also don’t have easy access to the internet. Where I work, a debate is the last thing that will spell the different between voting for Noynoy and voting for Gibo and voting for Villar. Where I work, what spells a difference in presence and promises.

And this is my basis for thinking that ABS-CBN is all hot air here – it cannot, will not, should not speak as if this is the loss of the greater public. There is nothing extraordinary about the debates they have come up with. It does generate interest, yes, and we do watch and make candidates’ mistakes and fab answers our status updates. But that doesn’t mean it does a lot. In fact it fails horribly at asking the right questions, or even talking at length about the more important issue that might actually solve poverty.

Instead, half the time, it’s all punchlines and laughter and sensational statements, the status quos that we live with. Harapan 2010 will not go in depth about globalization or imperialism, America’s presence or foreign ownership of land, agrarian reform or workers’ rights, because that would point a finger at the industry that it is part of, the company it is created within, ABS-CBN as cultural empire, the Lopezes as oligarchy.

If anything, Harapan 2010, while informative, yes, and interesting and fun for the social classes ready to laugh at and praise our candidates, is also about television ratings, and the social and corporate responsibility of a media organization such as ABS-CBN. That in itself is replete with meanings, and cannot be dismissed as simply about being in the service of the Filipino. Utang na loob.

kultura

2009’s Notable Cultural chevers*

As with all year-ender lists, this is necessarily full of itself, and can be accused of having a false sense of power, imagining itself to be comprehensive and truthful and correct. Unlike many of those Best of 2009! lists though, this is conscious of itself and its limitations, and is willing to be shot in the foot for missing the point entirely. Too, this isn’t really a Best Of list (haha!); this is really just a list of my top 10/11/12? spectacular (-ly negative, positive, happy, disappointing) things that did happen in our shores as far as popular, alternative, online, indie culture was concerned, as distinct from what have been termed notables of the year in books, theater, art and music. All these terms of course are highly arguable, but then again, culture is highly arguable, and is in process, as with everything that is lived. So maybe this is really just a way of reckoning with the past year, looking at what we did, where we are, what else is there to do, given the good the bad, the sad the happy, the almost-there-but-not-quite, that happened for and to culture in 2009. The hope is that we will continue to argue in the year 2010, over and above – and more importantly because of – the relationships we hold dear, the interests we treasure, and well, where we clearly stand about real and relevant change.

1. Uniting Against the Book Blockade. In the summer of 2009, poet and teacher Chingbee Cruz blogged about being taxed at the Post Office for books that she had ordered online. This would begin the fight against the taxation of imported books which, according to U.P. Law School Dean Marvic Leonen is against the law: books are tax-exempt, no ifs and buts about it. And yes, the last we heard, we are going to court on this one. (more…)

komentaryo

the good, the sad, the ugly —

— or the life and death of critical discourse.

so carlos celdran takes jim paredes to task for being, in gay lingo, a negatron, i.e., a nega, a negamall, about the philippines. what paredes had said seems irrelevant now, because what came to matter as far as ANC’s Media in Focus panel that included celdran was this: can you blame media for showing just the bad news? isn’t celdran mouthing government rhetoric that says we must see the positive in all these? and was celdran, praytell, correct in saying that there’s something good in GMA, and that well, it’s worth the news? and for the more exciting part, does paredes’ migration to australia matter in any form or manner?

THE GOOD — or why i was with team carlos for a while there.

between celdran and paredes, it is the former that has me listening. this man just has the balls, you know? he publishes what’s on his mind, then takes responsibility for it regardless of the outcome.  which is really what made for fascinating viewing as well, of the twitter exchanges and that fateful MIF show.

it’s also quite refreshing to hear someone from the same social class dishing it against his own, and well, not minding being at the receiving end of it. i mean of course it’s easy to dismiss celdran as just a konyo boy, at the same time, he is one who seems more involved than his kind, seems more daring in terms of taking stands and having convictions, and really, he seems to have a better sense of his limitations at the same time that he lives his freedoms.

and so yes, he will critique government at the same time that he will openly campaign for gibo; he gets angry at lisa macuja for saying no to the RH Bill campaign, and celebrates lea salonga for being on his side; he will keep the fire going — as many middle and upper class netizens did — throughout the ondoy tragedy and aftermath, even as he has gone on to talk about other things that are more current and well, that are a little happier.

which is why it’s no surprise that he will say, there must be something good to write about the philippines, here and now, right? we must not want to be negatrons, and instead start building a pinoy identity that’s more positive. we must consider what it is that so many in the world think about us, given what it is they know (or not) about the philippines. so he demands for a balance between the bad and good. he also says there must be something good about GMA, even if it’s just that spanking new train.

but here is where celdran’s limitations become clear.

