When I first read the uproar regarding the Varsitarian editorial, here's what I told my upperclassman (over Multiply):
Hi! I'm a Communication Major in the Journalism Track, and even though we haven't discussed this in great detail...
... I believe the RH editorial is a serious breach of journalism ethics.
I don't think we need a serious and thorough discussion of media ethics just to make sense out of everything that is happening. Common law dictates that one's ideology should remain to be that person's ideology and it should not be placed in the context of maligning the reputation of an esteemed people - namely, our teachers.
I have been under Ray Aguas, Ph.D., one of the signatories of the "Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience" and I can see where he's coming from. In fact, this debate on Church and State (or how should our faith be related to our politics) is his [successfully-defended] Ph.D. dissertation in the United States. How then were these editors capable of releasing a statement that our professors, in a sense, do not know what they are talking about? Implicit journalism ethics dictate that balance and fairness must be the ultimate norm of reportage. Sweeping generalizations, as per En11 and Symbolic Logic, have no room in journalism.
It's somehow ironic that the University of Santo Tomas, like the Ateneo, is a forefront of philosophy and yet these writers had the nerve to forget what is supposed to be the foundations of all philosophy - logic.
While the Varsitarian was technically true in citing the Ateneo as the 'other' Catholic University, its use of the language has a distinct connotation of cliquish-ness; a rash judgment of the whole rather than the parts. They claim to be practitioners of philosophy, but why did they forget an important Levinasian concept called "Other-ing"? By citing Ateneo as the 'other' Catholic University, they have reduced the institution to a miserable set of misfits. Something not even Emmanuel Levinas could be happy about.
Our very own Dr. Cuyegkeng said that one of the reasons why Ateneans stand is our ability to carry on conversations of pure substance. Much as I don't want to say that the editorial is full of nonsense, its pattern of development states its irrelevance and irreverence. It might not even be worth of a reply from Ma'am Cuyegkeng or Fr. Ben.
But I agree that the Varsitarian committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics.
Let me discard the lenses of media theory in here, because this time, it's about journalism - the thing that matters to me the most.
First things first. The Varsitarian is the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas. It is, in common parlance, the school newspaper. It subscribes to Republic Act 7079, or the Campus Journalism Act, and is technically free from impingement towards the articles they write. It is also part of the College Editors' Guild of the Philippines, an institution put up to uphold campus journalism in colleges and universities around the country. So in all respects, nobody can malign them for coming up with an article like we know.
But that does not spare them from what I call the zeroth rule of journalism (or the thing that takes precedence over all codes of journalistic ethics): Journalism is an act of telling the truth, of qualifying each and every statement that requires coverage and contention, of impartiality rather than blind objectivity, and a sense of compassion towards the plight of the Other.
The article in intense question is called the editorial. As an opinion article, it necessarily has a standpoint on a particular issue. I don't know (and I don't care) how The Varsitarian arrives at their opinion articles, and we believe in their right to free speech. But perhaps it doesn't take an extreme genius or a constitutionalist like Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ to say that the editorial made a complete breach of implicit journalism ethics.
Rule number one in making an article is making a stand. And in making a stand, the writer has to show all possible bones of contention and revolve the discussion on those merits. Questions of emotion and personal conviction, though allowed in an editorial, should be qualified by reasonable evidence to establish credibility and not credulity. In journalism, substance is the name of the game. You don't go out in the field, gather your sources, and report a half-baked article full of fallacious and even contentious positions. You don't write an article based on personal gut-feels alone. And you don't write an article for the simple reason that you want to bash someone or something. You write an article simply because you want to inform, mobilize, and educate.
Rule number two: In making an attacking article, you don't just go out picking the facts that will benefit your stand. This is impartiality in motion, kids. Nobody can attain pure objectivity because your choosing of the story reflects the implicit bias you placed on that story. But the least you can do to strive for that objectivity is to remain neutral, impartial, and free to be open-minded.
The entire RH debacle has triggered an intellectual debate among theologians throughout the world. And it's pleasing to see a lively discourse on what is thought to be an issue of zero acceptance. It would have been nice if The Varsitarian at least showed hard reasons why the 14 Ateneo professors maligned Catholic Social Teaching by positing compelling arguments just like what our fellow alumni did. Opposition was one thing our professorsbraced themselves, and they were indeed met with it. But the good thing beyond that opposition is our ability to remain open to dialogue and [possible] dissemination. Of critical analysis of a sensitive issue at hand. Knowledge wasn't meant to be stored in leaves as old as time. It was meant to be used for a purpose; and even though this esteemed Pontifical and Royal University thought it was for evil, I still believe that our professors used what they know to help the country in such a perilous situation.
