“No use complaining about the world's freest press
―we fought for it, we got it,
now we have to live with the nonsense
that it spews out.”
I have a list of topics (in a purple sticky note) I planned to write about since some time before July of this year. There were times I was compelled to type my thoughts out and publish them here, but nothing was compelling enough than after I've followed (not entirely) the Senate hearings earlier this afternoon where they tackled about "fake news". Twas another long-winding chatters mostly digressing from the main subject. Source persons were rather attacked and were schooled as if they're ignorant of the ways of politics and their professions (and apparently, this may not be everyone's general perspective. Just seen hate comments pointing at them on Twitter.). While I won't deny that the issue of freedom of speech (which means: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint) will really be called for―and I think it best that the council works to draw a line as to where it starts and ends (which may "restrict" FREEDOM)―I would rather just have the committee stick to the issue at hand. Then, perhaps, push with another discourse concerning the rest of arising sub-topics later on.
Evidently, everything has become about clashes between pro and anti-administration. Where will neutrality stand if this be the case? And this is, in fact, where the real issue of "fake news" stems from. Whoever publishes malicious reports have some agenda in mind. Because news are supposed to be PRESENTATION of ready and available facts with strict ACCURACY, and must not be colored with personal opinion, AT ALL. That's the line that divides a blogger from a news presenter. (It should also be taken into consideration the website source of the article in question, by the way.) Fake news can only be referred as such when a news presenter, along with its writers, producers, and staff put out an item that is not based on a given FACT. Anything that they add or subtract from their report can automatically qualify a write up as fake. It, then, is considered a fabricated story. While a blog is nothing but an avenue to express personal thoughts, opinion, ideas without requiring one (a blogger) to have all evidences necessary to validate their standpoint. And I agree to what Mr. RJ Nieto stated that there must be a legislative order to categorize or regulate any writing done on social media, the blogosphere, and other cyber spaces before free thinkers who post their thoughts can even be considered fake news producers. (There must be a law, then, that will require websites to register as news media sites so they will be regulated.)
The main stream media have this what everyone knows as journalism ethics and standards (code of ethics) they ought to follow. They have to be within the bounds of this code. The bloggers aren't considered under this code. No law to abide by for them, sorry to say. Now, anyone who deviates the topic from this irrefutable fact, and then insists on the issue concerning "freedom-of-speech-becoming-limited-when-one-holds-a-government-position", I can't emphasize enough how obviously they're trying to threaten the rights of individuals. This I firmly hold as a valuable principle: not because celebrities are public icons, they're already deprived of their life to live the way they want. They may have such huge influence to the public because they're being looked up to, they're still not anyone's ownership. No one has any right to make anyone conform to what they believe should be "the" way of life (only God has that say). Public figures are not accountable to the decisions of their supporters should the latter choose to have a tattoo or to undergo surgery (unless they convince them to, of course). Same thing as public officials.
People gotta stop being stylists―they take the role of one that keeps on checking for smeared mascara under another's eyes...fashion someone the way that will satisfy their liking. We don't do that to each other. Live and let live ...because each one of us have the same birthright whether you're a congressman and I am JUST a simple person living like a hermit. If anyone thinks that one's expression or way of life harms another, then, I believe there's proper avenue to address that.
“Popular culture is a place where pity is called compassion, flattery is called love, propaganda is called knowledge, tension is called peace, gossip is called news, and auto-tune is called singing.”
I personally hold in high regard the President more for the respect he gives to individual rights. He's been disrespected by his co-public servants who hold lower positions (called him names, accuse him of such and such.....) and he simply lets them be because he gives them that right―to express whatever grievances they might have. It could've been easy for him to abuse his power booting out people left and right (worse, erase them from the face of the Earth), and everyone who goes against him. He doesn't. Then, I'll hear some committee members speak manipulatively what bloggers should do or not do all because they say that Nieto and Uson are being paid with people's taxes? Like, the guts?! Nobody can, out of nowhere, by any means...just dictate what is acceptable thing to say, who can say what...!!! Isn't that undemocratic rule?!
Like seriously?! What compelled me to write this is not to act as if my voice matters. I don't even have that much readers comparatively. But boy if I will be deprived of my right to let the steam out of my chest through this very medium, then I totally will be out of voice! How much more the rest of everyone whose views are only shared in a larger setting through social media?
Certain influencers make use of power and manipulation to destroy and to deceive...............
