I don’t give a damn ’bout my reputation
I’ve never been afraid of any deviation
And I don’t really care if you think I’m strange
That ain’t gonna change
And I’m never gonna care ’bout my bad reputationOh no, not me.
- Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, “Bad Reputation”
OK: when I was Mar Roxas’ed a couple of days ago (for the lack of a better term), I partook of a rather nice dinner that involved pork, shrimp, and some wine. I asked the Senator about romantic advice: “How would you date a girl, Senator?” His answer: “Just say yes, comma… but in the end, do what you want to do. I may be desperate enough to follow that advice myself, but it does make sense.
Facepalm.
Before it will seem that I’m sowing the seeds of hubris or KSP or dissention, lemme explain. I’m not saying that bloggers are the be-all-end-all of political opinion in cyberspace, and I’m not overselling the importance of blogging. What I am saying is that there may be a need for political bloggers to disclose their political agendas and political affiliations in their blogs.
Here’s an interesting question: should political bloggers, such as those in FilipinoVoices, disclose their political affiliations and memberships?
I’m not going to say that bloggers are incorruptible, or that bloggers should not write PR for their favorite politicians or people whose politics they agree with. I am merely for honesty and disclosure.
Keeping it honest, so to speak. Keepin’ it real, homies. Mantienendolo verdadero, ese.
I’m not saying it is imperative or required; what I’m saying is that disclosure, especially in blogs that tackle political issues or issues of governance, is necessary. It’s not necessarily towards the end of objectivity (we all can’t be absolutely objective), but towards fairness. It is only fair that the politically-inclined reader of a politically-oriented blog knows where the political views of an author are coming from, at what cost the political views came from (if they ever did come at prices; there are many bloggers out there who will do a nicely-worded blog post about a politician for free), and so on and so forth.
To be clear, I’m not insinuating anything. Yet we are at an important part in history – we are a year away from the 2010 Presidential elections – that we should start to weed out blogs critically, and know where a blogger’s loyalty lies. I have nothing against Pat Mangubat’s endorsement of Mar Roxas this early in the game, and I have nothing against CaffeineSparks’ disagreement with it. What I am saying is that maybe – just maybe – the Filipino political blogosphere can benefit from a bit of disclosure here and there. While a blogger’s open confession of his or her sex life won’t make a world of a difference in politics, it does make a world of a difference if he or she writes about political issues: a blogger always has a bearing on a reader’s public and political pulse. And that bearing comes with the personal responsibility of, at the very least, telling everyone why you’re doing this, and where you’re coming from.
Rather than use the term “paradigm,” I’d rather use the term “perspective.” As a blogger, you have eyes, and you see things this way.
Keeping it honest, so to speak. Keepin’ it real, homies. Mantienendolo verdadero, ese.
Is that an expectation we can demand and expect from the Filipino blogosphere? Well, no. At the end of the day (man, I hate that phrase) it all boils down to the reader to discern the fairness and objectivity of a blog post about a politician, a horse’s ass, a horse’s ass masquerading as a politician, or a politician who happens to be a horse’s ass.
Okay… Marocharim’s political affiliations. I’m an anarchist. I’m not the type of guy who would propose to bomb the living heck out of Congress, but I don’t subscribe to Government. I was a leftist militant student activist. At my age, I have no political agenda; I cannot run for public office yet and stand a chance at winning (besides, I can’t afford it). Because I do not believe in Government, I am not planning to run for public office when I am old enough. (Of course, I can only say those things now; after all, in a few months, I’ll probably become more of a political blogger and less of a lyrics translator.)
Whew, that was simple.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Filipinovoices.com, if i’m not mistaken, represents the voice of the filipino people in the blogosphere. This site does not reflect the other 90 million pinoys. It may not be appropriate for bloggers to endorse a candidate early in time but it’s not my call so I really don’t give a shit. :)
consistent with what i always say in this and other blogs that i care to comment in, it’s not the blogger or the writer, what he is or who he works for, what his political agenda or ideology, or the quid pro quo for his opinion. rather, it is the persuasiveness of his viewpoint, the wisdom of his insight, or the true value of his offering.
i don’t care if the opinion is from erap or cory, so long as it makes sense in my own estimation.
oks. i was just thinking, perhaps as a public service, when you guys are invited to meet to the presidentiables, perhaps you guys can record the audio, or better –video, so we can hear them ourselves.
I appreciate your writing your opinions, but to see/hear them talking would help us appreciate your insights even more. thanks!
i didn’t understand his advice about dating. just say yes?
So far as it went, were this specific site a vast tabularasa, we can see that Mar Roxas landed in more
linear inches of space than anyone else – courtesy of bloggers patronizing of him.
Whether they are paid PR or not of Mar – does not matter except that in the event it has indicatively been cast clear they are vicious about a theme, there ought to be a regulation of sort so other readers don’t have to waste their time.