The term "mediocrity" is a statement of pure generalization. This does NOT have a room in hardline journalism. The American Media may be capable of bashing systems in the Land of the Free, but this does not make them any better or any less. The duty of any journalist is to seek the truth unblemished as it is. Journalism, unfortunately, is not literary writing and I hope Creative Writing professors would attest to this divide. Journalism employs a different style of reporting, and it cannot be equated to whimsical writing. Journalism is reporting with a purpose. A purpose that is neutral, a purpose that is clear, a purpose that aims to enlighten rather than dishearten.
The Varsitarian, I believe, should not have the nerve to call our professors as the 14 "Horsemen", "Wolf-criers", "" in order to elevate their own meaning. This is, again, another violation of everyday logic - hasty generalization. It doesn't necessarily mean that our professors who chose to turn the tide are idiots in their own way. They, scientific as they are, should have been aware that Albert Einstein was once branded an idiot before becoming decorated for his discovery of the Theory of Relativity. They claim to be a science-oriented school, but yet they forgot the attitudes of a good scientist - attitudes taught as early as Grade One.
It's the professors' prerogative to call themselves 'Catholic educators' because that is how they do their job. We respect differences in opinion, but there is no room for unsubstantiated ranting, let alone in a official student publication. If the name of the game is just simply attack and attack, then we really would not get anywhere. We would just only tire ourselves of this wild goose chase.
But perhaps the most irritating of these paragraphs is its retracting closing:
"We enjoin Thomasians, Ateneans, and all Catholics to be truly themselves—discerning and critical of issues, always seeking the light amid the darkness foisted on them by shadowy figures that include those who call themselves Catholics, educated, and educators. Let us all fight the grand deception of the population-control complex and reject RH bill 5043."
But isn't that what the Ateneo is doing already? Critically discerning the issue by being a second opinion? What is 'light amid the darkness'? Inflexible doctrine? Why did this Royal and Pontifical University had the nerve to call themselves as such if they failed to realize that doctrines change due to cultural considerations? What you retain in a Church teaching is the meat; but the way you express it is something that works over time. You cannot say slavery is good now because the Bible says so. The law does not interpret for itself. It has to be explained in order to be understood. And it is in the multiplicity of human opinion can one truly discern what is right from what is wrong, and not what is impassioned from what is a big flak.
May The Varsitarian show that true professionalism in what we call as free, responsible , and unbiased journalism.
Hi! I'm a Communication Major in the Journalism Track, and even though we haven't discussed this in great detail...
... I believe the RH editorial is a serious breach of journalism ethics.
I don't think we need a serious and thorough discussion of media ethics just to make sense out of everything that is happening. Common law dictates that one's ideology should remain to be that person's ideology and it should not be placed in the context of maligning the reputation of an esteemed people - namely, our teachers.
I have been under Ray Aguas, Ph.D., one of the signatories of the "Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience" and I can see where he's coming from. In fact, this debate on Church and State (or how should our faith be related to our politics) is his [successfully-defended] Ph.D. dissertation in the United States. How then were these editors capable of releasing a statement that our professors, in a sense, do not know what they are talking about? Implicit journalism ethics dictate that balance and fairness must be the ultimate norm of reportage. Sweeping generalizations, as per En11 and Symbolic Logic, have no room in journalism.
It's somehow ironic that the University of Santo Tomas, like the Ateneo, is a forefront of philosophy and yet these writers had the nerve to forget what is supposed to be the foundations of all philosophy - logic.
While the Varsitarian was technically true in citing the Ateneo as the 'other' Catholic University, its use of the language has a distinct connotation of cliquish-ness; a rash judgment of the whole rather than the parts. They claim to be practitioners of philosophy, but why did they forget an important Levinasian concept called "Other-ing"? By citing Ateneo as the 'other' Catholic University, they have reduced the institution to a miserable set of misfits. Something not even Emmanuel Levinas could be happy about.
Our very own Dr. Cuyegkeng said that one of the reasons why Ateneans stand is our ability to carry on conversations of pure substance. Much as I don't want to say that the editorial is full of nonsense, its pattern of development states its irrelevance and irreverence. It might not even be worth of a reply from Ma'am Cuyegkeng or Fr. Ben.
But I agree that the Varsitarian committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics.
Let me discard the lenses of media theory in here, because this time, it's about journalism - the thing that matters to me the most.
First things first. The Varsitarian is the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas. It is, in common parlance, the school newspaper. It subscribes to Republic Act 7079, or the Campus Journalism Act, and is technically free from impingement towards the articles they write. It is also part of the College Editors' Guild of the Philippines, an institution put up to uphold campus journalism in colleges and universities around the country. So in all respects, nobody can malign them for coming up with an article like we know.
