My lecture titled “2010 elections and the bloggers’ obligation” focuses on citizen journalism, responsible blogging and what bloggers can do to help shape public opinion in time for the 2010 elections.

There was live streaming via Ustream.tv of the whole-day conference and the wordcampph channel has 16 video files uploaded in its archive.

I hope you’ll find the time to watch the proceedings of WordCamp Philippines 2009. It’s definitely worth it.

If you’re interested to watch my lecture, a substantial part of it has been recorded in the following Ustream.tv archived files:

• Part 1 – http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2186399 (Note: My lecture starts at 31:53)
• Part 2 – http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2186660
• Part 3 – http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2186725

You may watch these three archived files now.



Anyway, some bloggers wrote about what they had learned from my lecture. Here is a partial list based on a quick Internet search as of this writing: (Updated: September 26, 11:20 p.m. and October 23, 6:33 p.m.)

• WordCamp Philippines 2009 (September 19) by Standard Web Standards
• My WordCamp 2009 Philippines Experience (September 20) by menardconnect.com
• WORDCAMP PHILIPPINES 2009 (September 20) by The Itinerant’s Path
• WordCamp Philippines 2009 Highlights (September 21) by Software Critics
• WordCamp Philippines 2009 (September 22) by GreenBucks
• WordCamp Philippines 2009 – With Great [Blogging] Power Comes Great Responsibility (September 26) by The Scrumptious Anime Blog
• WordCamp Philippines 2009 (October 11) by The Learning Life of Edward Palomo

To the bloggers who attended WordCamp 2009 or who viewed the live streaming last September 19: Please leave a comment if I failed to include your blog post about your reflections on citizen journalism, responsible blogging and the 2010 elections.

Thank you for reading and I wish you all the best.

My current work as a visiting professor here at Hannam University makes it impossible for me to be with you today. The spring semester started only last March 2 and will end on June 19. I wish to thank Dr. Aleli Quirante, director of ORP, for working very hard in organizing the launch of this issue of the journal. I should also mention the hard work and dedication of our researchers, Irene Zamora and Lynette Quintillian, in proofreading, designing and laying out the journal, as they had so effectively done in the past issues. Their efficiency is the reason we have something to launch today, although the choice of date, April Fool’s Day, is Ma’am Aleli’s and mine, not theirs.

Anyway, I truly appreciate the warm welcome of my colleagues, or should I say my friends, at Hannam’s Linton Global College. The Korean and exchange students we have at LGC are generally well-versed in English and there is no pressure for me to learn Hangeul. I do realize, however, the need to learn basic Hangeul as I adjust to a new working and living environment.

The need to learn, relearn and unlearn is also apparent as we discuss media and communication. In the introduction that I wrote in the 12th issue of the Plaridel journal we are launching today, media and communication processes are as numerous as they are complicated. Just as the Philippine economy is said to defy basic paradigms of growth and development, Philippine media and communication systems are not easily explained by generally accepted theories. This situation is more apparent as one tries to use Western theories in analyzing what is happening in the Philippines. How can one explain, for example, the country’s having the freest press in Asia at a time when media killings are on the rise and there are pending bills in Congress that can compromise, or even kill, press freedom?

Our theme for this issue is media and communication discourse. This issue of Plaridel contains four articles that analyze the various facets of Philippine media and communication.

In her article titled “Learning from the News: Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Motivational Effects,” Clarissa David identifies important media and communication theories related to the understanding of news and notes the lack of research on the motivational effects of news. Shirley Evidente discusses how various Filipino journalists in Metro Manila use the press identification card in her paper titled “The Iconic Images of the Philippine Press Identification Card in Metro Manila.” Clarissa David and Jenna Mae Atun, in their article titled “Influence of Interpersonal Discussion on Contraceptive Use: A Study of the Philippine Case,” analyze the people’s behavior on contraceptive use through interpersonal communication. Jose Gutierrez III studies selected films of the late director Lino Brocka to know how the mothers are portrayed in his paper titled “Images of the Mother in Lino Brocka Films: 1970-1991.”

Aside from these four articles, Patrick Campos in this issue writes “Manuel Conde and the Filipino `Indie’ Cinema,” a critical review of not just the contents but also the significance of Nicanor Tiongson’s book titled The Cinema of Manuel Conde. By analyzing the book’s place in the various studies of Filipino films, his review motivates other film scholars to continue studying the body of work of other practitioners through the years.

I have also taken the liberty of reprinting in full the proposed consolidated bill on “freedom of information” by the Access to Information Network. In the wake of current debates on the proposed laws on “right of reply” and the “decriminalization of libel,” the pending bills in Congress on access to information must also be analyzed in the context of how media can better fulfill their role of disseminating important information to the public.

These outputs do not in any way provide all the answers to problems surrounding Philippine media and communication processes. But these can give interested readers an idea of how they can help change them.

And we all know that meaningful change is important in not just media and communication but also in society as a whole.

Even if this is not the proper venue to talk about the direction of our beloved UP College of Mass Communication, it is imperative that our College take part in the collective struggle for a better media. The College should lend its voice in the never-ending discourse on what kind of media and communication system we should have, especially now that there are blatant attempts by the powers-that-be, both legal and extrajudicial, to stifle press freedom and even permanently silence critical journalists.

The Plaridel journal, since it started in 2004, has been a venue for academic researches on various aspects of communication and media. We shall be forever grateful to Dean Nicanor Tiongson for starting this refereed journal. On the other hand, our current Dean Elena Pernia should be credited for having the vision to effectively market the journal so that it reaches a wider audience.

The future Dean of the College, who I hope is with us right now, should work very hard not just to continue the journal but to make sure that its themes and contents remain to be relevant. Unlike other journals that are too esoteric even for the ivory-tower academics, Plaridel has been known for coming up with scholarly articles that are usually written in a way that can be easily understood. It even accommodates articles and reviews in Filipino to ensure that interested readers can understand the author’s message.

Nawa’y nasa susunod na dekano ang haraya ng pagpapaunlad ng Kolehiyo sa konteksto ng pangangailangan ng ating bayan, sa konteksto ng paghuhubog ng opinyong pampubliko.

May the next dean have the vision for developing the College in the context of what the country needs, in the context of shaping public opinion.

In closing, I wish to share with you that here at Hannam University, change is happening in the form of strengthening ties with partner-universities in the Philippines, particularly De La Salle University and our very own UP. I was just informed that this year marks the 20th anniversary of Hannam’s memorandum of agreement with both DLSU and UP.

At the national level, this year also marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between South Korea and the Philippines. This is the reason 2009 is dubbed Philippines-Korea Friendship Year.

Let us make 2009 also significant for the College by making a commitment to not just continue publishing Plaridel, but ensuring that we lend our voice to making Philippine media and communication relevant, responsive and responsible.

Marami pong salamat at isang mapagpalayang umaga sa inyong lahat. Thank you and a liberating morning to all of you.

I was among the signatories to the statement (i.e., #40) because the points it raised had been articulated by concerned media groups and journalists like me a long time ago.

As early as November 23, 2005 when I was still chair of the University of the Philippines Department of Journalism, I attended a hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media to put on record my opposition to the right of reply bill. In my position paper, I wrote the following points:

The bill’s objective to compel media organizations to publish or air replies of aggrieved parties is impossible to implement…The proponent’s [referring to Sen. Aquilino Pimentel] concern for those who are victimized by unfair media coverage is being addressed by various self-regulatory mechanisms like the Philippine Press Council (PPC), the ethics body of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI). Founded by the PPI in 1993, the PPC can compel a newspaper to print a rebuttal. If the concerned newspaper refuses to do so, other member-publications can print the reply.

As it is, the bill has negative repercussions on the workings of the press. Editors, normally referred to as the gatekeepers of information, should be allowed to choose which stories get published, aired or uploaded and which stories are given due prominence based on the time-tested elements of news.

Instead of coming up with bills that seek to legislate how the media should function, it would do well for legislators to help strengthen self-regulation in media by creating an environment conducive for the effective practice of the media profession.

At the UP Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series on December 3, 2007 (or two years after I opposed the bill in the Senate), the right of reply bill was discussed in passing during the open forum. Among the points I raised are the following:

Everybody has the right to reply and they should be accorded with the necessary opportunity to have their letter to the editor or whatever statements they have, aired or uploaded in the case of on-line publication. Our main point of contention is that we cannot provide equal time or equal space to the so-called aggrieved parties because you will end up imposing objectivity. It is very much like the Code of Ethics. You do not have to legislate it. We are for self-regulation in media.

You may read the full text of the unified statement and the list of signatories after the jump.

Unified Statement on Right of Reply Bill

The Right of Reply Bill is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that violates two of the most cherished freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, those of the press and of expression.

It is both unfortunate and ironic that the principal authors of the bill in the two chambers of Congress ought to have known better, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. having earned his reputation as a champion of civil rights and Bacolod Representative Monico Puentevella having been president of the Negros Press Club.

It is also clear, from the pronouncements of both lawmakers, that this bill is a product of the sorriest excuse for legislation – personal pique.

The House version of the bill, HB 3306, parrots the Senate’s SB 2150 except it would have the reply run a day after receipt instead of the three days the Senate grants, and seeks to impose heftier fines and the absence of self-regulation (in the case of block-timers) and sunset clauses.