Imagine how the Marcos family lived their lives in silence. Never given the right to speak the truth out (YET the truth prevailed, anyhow). Nor they'd given themselves their rights to defend themselves. They suffered derision and awful condemnation. Been called names. Think how if you're in their shoes and wherever you go you're called a plunderer. If people decide for your reputation by attaching labels to your name. Isn't that injustice? Especially, considering that none of the 900 plus cases filed against them ever proved them guilty! It's worse than the fate of those who were killed in the streets for having been involved in drugs! Because everyday and everywhere people lambaste you. People murder you over and over and over with their sharp tongues. Verdict has been given without due process. You're deprived of vindication. People who don't even know your story will malign your whole being. And that's all because of FAKE NEWS. Twisted information.
"But the truth won't go away. It will keep surfacing until it is recognized. Truth will outlast any campaigns mounted against it, no matter how mighty, clever, or long. It is invincible."
At times, it's as if silence is the better weapon. Let alone wait whose will be the last laugh. However, when silence will be the sole weapon, then the rest of the next generations will live in lie. Because that'll be the only truth they'll know. Far too many have been living in hate. Hate for something they didn't even experience first hand. They carry feelings and ideas passed on to them. Empathy that is born of deceit. They grow bitter for some twisted history and they settle with that. Yeah, it's their choice. It's always everyone's choice at the end of each day. Yet, even those choices they make are largely influenced by the lies that have been pushed down their systems. By who?!
Fake news damage society. Causes hate. Blurs sound judgment. Feeds poison. It collects a greater number of people to hate the same person or group of persons or ideology they hate. That's what it does. While expression of opinion helps us understand each other. Opens our minds that even the person closest to you may have an opinion disagreeing to yours. And that's just fine! But to present a report that's distorted in order to influence others to believe something to anyone's advantage, that's foul. If that's what news presenters want to do, then they better resign from their jobs and be bloggers where they have no responsibility to anyone.
And if I may also add............
Mocha Uson may have a shoddy past. She's made countless unprincipled choices, yes. Did she deny it? Is she hiding skeletons in the closet? She's out. All out. Don't we rather want people who don't pretend to us? Does it not feel rather safe knowing what kind of person you're dealing with than believing someone is prim and proper and yet have the most evil inclination you can ever imagine? I mean, who am I to hurl judgment at anyone who's made bad choices many times in their lives? Who are WE to be too self-righteous to spit on her (or anyone's) face? Who are we to laugh at how she can't speak as intelligently as everyone in the assembly room? Who are we to bash like the person does not deserve respect? Don't we all fight for something, too? Can't we communicate our sentiments with discretion? How are we any different from her who we judge as amoral and behave beyond ethics ourselves?
I neither like nor dislike her. Because I don't know her. What I read and see on television and YouTube aren't enough basis for me to make judgment of the kind of person she is. And neither do my knowledge and judgement of her can be basis whether she "deserves" my respect or not. Though it is my prerogative if I give her respect or not. That won't even reflect who she is but who I am! And neither do anyone of her blog readers and critics have this advantage. If respect is earned, I wonder how many of us deserve it, if truth be told? If people can have a full view of all our activities within 24 hours the entire 365 days, can anyone truly deserve anyone's respect? If respect is earned, no wonder how hard the life of everyone who needs to keep pleasing both their spectators and detractors! Then who would still strive to earn it (given that you can NEVER please everyone)?
What I am sure of is that I am no different from her in that I am also flawed. All people are, no matter how they appear pious. Only some work harder at being good, perhaps. OR, that good in keeping skeletons inside the four corners of their homes! I don't also allow myself to look down on those I disagree with. The hearing only exhibits how we are all different. How we all have our own way of thinking. How we all behave a certain way in situations where we're caught off guard. Yet, we are after the same goal, aren't we? ―to find solutions to pressing matters. So let's deal with the issue without agenda. Hear and listen. Express without reviling. Keep the focus on the problem and assert within the frame of reference and quit crucifying whoever. We are no judges.
Can't help but ask why when Senators (like Mr. Trillanes, Mr. Pangilinan and Ms. de Lima...) speak their minds out no matter how disparaging it's just excusable. Freedom of speech/expression warrants them to express whatever they wish. While everyone else must be regulated. How come not all have the same privilege?
Mr. Nieto is someone whose name I heard only today. He speaks his mind. He is as vocal and blunt as the three senators I mentioned. He answered questions with all frankness. Now, he is being bashed. I salute him for being honest-to-goodness. I wish I can say the same for Mr. Trillanes because his courage deserves applause. Even so, that courage is undeniably sketchy. Saying with conviction that someone is "innocent" even that person has already been detained, meaning has been proven guilty (at least went through due process)...while the one not proven guilty of any of his accusations (except in his head he believes so)..........uh...I don't know...
Anyway, they all have their own shares of knockers. Guess it's the price to pay when you have your name in lights.
“It all starts with suppression of a few freedoms and before you know it, you can't speak without permission from the authorities. And then finally you wake up and you know what? It is too late.”
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment