There is a stark difference between journalists and political bloggers, which I don't think many of the Philippine Senators understand. (Nakita naman natin to nung Senate Hearing on Fake News). Implied in the name "journalist" is the assumption of fairness, that a journalist will report the who, when, what, why, where and how of an event, and assure that all sides are taken into account. Nothing more. Nothing less. Kaya, sinasabi ng GMA 7 na "Walang kinikilingan, walang pinoprotektahan, walang kasinungalingan, serbisyong totoo lang," kasi yan talga dapat ang motto ng isang news company. This "fairness" that they promise is also the very reason people trust and consume what they offer. It is also assumed that their reports avoid bias as much as possible. Therefore, when historians write books, most journalistic reports are seen as "matters of facts." Also, for the most part, an average person won't question journalists because of the implied promise of "fair reporting".
The only exemptions to this is when journalists make documentaries or write opinion articles. But nonetheless, when it is an opinion article, it is crystal clear to everyone that it is opinion kasi sa opinion section siya nakapublish at may malaking sign na nakalagay na "opinion". Documentaries are an exemption too kasi it has the emotional component which is subjective. This subjectivity depends on how the reporter angles the story. Pero, the reporter is still obliged to present all sides as fairly as possible.
Political bloggers, on the other hand, are NOT mandated to be "fair." In fact, they could be bias, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being biased. SANDALI LANG! WAG MUNA MAG REACT! YES. SINABI KO NA WALANG PROBLEMA MAGING BIASED ANG BLOGGERS. PERO HINDI KO SINABI NA PWEDE MAGING BIASED ANG MGA JOURNALISTS.
Let me explain that. Here's why. Unlike journalists whose very name implies fairness, bloggers do not claim such. Hindi sinasabi ng mga bloggers yung sinasabi ng GMA 7 na "walang kinikilingan, walang pinoprotektahan." At kapag pumunta ang mga tao sa blog ni ThinkingPinoy (TP), people know his writings are very supportive of President Duterte. People go to TP's blog not because they want to see how TP would report the "when, what, why" But because, people would want to hear TP's thoughts and arguments on various topics. Can bloggers be held accountable? Yes. Pero not in regards to fairness. Instead, bloggers are accountable kung malakas ba yung argument nila and kung makatotohanan ba yung mga evidence nila to bolster their claims.
Now that we have distinguished the difference between political bloggers and journalists, pwede na natin pag-usapan si Raissa.
Raissa is a journalist and at the same time a political blogger. I don't think there is anything legally wrong with being both. Hindi labag sa batas yun. However, this is the problem: can you actually do your job well kung ang pagka-tao mo as a a journalist conflicts with your pagka-tao as a political blogger? In other words, mahirap i-paghiwalay ang sarili sa dalawang trabahong yun.
Why? As a blogger, Raissa, I felt, has been very partisan, and she has been held accountable by those who challenge her views. Nakikita natin sa twitter at Facebook na ang daming nakaka-away ni Raissa, and the chiding she gets from those feuds can get very brutal. And kung madami kang kaaway at ang tindi ng mga banat na natatanggap mo as a blogger, can you still maintain fairness as a journalist? Lalo na kung ang cino-cover mo ay ang mga taong kalaban mo sa blog mo? Hindi ba ma aapektuhan ang pagiging patas mo niyan?
During Raissa's talk, I came 30 minutes early. Before the event began, Raissa told everyone that she wanted to tweet about the event. According to her, it will rile up "Duterte trolls." Hearing her say this gave me a sense that she was finding pleasure in instigating Duterte supporters. While listening to her talks (Berkeley and UCLA), I felt that Raissa reduced all those who oppose her as "trolls" and part of a bigger conspiracy to silence her and the opposition.
This, to me, is dangerous, because Raissa has been going to US universities as a journalist that carries the acrimonies of a beleaguered blogger. In other words, students and academics see her as someone who will provide fair assessments. Journalist eh. However, yung mga sinasabi niya sa mga talks are not fair assessments. In fact, I had a feeling that part of her motive was for revenge, para bawian yung mga nanira sa kanya. And at the same time, prove to everyone that she is right and her critics are wrong. Bakit niya gusto i-instigate ang mga Duterte supporters? For what purpose? If one is a fair journalist, that person would not want to instigate any groups of people. Bsta trabaho lang. So far, this is the strongest motive I see and I could argue because I have corroborative evidence.