Both bills state that “all persons…who are accused directly or indirectly of committing, having committed or intending to commit any crime or offense defined by law, or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to charges or criticisms published or printed in newspapers, magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free, or aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites, or through any electronic devices.”

They also would mandate that these replies be “published or broadcast in the same space of the newspapers, magazine, newsletter or publication, or aired over the same program on radio, television, website or through any electronic device.”

The danger in the right of reply bill is that it would legislate what the media OUGHT to publish or air, while casting a chilling effect that could dissuade the more timorous from publishing or airing what they SHOULD.

The bills would free public officials, especially the corrupt – and they are legion – of accountability and give them carte blanche to force their lies on the suffering public.

As one article on the right of reply bill says, “It lumps together imputations of a crime with simple criticism ‘of any lapse in behavior in public or private life’ or what would otherwise be considered ‘fair comment.’ There is no judicial review. It does not differentiate direct and indirect criticism. It has been noted that under the proposed law a journalist does not even have to be in error to draw a right of reply claim.”

We would be the last to say that the Philippine media are without fault. Yes, we understand perfectly the frustration and anger of Pimentel and Puentevella over some media outlet’s refusal to air their sides on issues.

Alas, but we cannot allow the sins of the few to be an excuse for the wholesale muzzling of a free press and the suppression of free expression. To do so would to allow bad governance to triumph.

We call on Senator Pimentel and Representative Puentevella to withdraw their bills.

We urge the media and the people to close ranks against the passage of this bill, to challenge it before the Supreme Court if it is passed, and, if even that fails, to defy it by refusing to comply.

No less than our freedoms are at stake. This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Signed by: (as of Feb 25, 2009, 1:38 am)