The case of the Valley Golf illustrates this point. At the end of the day, we have been “duped” into believing that the other story is the truer one when in fact it was the reverse.
As Prof. Carlos says, it is premature for bloggers to name their bets since a long way to go from now, just half of the time has been served by the incumbents.
Why the overfixation?
The US think-tank called the Rand Corporation should be a our model here. We don’t have to know one another here nor would it matter who we work for, what our political affiliations are, who we serve, under whose payroll we are listed, et cetera.
This site is topic based, let us do away with the vicious ritual of personality cult. Meron na sa TV, meron pa rin dito. Ano ba toh?
Actually, I’d strongly endorse bloggers here being individually CRYSTAL CLEAR with their:
:) political affiliations;
:) the ideologies they espouse; and,
:) the position and/or opinion they take on issues they comment upon or write about;
I think blogging for the most part and FV in particular is about expressing views and opinions on issues.
It is NOT a newspaper or news service where one merely reports in an impartial manner (there are sites and services that do that a lot more efficiently and properly than we do).
At the very least each article published here should express an OPINION.
The Wishy-washy jibberjabber and factoids of fencesitters in my opinion (just mine, boss) has no place here.
Don’t our blogs speak for ourselves? Or do you want to expose bloggers who might be in it as “political operatives.” I guess I’m gonna be very laissez faire about this. Let’s blog and let blog, because the Truth will out anyway…
hmmmm… bloggers must stay
Atty. BVe,
Your …”it’s not the blogger or the writer, what he is or who he works for, what his political agenda or ideology, or the quid pro quo for his opinion. rather, it is the persuasiveness of his viewpoint, the wisdom of his insight, or the true value of his offering.
i don’t care if the opinion is from erap or cory, so long as it makes sense in my own estimation.”
Spot on.
But I also do not see any problem about disclosure. If there are any bloggers, or commenters, in this collective who may have political affiliations it will be their own credibility they’ll be putting on the line and in the end the blogging community will also decide what their own takes are.
When your slip shows then it does. :0
Atty. Ben I meant. Sorry for the typo.
I think the bloggers here who write the posts should ideally follow Manuel L. Quezon III’s example — i.e., fully disclosing his [MLQ3's] working relationship/ties with the camp of Mar Roxas and the Liberal Party (this he did very, very early). It is just be the ethical thing to do, and gives the blogger more credibility.
I, as a reader, for example, don’t want to read a blog post which could be, unknown to me, a PR/pseudo-PR, no matter how rendered, for certain candidates or political parties.
Of course, the key thing here is if the blogger would stand to gain in the future or is in fact, already gaining something, financially or otherwise for writing about a candidate or political party.
Kudos to Ding Gagelonia for his disclosure re: Mar Roxas connection.
madonna,
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours, eh?
Well, maybe some bloggers really don’t know who they are supporting, or even if they do, they really would rather not share such a private choice with anybody.
Bloggers are not obligated to satisfy your curiosity about their private preferences.
All you have really is CAVEAT EMPTOR because even those who disclose could easily be lying, present company possibly excluded on personal recognizance, of course.
If you can be fooled by a blogger through nondisclosure, you can also be fooled by a blogger through “disclosing”.
DJB,
First of all, I am not a blogger; I am a reader/commenter. In any case, I sure have no problem sharing my choice as a voter for 2010 this early: Manny Villar, for whom I do not have, in any way, professional/personal ties. Of course, if you believe that or not, is up to you. No pressure: I am not asking you to tell me yours.
I did not say that bloggers are obligated (that would be an extreme way of putting it) — rather I wrote that disclosing/disclosure IF IT IS APPLICABLE is an ethical thing to do.
This is to say that I think we need to identify which information needs to be public and which are in essence, private:
PUBLIC:
Journalists/bloggers who choose to identify themselves publicly need to declare IF they work for a candidate/political party as professionals or render their services (crucial or important); disclosure on personal ties: not so crucial/important, but greatly appreciated.
PRIVATE:
Bloggers/journalists are citizens too and hold the inalienable right not disclose whose name/s they would put eventually in the ballot box come election day.
Also, I am aware that having mentioned the above, I take there would still be gray areas between public and private. It’s up to the bloggers to delineate which is which.
I hope I make sense. And yes, you are right — of course, we can be still be fooled by those who choose apparently to disclose their political/professional/personal ties. But I would say, and I choose to believe that the public would catch up with this, if this would be the case, sooner or later.
Good idea. I should make a disclosure too.
Disclosure would also give a sense of perspective, in my opinion: the reader would have an idea where you’re coming from.
Yeah, disclosure is good. Just curious: if you don’t believe in Government, then what kind of governance do you believe in? :)