(Of course, there are people who would say that Raissa may be part of the destabilization movement against President Duterte. In theory and comparative history, there have plenty of similar situations na nangyari na at hawig sa ginagawa ni Raissa ngayon. But to say that Raissa is part of a destabilization movement still requires a lot of evidence to prove. Wala tayo nun. Pero, I could conclusively say that Raissa's talks have been extremely one sided.)
Now, this brings me to the next point. Omissions. I know Raissa is an intelligent lady. It's not easy to write a book and she has proven her knowledge as a writer. Kaya, I think that it was blatant na may mga bagay siyang sinasabi sa isang conference at mga bagay na hindi sinasabi. Raissa's thesis in her talk, in a nut shell, was that Marcos was a dictator. Marcos did so and so things. Duterte is doing so and so things similar to Marcos. Therefore, Duterte is going to be a dictator. For those who are unsuspecting and see Raissa as "the journalist," they considered what she said as "matters of facts". But when I asked her why she did not include the reasons for why Duterte acted as such (ie: Duterte launching attacks on the Inquirer), the students in the room suddenly became suspicious of Raissa. After the talk, one student approached me and said, "Man, I like your questions. It was on point. I haven't really considered those factors before. Thanks for asking." But if no one asked her those questions, Raissa's narrative of President Duterte as a dictator would easily fly. Eh siyempre, ara sa mga taong nakikinig, "matters of fact" na yun eh
By the end of the talk, I was able to chit-chat with Raissa. I introduced myself and ask to have a photo with her. I told her that my name, "Krislam," is a combination of Kristyano and Islam. I was named that way because San Pedro Cathedral in Davao was bombed on the day of my birth. She then brought up Sali Makdum, the alleged terrorist according to Edgar Matobato. (Raissa was somehow telling me it was allegedly Makdum who bombed San Pedro Cathedral).
(For everyone's knowledge, Edgar Matobato is a self-confessed murder and hitman. In the senate hearing on "extra-judicial killings," Matobato accused the President of Hiring him to be his hitman. He also made accusations to several other people. Matobato claimed that President Duterte ordered him to kill Sali Makdum.)
However, I told her that I don't buy the allegations Matobato made because he was proven to have lied many times. According to Matobato, Makdum was a terrorist. But during the Senate Hearing, Matobato was found to have pecuniary interest against Makdum. I told Raissa that, but Raissa explained that it was the allegation against Matobato. In other words, Raissa wants to maintain the credibility of Matobato. To further put the credibility of Matobato to question, I told Raissa that I don't trust Matobato's sworn statements because Matobato is a phony. Matobato claimed he is close to Paolo Duterte and have been Paolo's personal driver when Paolo was still in high school. He would bring Paolo to "Ateneo de Davao University" every morning. I explained to Raissa that after Matobato said those, he already lost all the credibility as a witness. Raissa asked why. None of the Duterte children studied in Ateneo, I said. The she replied, "we can never know the whole truth" to simply brush of my argument. I didn't insist on proving her wrong because I didn't want to be a jerk, especially since she was really nice to me. But to me, that conversation made me realize that she had either a strong confirmation bias or she was recalcitrant to maintain a narrative against Duterte or she could be both.
Overall, these are the things I have gathered from Raissa's talk: journalists are assumed to be fair. However, journalists have motives too. In the case of Raissa, gusto niya bawian mga naka-away niya. To be successful sa kanyang pang-aaway at para maka-prove ng point, may mga di siya sinasabi at sinasabi sa mga talks niya. Madami siyang ino-omit sa narrative she was making to highlight the thesis that Duterte is going to be a dictator. When she brought up Matobato, I challenged her views by putting to question Matobato's credibility. When pushed to a corner, Raissa brushes off the argument. Raissa's recalcitrance and confirmation bias makes me suspicious of her motives. I feel there is a deeper reason why she is so than simply revenge. Whatever it may be, I wish it would be revealed.
No comments:
Post a Comment