1. Nestor Burgos, Philippine Daily Inquirer
2. Nonoy Espina, inquirer.net
3. Sonny Fernandez, ABS-CBN
4. Rowena Paraan, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
5. Alwyn Alburo, GMA Network
6. Marlon Ramos, Philippine Daily Inquirer
7. Dani Lucas, ABS CBN
8. Ilang-Ilang Quijano, Pinoy Weekly
9. May Rodriguez, Freelance
10. Julie Alipala, Philippine Daily Inquirer
11. Cheryll Fiel, davaotoday.com
12. Jun Godoy, DXOC-Ozamis City
13. Arnell Ozaeta, Philippine Star, DZMM
14. John Heredia, Filvision Alto Cable-Capiz
15. Desiree Caluza, Philippine Daily Inquirer
16. Dabet Panelo, NUJP
17. Miriam Grace Go, Newsbreak
18. Sarah Katrina Maramag, College Editors Guild of the Philippines
19. Maurice Malanes, Philippine Daily Inquirer
20. Jofelle Tesorio, ANN
21. Allen V. Estabillo, MindaNews
22. Jun Lopez, Malaya
23. Gerry Albert Corpuz, Bulatlat.com and United Press International (UPI) Asia Online
24. Delfin T. Mallari Jr. Philippine Daily Inquirer
25. Arlyn dela Cruz, NET-25/ Philippine Daily Inquirer
26. Rorie Fajardo, Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project
27. Ronalyn V. Olea, Bulatlat.com
28. Jun Ariolo N. Aguirre, Hala Birada News Weekly
29. Rey Tamayo, Jr., Good News Services
30. Alexander Martin Remollino, Bulatlat.com
31. Vijae Alquisola, College Editors Guild of the Philippines
32. Elmer James Bandol, cbcpnews.com
33. Ansbert Joaquin, Philippine Daily Inquirer
34. Kathleen T. Okubo, Northern Media Information Network
35. Dino Balabo, Philippine Star, Pilipino Star Ngayon, Mabuhay, CLBW
36. Inday Espina-Varona, Philippine Graphic
37. Susan N Palmes- Mindanao Gold Star, Cagayan de Oro
38. Malu Cadelina Manar, Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation, Kidapawan City
39. Rizaldy Jose GMA-Network
40. Danilo Arao, Bulatlat.com, Pinoy Weekly
41. Rey Tamayo, Jr., Magandang Balita
42. Joey Aguilar, Punto Central Luzon/gmanews.tv
43. Marlon Alexander Luistro, GMA 7
44. Danny Estacio, Balita
45. Jason Vallecer, Eyewatch
46. Olan Mape, Manila Star/ LD Chronicles
47. Bert Abrigo, GMANews.tv
48. Francia Malabanan, GMANews.Tv
49. Ryan D. Rosauro, NUJP-Ozamis City
50. Ire Jo V.C. Laurente, Journal Group-Mindoro
51. Frencie L. Carreon, The PhilSouth Angle
52. Ederic Eder, Tinig.com
53. Reil Briones- Bandilyo/ Kiss FM
54. Candace T. Giron, Freelance Journalist
55. Maricar Cinco, PDI
56. Nanette L. Guadalquiver, The Visayan Daily Star, BusinessWorld
57. Renz Belda DZRH/ DWAW Batangas
58. Angel Ayala, Bicol Media/Radio Natin Sorsogon/NUJP Sorsogon
59. Dodong Solis, RMN/DXDC Davao
60. Lalaine Marcos Jimenea, Eastern Visayas Mail and Eastern Samar Reporter
61. Joyce Panares, Manila Standard Today
62. Abigail T. Bengwayan, Northern Dispatch
63. Cesar S. Ramirez,The Philippine STAR
64. Genivi Factao, Business Insight (Malaya)
65. Trina Federis, College Editors Guild of the Philippines
66. Thony Arcenal – PolicefilesTonite, DZME1530Khz, CLMA
67. Voltaire Domingo, NPPA Images – Manila
68. P.James M. Tremedal, www.mpilgrim.tk / www.pag-enews.tk
69. Sonia M. Capio, DWNE 900 kHz
70. Joey E. Tamunda, GV-AM 792Khz, Balitalakayan – Central Luzon
71. Mark Anthony N. Manuel, Manila Bulletin
72. Edwin G. Espejo, Freelance Journalist
73. Jess Malabanan, CL Daily/Bandera/Reuters/abs-cbn.com
74. Jinky Jorgio, Freelance Journalist/local coordinator BBC
75. Tonette T. Orejas, PDI correspondent
76. Ariel D. Borlongan, Bigwas, Jaryo Alisto
77. Elina M. Velasco-Ramo, Northern Dispatch
78. El Interino, bulatlat.com/asianpress.net
79. Darwin Wally T. Wee, NUJP ZamBaSulTa chapter, BusinessWorld
80. Hazel S. Alvarez, ABS CBN-Bacolod
81. Butch Gunio, Central Luzon Business Week
82. Arturo Boquiren, Northern Dispatch Weekly and The Weekly Junction
83. Aquiles Z. Zonio/PDI Correspondent (Socsargen)
84. International Federation of Journalists-Asia Pacific Alliance, A Journalists Association in Australia
85. Ma. Cecilia Rodriguez, Correspondent, Philippine Daily Inquirer
86. Federico D. Pascual Jr., Philippine Star, ManilaMail.com
87. Vergel Santos, Business World
88. Joe Pavia, Philippine Press Institute
89. Luis Teodoro, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
90. Jessica Soho, GMA News and Public Affairs
91. Howie Severino, GMA News and Public Affairs
92. Ed Lingao, ABC TV-5
93. Charie Villa, ABS CBN News
94. Isagani Yambot, Philippine Daily Inquirer
95. Sandra Aguinaldo, GMA Network
96. Mark Merueñas, gmanews.tv
97. Billy Begas, Bandera
98. Antonio Gabriel, ABC TV-5
99. Ramir Padua
100. Manuel Tupas
101. Danny Santos, Sunshine Radio DZAR
102. Erika Tapalla, inquirer.net
103. Sherrie Ann Torres, ABC TV-5
104. Amor Barbo Docado, ABS CBN Global
105. Ferlina Mungcal, ABS CBN Global
106. Roy Gersalia, PDI, Sorsogon Newsweek
107. Artemio Dumlao, Philippine Star
108. Ruben Alabastro, Philippine Daily Inquirer
109. Tony Bergonia, Philippine Daily Inquirer
110. Leti Boniol, Philippine Daily Inquirer
111. Sandra P. Sesdoyro, Philippine Daily Inquirer
112. Richard R. Gappi, NUJP-Rizal
113. M.A. Kit Bagaipo, PDI, Bohol Chronicle, dyRD-AM
114. Francis Allan L. Angelo, The Daily Guardian (Iloilo)
115. Raffy Beltran, ABS CBN Global
116. Jeffrey M. Tupas, Philippine Daily Inquirer
117. Germelina Lacorte, Correspondent, Philippine Daily Inquirer
118. Rene Acosta, Business Mirror
119. David Santos ABS-CBN Zamboanga
120. Raffy Jimenez, GMANEWS.TV
121. Chris Panganiban, The Peninsula Qatar
122. Germelina Lacorte, Philippine Daily Inquirer
123. Boy Ryan Zabal, Aklan Police and Defense Press Corps
124. Loloy Zuasola, Freelance Journalist
125. Jojo Pasion Malig, MVIM Newslink Services
126. Robert Gonzaga, Philippine Daily Inquirer
127. Carla Gomez, Visayan Daily Star/ Philippine Daily Inquirer
128. Rustico Otico, BusinessWorld
129. Wilfredo Villareal, GV-AM 792, Luzon Banner, GMANEWS.TV
130. Arlene Burgos, Bandera

Based on the sheer number of participants (close to 100, based on Tonyo Cruz’s account), one may safely assume that the Pinoy Citizen Journalism Seminar last November 29 was a “resounding success.”

