WHAT IS ORIENTALISM AND HOW DOES IT APPLY TO BBC's REPORTING OF JOVER?
After Sass Sasot (Filipino political blogger) challenged Jonathan Head (British BBC reporter) on BBC's reporting of Jover Laurio (anti Philippine government blogger), the concept of Orientalism emerged in the conversation.
The concept arose because Orientalism is inherent in the conversation between Sass and Jonathan. According to Sass in her post after her talk with Jonathan, Orientalist bias is evident in the way BBC reports about Southeast Asia and the news BBC chooses to air about the Philippines in particular. But to fully understand how this dense concept of Orientalism work and its application to BBC, it is in the interest of this blog to hone in on BBC's reporting of Pinoy Ako Blog's Jover Laurio.
Jover's reach, at that time of the interview, was still relatively insignificant. When BBC interviewed Jover, Filipinos were shocked and questioned the odd interest of BBC to provide Jover airtime despite her relative insignificance. In addition, why did BBC frame Jover as a victim and omitted in the narrative those that Jover victimized?
Understanding the concept of Orientalism could partially give answers to these queries.
What is Orientalism?
Orientalism is a concept coined by Edward Said in 1978. Broadly defined, "Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident.”
WOAH! ANG BIGAT! Let's break it down.
Ang meaning ng epistemology ay ang nature o concepto ng isang kaalaman/pagiisip. Ang ontology naman ay kung paano nabuo ang isang concepto. Ang Orientalism ay isang concepto ng pag-iisip, pag-iisip na may pinagkaiba ang Orient (East) at ang Occident (West).
However, ang pagkakaiba na ito is not always good. Madaming kasing mga concepto in the minds of westerners about the east na masama. For example, when Americans think of Iran, they have an image of a nuclear war freak country kasi Muslim country siya. Another example, pag iniisip ang Africa the continent, Americans think of starving children, no economic progress, and deserts. Last example, para sa mga taga west na hindi naman talaga nakatutuok sa nangyayari sa Pilipinas. Yung mga nakakarinig lang ng news here and then, para sa kanila, ang feeling nila end of the world na sa Pilipinas. Pero, in reality, hindi naman ganun sa Iran, Africa, at dito sa Pilipinas. Because for the Orientalists, "the orient is a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes, remarkable experiences". Ganun sila kung tingnan tayo. Ganun pananaw nila sa mga nangyayari sa Africa, Iran, at Pilipinas -- remarkable experiences, haunting memories and landscapes, exotic beings!
In a nutshell, yan ang Orientalism.
How does Orientalism fit in with Jover's interview?
According to Bridgette Nacos (2006) contemporary media crave—drama, shock, tragedy, and grief, the ideal ingredients of human interest stories. BBC, being a British broadcasting network, cannot find that crave in their own country. Why? Just like in the Philippines, people in their country knows when a particular news is exaggerated or slanted. People in their country criticize them for those. And truly enough, Filipinos also call out mainstream media when they feel a particular news is slanted. I did that several times with Rappler and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The combined reach of the posts I made is almost a million. In other words, calling out the mainstream, somehow, gives a small dent to their institution.
However, BBC still needs to find that drama, shock, tragedy, and grief. They cannot find it in Europe or in the US kasi naca-call out sila dun, but they may get it in the orient. Why in the orient? Because many people in Europe still have an Orientalist thinking that was fed to them by centuries of oriental scholarship and discourse, as Said argues.
Jover, being from the orient, the "dangerous place of wonder and remarkable experience," is the perfect person to reinforce the media crave and orientalist bias of BBC.
How is Jover reinforcing the Orientalist bias and why it is a problem?
Being from the Philippines, Jover epitomizes the victimized oriental-exotic being. Since she's a Filipina, she is the "authority" BBC is using to reinforce their Oriental bias. Question. Bakit si Jover ang ininterview to be the "authority" about the Philippines when her reach wasn't that significant in the first place? Eh ganun kasi niya finrame ang sarili niya eh, "the victim", and that's how BBC depicted her as well. If BBC would interview, say, anyone who is pro-admin, who would say that the Philippines is thriving with its upcoming boom in infrastructure building, would it produce what media crave? The drama. The tragedy. The shock and grief? The answer is no, and BBC, I feel, found it convenient to stick to Jover's narrative instead so that they can get the drama crave.
