Filipino Voices

The blogosphere has a lot of defects. Mainstream media has a lot of strengths. But to suggest that blogging isn’t as reliable a source of information, or that the mainstream media has a monopoly on credibility, is something I can’t accept.

Fundamentally, I think a writer should be judged not by the medium he uses or for the entity he writes for but by whether he writes the truth- nothing more, nothing less.

In an e-mail, Mr. Gil H.A. Santos, himself a distinguished journalist, wrote:

“The [important thing is] whether the information the writer/blogger sends out is correct or warped/twisted to suit or sell an advocacy or issue. The NAME OF THE GAME IS TRUTH, repeat, TRUTH AND NOTHING MORE OR LESS. Anyone who does not know, realize, or believe in this –and does not care for the truth is just a spinner of tales. And that persons must be given all the leeway to prove himself stupid. That can be guaranteed and recorded by his written word–for all to see even after his death.”

The mainstream media can claim to be a better source of factual information than the blogosphere. This is because they enjoy a mighty machinery that enables them to be where the events unfold and to get the information straight from the horse’s mouth.

But the problem with mainstream media is that it is profit-driven in nature. Some media organizations use sensationalism to lure readers. Some have political intentions. Some are owned by influential families with vested business or political interests. Bottomline is, most media organizations cater to a particular- as opposed to the general- interest.

This makes them susceptible to twisting of facts for their own good. The media can either deodorize their allies or demonize their foes.

Take for example both the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Daily Tribune. The Inquirer made a good job demonizing Joseph Estrada and deodorizing Gloria Macapagal Arroyo before. Now, the Tribune is busy deodorizing Estrada and demonizing Arroyo (although Arroyo is very easy to demonize, given her terrible governance).

To some extent, doing these is acceptable in a democracy, especially because it makes people more vigilant on their leaders.

But it is simply unfair when the media uses its might in an all-out campaign to destroy an individual, in order to protect that individual’s foe or merely to make news more exciting. The thing is that it is hard for the individual to defend himself.

This is why a standard code of ethics is vital in mainstream journalism.

This kind of abuse can happen in the blogosphere too, of course. But the difference is that the diversity of blogs easily dilutes the damage of the abuse and that there is a mechanism for the victim to defend himself.

This is why I don’t think the blogosphere needs a standard code of ethics.

Every blog is at the mercy of the fingertip of the mouse holder, whose attention span is usually short. There are over a hundred million blogs out there, and it takes a lot for a blog to make a good impression.

This fact can go two ways: to gain readership or attract attention, the blogger can adopt his own personal code of ethics and become responsible, just like Manuel L. Quezon III or the people behind FilipinoVoices.com. Or he can go write nasty things, just like Brian Gorrel.

In case of the latter, people read his blog, talk about it, but won’t take it seriously. It’s merely a blog, after all. But if the same kind of baseless defamation appears in, say, the lifestyle section of a newspaper, people would take it seriously for it would carry a semblance of credibility due to the reader’s perception that newspapers are responsible even if sometimes they are not.

Moreover, victims of defamation by blogs can easily retaliate by setting up a counter-blog. Sure, it brings the level of discourse negatively low at times, but such is the nature of the blogosphere. Such is the nature of free speech.

In fact, this is what the blogosphere is all about: people blogging and counter-blogging. Where once you have to go through the troubles of writing the newspaper’s editor to answer a pundit’s op-ed commentary in his column, now you can write your own virtual column.

The good thing about this is it proliferates discourse and free flow of information. People are free to express themselves- responsibly or otherwise- conveniently.

And this convenience fuels greater participation from ordinary folks.

Mr. Abe N. Margallo hit it right when he called the blogosphere a form of deliberative democracy. It allows a great number of people to “dialogue, reason out and then, transcending the initial conflict, DECIDE or VOTE to attain the common good.”

Now, should a code of ethics similar to that of the traditional journalists’ apply to this form of deliberative democracy?

Mr. Santos writes further in his e-mail:

“There are those who claim that blogging is journalistic empowerment of the citizen. To me, that is true if the blogger is RESPONSIBLE enough to DOUBLECHECK OR VERIFY his facts–the bases for his judgment or decision on any given issue–before he presents them. If he does not, then he is just somebody who can be regarded as a frustrated writer who SHOULD BE FREE to express what he wants, thinks or believe in, regardless of his ethics and values. Freedom of express MUST NOT BE DENIED ANYONE…

In a free society, popular democracy, I say let us give the next person the right to say or write what he believes in. Whatever he writes or say does not have to be correct or responsible but let him prove his worth.”

Indeed, this is what blogging is all about: giving voice to a citizen regardless of his ethics and values.

If we impose a “code of ethics”, we remove the convenience attached to blogging. If we remove this convenience, we remove the deliberative facet of the blogosphere. Ethics in the blogosphere should therefore remain optional.

In my case, I verify the facts before I blog and I make sure I maintain courtesy in my posts and in my comments. These compose my code of ethics. I keep it because I think it makes my voice in the blogosphere more credible.

Other bloggers can choose to be a total nutcase, or do away with responsible blogging. They have the right. But their voice in the blogosphere, as far as I’m concerned, is feeble. Nobody listens.

Such is the beauty of the blogosphere.

On the other hand, even if a mainstream journalist decides to do away with his ethics and to use his power to twist the truth for his own vested interest, his voice remains credible to the ordinary man simply because he works for an established news organization.

Such is the tragedy of the mainstream media.