But more than the unexpected turnout, I would like to think that the success is in the effective packaging of the free seminar to various audiences, resulting in a healthy mix of bloggers, techies, journalism students, scientists, campus journalists and community organizers from Metro Manila and beyond.

I was assigned to give the first lecture on citizen journalism, the PDF file of which may be retrieved from this blog’s “Downloads (PDF)” section located in the sidebar.

Please find below the highlights of my discussion:

• In the Philippines, citizen journalism is nothing new and has existed even before the introduction of the Internet;
• Citizen journalism is a mechanism for media literacy of audiences;
• Giving feedback (e.g., posting a comment in a blog or writing a letter to the editor in a newspaper) and being a source of information do not make an audience a citizen journalist;
• Audiences should be properly trained for them to know the highest professional and ethical standards to practice journalism; and
• More than the necessary skills, the people should know the role of journalism in society, which is to provide relevant information in order to help shape public opinion.

If you attended the seminar, you may have noticed that I looked a bit tired and sluggish while waiting for my turn to speak. I had a cold and a slight fever that time, and the former had obviously affected my voice.

Fortunately, my limited experience in radio broadcasting somehow “saved me” as I held the microphone in a way that my voice can be better projected.

Did it work? I honestly don’t know, as I did not stay long enough to hear any feedback or to even entertain questions from participants.

Judging by the picture on the right (photographed also by Tonyo Cruz), please understand that I was holding on to my knees as I felt weak and a bit disoriented even before my lecture.

It could be the weather that Saturday morning: I felt that it was hot outside and the venue’s airconditioning was too cold.

Anyway, several individuals had written about the recently concluded seminar and provided a photo documentation of the activity. Do visit these if you have time:

• (Photos) PCJS (November 29) by Tonyo Cruz
• Pinoy Citizen Journalism Seminar (November 30) by Karl Suministrado
• Pinoy Citizen Journalism Seminar’s `e-Kuwento Mo’ Memories (November 30) by Fjordan Allego
• Pinoy Citizen Journalism Seminar draws SRO crowd (December 1) by Tonyo Cruz
• (Photos) Pinoy Citizen Journalism Seminar (December 1) by Sarah of CEGP
• photos of Pinoy Citizen Journalism Seminar (December 1) by Sarah Katrina Maramag
• Science Blogging (December 4) by Ricardo Bahague, Jr. published in The Manila Times (Update: Dec. 5, 1:21 p.m.)
• Kuwento ng madla, pamamahayag ng madla (December 6) by Kenneth Guda (Update: Dec. 8, 7:45 a.m.)
  

That’s me giving a lecture on blogging and journalism during WordCamp Philippines 2008 last September 6 at the De La Salle College of Saint Benilde in Manila. (Photo courtesy of Miss Wicked)

I don’t intend to repeat the “process documentation” made by more than 50 bloggers (go to JezhLau Concepts for a definitive list). Most of them wrote tongue in cheek which is quite understandable for their age.

Anyway, the purpose of this personal evaluation is to share the points raised by bloggers who attended my lecture titled “Blogging and Journalism in the Philippines: Journalistic Blogging for the People.” If you’re interested, by the way, please download my paper and slide presentation, both in PDF format.

During the lecture, I said that bloggers should adhere to acceptable professional and ethical standards in the writing and production of media content. There is much to learn from the responsible practice of the journalism profession, in much the same way that journalists can learn from the multimedia approach typical of blogs (and the new media for that matter) in disseminating information.

Since the blogosphere and the journalism profession are both part of the public domain, it is absolutely necessary for bloggers, just like journalists, to be accountable to their readers and to help shape public opinion through meaningful blog entries (i.e., posts and comments).

A participant correctly said that those who are irresponsible are usually the ones who generate a lot of Web traffic, much to the consternation of responsible ones who sometimes have very few  readers. He actually mentioned a particular blog which hogged the headlines in the recent past due to the blogger’s slanderous and scandalous remarks about his lover and some personalities in the alta sociedad.

But everyone agreed that we should all rethink our purpose of blogging: Is it to simply get attention or to shape public opinion? Is it to engage in shameless promotion or to provide relevant information? Is it mainly to monetize or primarily to conscienticize?