THE SAD thing isn’t so much that we must even thank GMA for the good news of a train that is her responsibility to renovate to begin with, it’s really that as we thank her for you know, the elevated u-turn on C5 or the highway to Subic, we cannot but imagine who was marginalized in these processes of “development”.

how must it feel to deal with that elevated u-turn, when you are the commuter who’s public transport isn’t allowed to pass on it, and instead must contend with thetraffic it creates beneath it? how must it feel to be the farmer or worker who now has to contend with destroyed mountains and land, plus a highway that’s impossible to cross, in order to maintain a living?

and yes, how do we imagine the train being a fantastic thing when the impoverished that exists in its immediate vicinity are blamed and ostracized, made to feel unworthy of its existence given it’s new beauty?

carlos conde, who was also guest at the MIF panel, has it right: much of the good news we do have is premised on something sad, if not altogether bad. efren penaflorida‘s success is really about poverty and the sad state of education in this country; manny pacquiao‘s athleticism is based on the fact of necessity, and so is charice pempengco‘s singing style and success.

these successes are plenty true, and there are tons of good news, but context — the bigger picture — is all encompassing. the sad truth is that where we do come from, there is no escaping the sadness. and maybe there is no reason to. because the moment we do, then we might forget. and i imagine that forgetting is also the last thing that celdran wants to happen. or paredes for that matter. regardless of whether they live with it everyday or ehem, have it in theirhearts, as filipino-migrant-apple-picker-and-writer Carlos Bulosan already said decades ago.

THE UGLINESS of this all lies really, in the way things were resolved between celdran and paredes. the catfight via twitter was exciting to say the least, but for it to have been resolved beyond the confines of the online world where it had happened, and then for it to just be concluded without explanation or further discussion, seemed like a cop out. it seemed like the quickest life-and-deathof critical discourse as we know it.

it would’ve been great to get the discourse going, on many things that the celdran-paredes argument had raised. there’s media responsibility, the fact that news are chosen, and yes, that there are certain kinds of news that appeals to the international audience. there’s also the question of tourism and world perception and filipino identity. there’s the question of citizenship and migration, and the right to complain, as well as the need to do something about it.

butmaybe the ugliest thing to come of this is the fact that in the end, as spectator, i am made to realize that there is sameness here. both celdran and paredes are actually in the same boat, and when celdran says at least he’s doing something about changing the philippines even as he complains about it, maybe he only thinks himself better than paredes.

because while there is value in celdran’s daring, his limitations are very clear: the status quo is where he’s at. systemic change, making sure that the problems that create a pacquiao and a penaflorida and a pempengco, an ondoy and extrajudicial killings and an impoverished majority, is not his point here. his is a band-aid, a way of making the healing of wounds a little faster and a little less painful, which is noble in itself. but this won’t keep the wounds from not being inflicted again, won’t make for real change at all.

in that sense, while he is no negatron like paredes, and while he has stayed in the philippines instead of making a big deal about migrating elsewhere, and while there is value in the ways in which he wears his heart on his sleeve, celdran doesn’t seem to be any different from paredes when and where it matters.

maybe that’s good enough for him. and maybe that’s not ugly after all. it’s just downright sad.

komentaryo

the eyes have it? patricia evangelista votes!

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.

komentaryo

a wonder

how does ABS-CBN do it? of course we know it’s a capialist enterprise, an empire almost, that has us all bound in its cultural products and basic services. but the way in which the News and Public Affairs arm has kept mostly quiet, save for its guard dogs and mouthpieces online who have poo-pooed the plagiarism charge of stuartsantiago, reeks of yabang and hubris.

because if their head Maria Ressa were smart, she would’ve already apologized about the plagiarism. because anyone who’s serious about writing absolutely anything would know that a paraphrase is STILL plagiarism unless its source is acknowledged with: “according to…”. because even if they have exactly the same sources that were used for Himagsikan sa EDSA, as kbc says in her comment over at stuartsantiago, there would still only be 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillian) that two people would use a sample of the 1,000 most common words of a language in exactly the same order, exactly the same way.

when i was teaching at the Ateneo and i’d catch plagiarized work, i would announce it to the class and give each student the chance to see me and admit that they had gone online and used information that isn’t theirs. no fail, if i caught two students plagiarizing, at least 10 would admit that they might have plagiarized.

MIGHT HAVE plagiarized.

in truth, ABS-CBN should’ve already apologized for the mere possibility that their creative team DID plagiarize. because otherwise, i watch their news and public affairs shows and i wonder: how much of what i hear is original? how much of what their reporters mouth are truly theirs?

and what is it that they teach viewers when they in a sense dismiss a plagiarism charge? what is it that they prove? that they are high and mighty? that they refuse to be corrected, refuse to admit faults?

this is no different from keeping Willie Revillame on the air, even when his crassness and kabastusan just go against everything they say the network stands for. it’s like saying: the buck stops with us. we have the power to decide. we might have committed a crime, but our voice will prevail. we are invincible.

well, as stuartsantiago will prove, not anymore.