This is problematic because it creates an unrealistic image of the Philippines. The question why Jover was interviewed despite her insignificant reach in readership is important because it bring to questions the legitimacy of Jover in creating a representation for the Filipino people and the Philippines.
Sino ba si Jover? Ganun ba siya ka influential to speak about the Philippines sa world stage? Pero dahil na interview siya ng BBC, people already assumed na yan talaga ang realidad sa Pilipinas na aping-api ang mga nasa opposition.
Deconstructing Jover's Interview
Jover said in her interview:
"Here in our country right now, hatred and divisiveness is just too much... And when you... call them [government] out you are bashed and you will be attacked. And it's just so hard... I need to come out now, just to protect myself, because if I'm out... the attacks and hate messages and the threats will just stop."
The reporter then further asked:
How safe do you feel? What actions are you going to take? Are you going to continue the blog?
You can see in the interview that Jover is depicted to be in the brink of losing her life. Papatayin na siya! Oh no! The question "do you feel safe" already assumes that Jover is in a state of danger. It is true that Jover was bashed. Her political stance is called out. However, just like in any democracy, calling out is not a new thing. It is prominent in the US as well.
The way Jover framed herself as a victim and had herself interviewed by BBC reinforces Orientalist bias and fills the media crave. Jover is coming out because she needs protection, that she is no longer in a state of safety, that her rights are already infringed, and that this interview with BBC would save her soul from the torments of those who want to silence her. Revealing herself would be her shield. And the white people, who have Orientalist mentalities, would find it to be their white man's burden to save the damsel Jover from imminent damnation of being killed by the haunting memories from the orient and its very dangerous exotic beings.
Why is there an omission of Jover's bullying?
I am curious why BBC omitted the fact to everyone that Jover is a big bully? Jover's blog is not only calling out what she calls the "shortcomings" of the government. But she also uses it as an apparatus to destroy the reputation/libel non-government individuals. For example, Jover accused Sass of being a prostitute. How is that related to the shortcomings of the government? I believe this may be the answer: people listening to the interview may no longer think of Jover as a "freedom" fighter. They would think of Jover as an individual with an ill-heart. It would remove her from her worthiness to be saved. And thus, she is only deserving of being called out.
To sum up
Several months after Jover revealed herself in BBC, Jover is still alive, safe, and breathing. Still blogging and still called out left and right. However, she still fails to see why there is so much dissent against her.
The tragedy of those in the opposition is that they have reduced supporters of President Duterte to mere "trolls". Instead of listening to their pleas, the opposition has brushed them away from the political discussion. Branding Duterte supporters, those who campaigned for Duterte using their own money, as trolls only infuriates those people.
In the mind of a Duterte supporter: I worked so hard to make President Duterte win, I invested in him, I printed shirts for Duterte at my own expense. Now those who have been in power for so long [Liberal Party and the Aquinos] would now want to bastardize my vote by maligning the President I supported so dearly?
If the opposition finds it odd to see Duterte supporters angry when President Duterte is maligned, they lack comprehension. I wouldn't be surprised though if they did because Mar Roxas lacked comprehension.
By bastardizing the vote of the Filipino people, Jover is, indeed, a disservice to the nation. If she truly understood what the Filipino people wanted, Mar Roxas would be in Malacanang now. But he's not. Jover makes slants to malign a democratically elected President whose mandate is more than 6.9million votes from the 2nd placer. Worse, Jover is riding in on the Orientalist bias of BBC because of her lack of comprehension and maybe pecuniary interests.
No matter how much people could argue whether Sass did the right thing or not in debating Jonathan Head, I support her advocacy of calling out the Orientalist bias of BBC. Not only that, but all slants they may report. In this way, we only not correct the way westerners think about those outside their country, but also ensure that President Duterte remains to be the President of the Republic of the Philippines until 2022.
http://www.parasabayan.net/2017/11/orientalism-and-bbcs-reporting-of-jover.html
No comments:
Post a Comment