I think that the generation of Web traffic should be secondary to the main objective of providing relevant media content. Even prior to the ubiquity of blogging, web authors have adhered to the principle “content is king (pardon the sexist tone)” in the design and layout of websites. There is a need to reaffirm this principle, this time along the lines of upholding journalistic integrity in writing.

One does not have to be serious (activists sometimes call it GND or grim and determined) in approaching a topic. A blogger can opt to do a light and funny treatment of a pressing issue provided that he or she does not end up trivializing it. There is such a thing as “political satire,” and I’m sure you can identify bloggers (Filipino or otherwise) who do a good job at making you laugh while being enlightened.

Despite the limited time, I’d like to think that we were able to clarify that bloggers should not demand that journalists clean up their acts first before they are told to adhere to professional and ethical standards.

First, why should the quality of blogging be dependent on the quality of journalism that we have? Second, standards in journalism are used as bases for the simple reason that they are the oldest and most established in the three fields of mass media (the other two being advertising/public relations and entertainment). Please note that this is not a situation where journalists are imposing their will on the bloggers.

Blogging and journalism should be seen as complementary, not adversarial, to each other. The tension, I think, is borne out of the perception that adhering to standards is tantamount to censorship. Quite the contrary, standards are meant to make bloggers and journalists exercise responsibility in the freedom that they enjoy (although we have to recognize attempts of the powers-that-be to muzzle it).

Given the need to uphold self-regulation in the blogosphere, I suggested that WordCamp Philippines take the lead in recommending acceptable principles and standards in blogging based on existing bloggers’ codes of ethics like the one by CyberJournalist.net.

For those interested, I said that a blog monitoring website (the name “Pinoy BlogWatch” comes to mind) can be established to monitor specific blog entries, particularly coming from the popular and established blogs. The monitoring shall be based on clear principles and standards of responsible blogging, adherence to which can be shown by installing badges/widgets or writing disclosures.

I think the best way to end this blog is to repeat what had been posted by several bloggers who were at WordCamp: Congratulations to the Mindanao Bloggers (especially to Blogie Robillo and Migs Hipolito) for a job well done!

Updates (September 9 to October 2, various times): Thank you to the following bloggers who wrote about the “Blogging and Journalism” session at WordCamp:

1. WordCamp Breakaway Sessions by Aja Lapus
2. WordCamp, Meeting Matt Mullenweg by Miss Wicked
3. wordcamp 2008: notes by onyxx
4. Wordcamp 2008: for healthy & wealthy blogging by hitokirihoshi
5. what i learned today during wordcamp by Jam Sisante (Note: She was my student at UP CMC.)
6. On WordCamp 2008 and Meeting Mr. Wordpress by Lexie Tolentino
7. Rockin’ @ WordCamp Philippines 2008 by Salve Canale
8. wordcamp philippines 2008: on meeting mr. wordpress, web standards and other stuff by Shari Cruz (Note: She did not attend my session but she had something to say about it.)
9. Pulis, niloko ng tanga! by Pedro Montoya
10. I WAS WORDCAMPED by Tannix
11. A Goodie from Japan + some WordCamp Philippines afterthoughts by hazy
12. Wordcamp….. I was there! by joycerica
13. Responsible Blogging and Us by Sherma E. Benosa
14. WordCamp Philippines 2008: On Being a Remarkable Responsible Blogger by usagijen
15. Prof. Danilo Arao, Hinamon ang mga Blogger sa WordCamp 2008 by Shen (Note: Shen’s new project, Pinoy Blog Movement for Change and Action, is worth visiting in the days to come.)
16. Wordcamped! by mnel
17. Sa iyo na mapaghanap by Jeck
18. I was at WordCamp Philippines 2008 by Aileen Estoquia (Note: She neither attended nor mentioned the “Blogging and Journalism” session, but I included her post for two reasons: She writes well and I can’t say no to a former student.)
19. I Was There!!!: Wordcamp Philippines 2008 by Street sign
20. Welcome back to loooooong hiatus by Sanyata (Note: This is a photo documentation of what transpired.)
21. WordCamp Firsts by Dave Quitoriano (Note: He uploaded a photo of me together with him, DLS-CSB SMIT Dean Benhur Ong, Blogie Robillo, Matt Mullenweg and Paul Pajo.)

Please leave a comment if I had left anything out. I only used Google Blog Search (Beta) in tracking recent backlinks to Rising Sun and other relevant SERPs. Thank you for reading.

Last Tuesday (July 1), I gave a lecture on “The Political and Cultural Economy of Philippine Migration” to visiting Filipino-American students hosted by the Amado V. Hernandez Resource Center (AVHRC).

The day after (July 2), I was at the Little Theater in the University of the Philippines (UP) Manila to speak at the launch of the Unity for P125: Alliance Calling for an Urgent P125 Wage Increase. My presentation, by the way, is titled “Umento sa panahon ng neoliberalismo (Increase at a time of neoliberalism).” (Minor correction: I should clarify that I am a faculty member at UP Diliman, not at UP Manila as written in the press release.)

As regards interviews, I had an on-cam interview last Thursday (July 3) with the TV show Agenda (aired over ZOE, GMA 7) on oil price hikes. I was told that this particular segment will be aired this week.

Right now, there are some requests from the media and the academe for interviews on media and other issues. I am also in the thick of preparing for lectures, seminars and workshops from now until August.

As regards my confirmed speaking engagements, I will be in Davao City by the third week of August to give a lecture on Online Journalism. I will also be in Jakarta, Indonesia to keynote an ASEAN journalists’ workshop titled “Reporting on regional integration in Southeast Asia: History, institutions and policies of ASEAN” which will be held twice (i.e., end-July and end-August).

If things work out, I will also be conducting a one-day workshop on “Technical Writing for Policy Makers” not just once but thrice from July to August. I also have pending invitations from at least two schools to give media-related lectures, the schedules of which are not yet final.

Yes, the schedule’s quite full and the semester is not over yet. Before I end, I would just like to share with you my interview published in the June 26 issue of Malaya about two UP students who were abducted two years ago. The full text of the news article may also be retrieved from http://www.malaya.com.ph/jun26/metro5.htm.

UP remembers Karen and Sherlyn

THE University of the Philippines Community commemorates today the second year anniversary of the enforced disappearance of UP students Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeño who were abducted with farmer Manuel Merino in San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan on June 26, 2006 allegedly by Army soldiers.

“The continued disappearance of Karen and She reflects the state of human rights under the Arroyo administration,” Serve the People UP! lead convener Judy Taguiwalo said at a discussion dubbed as “Kalayaan, paggunita at paglaban para sa dalawang kabataan at iskolar ng bayan” at UP.

Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy University of the Philippines (CONTEND-UP) said that the circumstances behind their disappearance exactly two years ago are clear but their whereabouts remain uncertain. “There is cogent reason for the vast majority to denounce the government’s failure to protect human rights and give justice to those who are aggrieved,” Contend UP’s Danilo Arao said.

Students, friends, faculty members, activists and other groups launched yesterday the Diwang Palaban exhibit at Vinzon’s Hall featuring installation works of blinds and tarpaulins of revolving advertisements on one side, and picture reproductions of protest actions and faces of decaparecidos on the other.

That’s all for now. Thank you for reading.

My short presentation is just an update of a position paper I submitted to the Office of Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. early this year regarding his proposal to amend Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 53, also known as the Shield Law.

As the invitation of the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) came a little late, I did not have time to visit the bills and index divisions of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. To prepare for this presentation, I only made a quick perusal of the website of the Philippine Senate a few hours before this forum. I apologize in advance if I do not have information on related bills at the House of Representatives, particularly the one filed by Rep. Raul del Mar.

I also tried looking for bills or resolutions that have been filed by senators regarding the proposal to repeal RA 53. As of this writing, I have not found any. Apparently, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile only made a pronouncement in early October 2007 that he is in favor of repealing or amending RA 53. This was in reaction to a reporter’s refusal to reveal the sources of her information in a story she wrote regarding a close-door session of the Senate in its investigation of the ZTE contract.

COMMENTS ON SUBSTANCE

Based on my limited research, I found out that Senate Bill No. (SBN) 2477 which was filed during the 13th Congress – the bill that I commented on early this year – has been re-filed without any changes by Sen. Revilla last June 30 as SBN 165.

Aside from this bill, Senators Mar Roxas, Jinggoy Estrada, and – perhaps the soon-to-expelled – Antonio Trillanes IV, also filed three other bills which are essentially the same as the one filed by Revilla. The only notable exception is that Senator Estrada’s bill only covers print and broadcast journalists and excludes online journalists.

Senate bills amending the Shield Law

In any case, the four pending Senate bills which seek to amend Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 53 (Shield Law) are beneficial to broadcast and online journalists since they will now be protected from unduly revealing the sources of information they used in their reports.

RA No. 53, as amended by RA No. 1477, states that “the publisher, editor, columnist, or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any information or news report appearing in said publication.” The only exception is when “the court or a House or Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.” Clearly, only print journalists are protected from revealing their sources of information.

When RA No. 53 was amended in 1956, then Sen. Vicente Sotto saw the need to change the phrase “interest of the State” to “security of the State” so that certain interest groups could be prevented from using nebulous phrases like “interest of the State” to compel journalists to reveal their sources. At that time, journalism was still assumed to be mainly for the print medium given that radio and television journalism were still starting in the Philippines. The Internet, on the other hand, obviously remained a pipe dream then.

At present, journalism has taken on a multi-media character to include not just print but also radio, television and online. It therefore makes sense to amend old laws that still make journalism synonymous with print in order to adjust to the changing times, particularly developments in information and communication technology that affect the practice of the journalism profession.

The teaching of journalism is currently geared towards producing graduates who can straddle different forms of mass media. As such, laws on mass media like RA No. 53 should therefore consider such multi-media orientation so that journalists can be better protected, and press freedom better promoted and upheld.

Sen. Revilla and the three other senators should therefore be commended for their efforts to amend RA No. 53 to expand the protection from unduly revealing sources of information to those in broadcast and new media. Other members of the Senate should show their unwavering support for press freedom and the rights and welfare of journalists by voting in favor of the proposal to amend RA No. 53.

COMMENTS ON FORM

However, the proposed amendment to Sec. 1 of RA No. 53 (as amended by RA No. 1477) can still be further improved by simplifying the sentence construction. For purposes of discussion, allow me to cite the provision in SBN 165.

From: (based on SBN 165)

Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, a duly accredited journalist of any print, broadcast, Internet, or wire service organization, including the publisher, station owner and/or manager, bureau chief, editor, news editor, writer or reporter, correspondent, opinion columnist or commentator, cartoonist, photographer, or other practitioner involved in the writing, editing, commenting of the news for mass circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news item, news report or information appearing or being reported or dissiminated (sic) in said media, which was related in confidence to such journalist or practitioner unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state.

To:

Section 1. Without prejudice to liability under civil and criminal laws, a journalist employed by any print, broadcast or new media organization – including but not limited to the publisher, station owner and/or manager, editor, reporter, correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, photographer, art director, layout artist, webmaster and other practitioners involved in the writing, editing, design and layout of news – cannot be compelled to reveal the source of information used in his or her reports disseminated through the said media which was related in confidence to such journalist unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.

Reasons for the proposed changes:

1. The phrase “duly accredited” is too broad and could be interpreted as licensing of journalists, a measure that is inimical to press freedom.
2. A wire service organization does not need to be a separate category since it can fall under print, broadcast or new media, depending on the organization. Reuters, for example, straddles print, broadcast and online journalism.
3. While there is no need to make exhaustive the examples of journalists, there is still a need to include those involved in the design and layout of print and online publications. The phrase “included but not limited to” can provide more flexibility in defining the various roles that a journalist plays in a media organization.

Since I wrote a chapter titled “Deregulation at the Expense of Quality Education,” I had been asked to give a 10-minute presentation of my findings. The book, by the way, is published by IBON Foundation, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) and the Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND).

I hope you can make it. Thank you for reading.

I promise that mine will be the shortest presentation today. Journalists, after all, like it short and sweet. (And I’d like to think that while I may not be short, at least I’m sweet!)

The chapter I wrote is titled “Elections, Personality Politics and the Mass Media.” I will not bore you with empirical and anecdotal data that you may all be familiar with already. Allow me to just present some of my major arguments.

During elections, candidates normally engage in politicking instead of politicizing. The former is characterized by, among others, muckraking and one-liners to questions that demand honest answers, while the latter seeks to enlighten the electorate on the burning issues of the day.

Mass media are often blamed for perpetuating the kind of elections and campaigns that go with them. Journalists, however, are wont to say that they only report what happens, and that what is needed is political maturity on the part of both the electorate and the candidates so that political campaigns can be taken to a higher level of discussion of issues.

The candidates and their handlers can conveniently argue that they are merely giving in to the demands of the electorate to make the campaigns as light (read: entertaining) as possible. However, the candidates cannot deny their responsibility in failing to take the campaigns to a higher level of discussion of issues. In fact, the fundamental definition of issues becomes problematic as they become fixated on answering and hurdling character attacks like citizenship and disqualification cases and consequently consider them as important issues.

While it is the journalists’ duty to report what happens on the road and they could be constrained by the refusal of candidates to comprehensively discuss burning issues of the day, they should expose such candidates who fail to articulate their stand on issues. Something can be done by the mass media organizations to ensure a comprehensive discussion of issues concerning politics, economics and culture and consequently transcend personality politics that characterizes campaigns during elections. Journalists should therefore keep in mind their primary duty of providing information that people need (not what they want) as they go about covering the 2007 national and local elections.

Marami pong salamat at isang mapagpalayang araw sa inyong lahat.