But that does not spare them from what I call the zeroth rule of journalism (or the thing that takes precedence over all codes of journalistic ethics): Journalism is an act of telling the truth, of qualifying each and every statement that requires coverage and contention, of impartiality rather than blind objectivity, and a sense of compassion towards the plight of the Other.
The article in intense question is called the editorial. As an opinion article, it necessarily has a standpoint on a particular issue. I don't know (and I don't care) how The Varsitarian arrives at their opinion articles, and we believe in their right to free speech. But perhaps it doesn't take an extreme genius or a constitutionalist like Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ to say that the editorial made a complete breach of implicit journalism ethics.
Rule number one in making an article is making a stand. And in making a stand, the writer has to show all possible bones of contention and revolve the discussion on those merits. Questions of emotion and personal conviction, though allowed in an editorial, should be qualified by reasonable evidence to establish credibility and not credulity. In journalism, substance is the name of the game. You don't go out in the field, gather your sources, and report a half-baked article full of fallacious and even contentious positions. You don't write an article based on personal gut-feels alone. And you don't write an article for the simple reason that you want to bash someone or something. You write an article simply because you want to inform, mobilize, and educate.
Rule number two: In making an attacking article, you don't just go out picking the facts that will benefit your stand. This is impartiality in motion, kids. Nobody can attain pure objectivity because your choosing of the story reflects the implicit bias you placed on that story. But the least you can do to strive for that objectivity is to remain neutral, impartial, and free to be open-minded.
The entire RH debacle has triggered an intellectual debate among theologians throughout the world. And it's pleasing to see a lively discourse on what is thought to be an issue of zero acceptance. It would have been nice if The Varsitarian at least showed hard reasons why the 14 Ateneo professors maligned Catholic Social Teaching by positing compelling arguments just like what our fellow alumni did. Opposition was one thing our professorsbraced themselves, and they were indeed met with it. But the good thing beyond that opposition is our ability to remain open to dialogue and [possible] dissemination. Of critical analysis of a sensitive issue at hand. Knowledge wasn't meant to be stored in leaves as old as time. It was meant to be used for a purpose; and even though this esteemed Pontifical and Royal University thought it was for evil, I still believe that our professors used what they know to help the country in such a perilous situation.
The term "mediocrity" is a statement of pure generalization. This does NOT have a room in hardline journalism. The American Media may be capable of bashing systems in the Land of the Free, but this does not make them any better or any less. The duty of any journalist is to seek the truth unblemished as it is. Journalism, unfortunately, is not literary writing and I hope Creative Writing professors would attest to this divide. Journalism employs a different style of reporting, and it cannot be equated to whimsical writing. Journalism is reporting with a purpose. A purpose that is neutral, a purpose that is clear, a purpose that aims to enlighten rather than dishearten.
The Varsitarian, I believe, should not have the nerve to call our professors as the 14 "Horsemen", "Wolf-criers", "" in order to elevate their own meaning. This is, again, another violation of everyday logic - hasty generalization. It doesn't necessarily mean that our professors who chose to turn the tide are idiots in their own way. They, scientific as they are, should have been aware that Albert Einstein was once branded an idiot before becoming decorated for his discovery of the Theory of Relativity. They claim to be a science-oriented school, but yet they forgot the attitudes of a good scientist - attitudes taught as early as Grade One.
It's the professors' prerogative to call themselves 'Catholic educators' because that is how they do their job. We respect differences in opinion, but there is no room for unsubstantiated ranting, let alone in a official student publication. If the name of the game is just simply attack and attack, then we really would not get anywhere. We would just only tire ourselves of this wild goose chase.
But perhaps the most irritating of these paragraphs is its retracting closing:
"We enjoin Thomasians, Ateneans, and all Catholics to be truly themselves—discerning and critical of issues, always seeking the light amid the darkness foisted on them by shadowy figures that include those who call themselves Catholics, educated, and educators. Let us all fight the grand deception of the population-control complex and reject RH bill 5043."
But isn't that what the Ateneo is doing already? Critically discerning the issue by being a second opinion? What is 'light amid the darkness'? Inflexible doctrine? Why did this Royal and Pontifical University had the nerve to call themselves as such if they failed to realize that doctrines change due to cultural considerations? What you retain in a Church teaching is the meat; but the way you express it is something that works over time. You cannot say slavery is good now because the Bible says so. The law does not interpret for itself. It has to be explained in order to be understood. And it is in the multiplicity of human opinion can one truly discern what is right from what is wrong, and not what is impassioned from what is a big flak.
May The Varsitarian show that true professionalism in what we call as free, responsible , and unbiased journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment