As for others such as Angela’s, where she simply wants us to cease from improving, or trying to think through the challenges, that is something that should not even be entertained.

I have to say that although we don’t go the way of politicos, I am also not trying to impose an old media type of confined commentary…

In any case, I understand what you are trying to say.

Furthermore, the answer I provided to Bim with regards to (number 2 and 3) her points made, I think is a clear indication of where I stand.

And although in an ideal world, personal attacks would be out of the discussion altogether, it’s hard to implement, only self regulation.

At this point, I can moderate when such arguments take place, but this is the only form of “editorializing” that I am willing to take. I think moderating is the best solution at this point, so as to weed out the personal attacks from the actual meat of the comment..

But, in short, I still move for a free market of ideas, and if the bad and the ugly come into the trading, we must let it be, unless the market is at stake, of which I am certain, in the minor skirmishes of the day, it will survive.

I was disappointed with her reply, and i believe, that this is why it is very difficult for such initiatives such as ours to flourish in an environment where we are constantly bombarded with naysayers, and those who say we can’t make a difference.

I ask.. Strive to make a difference or remain stagnant because people believe we can’t?

I say strive.

She comments,

fv’s goals are just a tad lofty. scrap the manifesto. forget about making a difference or influencing the national discourse or doing better than mainstream media or climbing mountains a la martinlutherking

This is the most defeatist statement I’ve come across in a long while.

In my opinion, a collaboration of new media with old media is the best road to take..

The suggestion by teo, and not Angela’s, is fair, and actually very good. I have already been on the works for such a thought, although the implementation will still be collaborative, most likely through a wiki based application. This isn’t new actually, Benign0 actually brought it up a few months ago. I will bring it up in our next update, and will continue working on it.. Hopefully will be finished in the weeks to come.. as for now, I will volunteer to do such a summary.

I have said my peace, I will no longer comment on this non-issue.

Yes, I know it’s long… I myself, almost fell asleep reading my own work. It is the first draft, and I only released it so that I could get input from everyone.

Yes, equity would be a more apt term for this. Because balance would mean, for example, that there is a 50% divide between those who are for or against the RH bill, which is not the case.

Yes, I believe number 2 is enshrined within the manifesto itself. Where the idea is king, and the analysis will always be the main focus.

And with regards to Filipino language, actually, Flowell one of our writers will be writing in the Filipino language, which i thoroughly encourage.

As to number 6. no, of course not. A few of our writers who are passionate about these issues, such as Schumey, have been unavailable for the moment.. but already we are in the process of bringing a few more in the fold, because these issues are very much important.

Again.. your input is great.. I appreciate it..

Some suggestions:

1. In most instances, keep it short and sweet.

2. It is never about the author. Its always about the idea. If you believe the reverse, you’re just endlessly massaging egos of your writers.

3. There is no such thing as “balance” or “equality” — and so we must strive for the more real concept of equity.

4. How about writing on issues from a national and democratic viewpoint in contraposition to the colonial and elitist viewpoint that dominate all media?

5. How would FV handle the use of Filipino language(s)?

6. Will FV prioritize issues of the middle class and relegate issues of workers, farmers, the national minorities, and sexual minorities?

That’s it — and it is obvious that the paper is too looooong.