The De La Salle University (DLSU) Publishing House will have a mass launch of 132 ebooks and print books on June 11 (Monday), 4:00 p.m. at the DLS College of Saint Benilde Hotel International Conference Center on Arellano Avenue corner Estrada Street, Malate, Manila.

My book titled “Kon(tra)teksto: Pag-uungkat, Pag-uulat at Pagmumulat” is among the print books to be launched.

Published by DLSU and Central Books Supply, the book contains 50 essays in Filipino focusing on journalism, media, education, politics and economics. There are also personal essays included in the book.

“Kon(tra)teksto” is the first of my three books of essays in Filipino expected to be published this year.

All of my three books, including the DLSU-published “Kon(tra)teksto,” will be launched in time for the Buwan ng Wika (Language Month) in August. Details as regards my own launch will be announced in the near future.

This is the live stream of iBlog8, courtesy of Janette Toral’s justin.tv account.

It’s the ethics, my friend.

Even if I’m not involved directly in the issue, I am compelled to react to Mr. Lito Zulueta’s January 10 letter to the editor in Business World titled “Who will watch the watchdog?” Zulueta wrote in reaction to Luis Teodoro’s January 5 column article titled “Rule makers and rule breakers” where he stressed “the citizens’ right to an unbiased, accurate and fair report on a matter of public concern.”

According to Teodoro, the conflict of interest is apparent as Zulueta is a faculty member of the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas (UST). As we may all know by now, UST was the subject of a headline story Zulueta wrote in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) last January 2 titled “UST: CJ Earned Ph.D”

That this particular article cites only one source is already bad. What makes the situation worse is Zulueta’s failure to publicly disclose his being an employee of UST where he gave, consciously or unconsciously, a generally positive slant in his story as he presented the side of UST with regard to the news story published the day before (also as a headline story in PDI though it was originally published in Rappler.com). In that January 1 story written by Marites Vitug titled “UST breaks rules  to favor Corona,” UST reportedly broke its own rules in the conferment  of a doctoral degree on Chief Justice Renato Corona even if the latter was not required to submit a dissertation, only a “scholarly treatise.”

In his January 10 letter to the editor, Zulueta tried to debunk Teodoro’s arguments by, among others, justifying the absence of a public disclosure of his association with UST: “I have always considered my links to UST as perfectly obvious to the people who should matter in this case – the editorial authorities of PDI, who presumably perform the gate-keeping functions that stem and check the biases of my articles.”

In the context of journalism ethics, disclosure is necessary not only to the editors but also to the audience. Public disclosure is important because the people deserve to know relevant information, including potential conflict of interest, as they try to make informed choices. In other words, Zulueta should re-define what he referred to as “the people who should matter in this case.”

Zulueta should know It is only through proper disclosure that the audience could help make sense of an author’s or media organization’s biases, whether real or imagined. To cite an example, ABS-CBN would sometimes disclose in its news reports that it is owned by the Lopezes whenever it cites as sources Lopez-owned companies like Meralco.

In Zulueta’s case, what’s “perfectly obvious” to the editors is notably absent to the public. While there is no reason to argue with Zulueta’s statement that his editors know about his UST connection, it still cannot be denied that the public have not been made aware of it. This situation is clearly a violation of what’s stated on pages 199 and 200 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer Stylebook (1993): “Judges and jurors inhibit themselves if they have personal motives or interest in a given case and so must journalists refrain from writing about close relatives or friends, or about parties to whom they had owed favors in the past.” (emphasis mine) Continuing employment is obviously a favor not just in the past but also in the present.

There is indeed something awkward if a journalist were to write about an institution where he or she is also a paid employee. The situation becomes even more complicated when audiences themselves find out the nature of relationship between a journalist and a source. The people therefore cannot be blamed if they impute malice or deceit, especially when a journalistic output is based only on one source.

While it may not be Zulueta’s intention, there is nothing honest about his reportage last January 2. And after “watching” him, perhaps it is also necessary to answer Zulueta’s question “Who will watch the watchdog?” In my professional opinion, the task is better off given to those who have a firm grasp of journalism ethics , especially those whose concept of journalism is one of deep commitment and not simple employment.

Since this article is about disclosure, please allow me to conclude with a somewhat kilometric one: Teodoro is a colleague at UP and I also know personally Zulueta of UST. Even at the risk of stating the obvious, the reader should also know that my opinion as a columnist does not reflect that of UP where I hold an administrative post. Last but definitely not the least, I should also stress another obvious fact: I have nothing against Zulueta’s other employer UST as I sometimes have professional dealings with some of its students, faculty and administrators.

A young actress gets interviewed Sunday afternoon by a highly-rated entertainment show about her break-up with a young actor. The latter’s sexual orientation then hogs the headlines as the public reads between the lines of his ex-girlfriend’s statement.

For all we know, he could indeed be gay or bisexual. Which leads us to a terse question: So what?

But what proves to be more fundamental is how this private affair becomes a “legitimate news story” of so-called entertainment journalists. While the young actress shares part of the blame for allowing herself to be interviewed (complete with the drama of crying in front of the camera), the highly-rated entertainment show should be criticized for allowing topics like this to get substantial airtime.

Just like blind items euphemistically called “baon” and “pasabog” by those who claim to be part of the journalism profession, private affairs of entertainers should not be reported as these are usually inconsequential to their jobs. For example, is it really important to know if a leading man is gay? Shouldn’t the public be focusing more on his acting skills (or the lack of it)?

Instead of helping shape public opinion by providing relevant information, self-proclaimed “entertainment journalists” only feed on public curiosity by providing trivia and gossip.  While it may not be their intention, they end up developing voyeurism among the public as they continue to expose dalliances and other inanities.
They claim that they only give the audiences what they want. My challenge to them is to provide scientific proof of this alleged demand from the public. As we all know, anecdotal evidence coming from a beauty parlor does not translate to public opinion. But even assuming for the sake of argument that a legitimate survey would prove that audiences indeed want gossip and trivia, the role of journalists (at least the real ones) is to help raise the level of discourse by providing the people the information they need to make informed choices.

I can’t imagine how the recent break-up between a young actress and an allegedly gay (or bisexual) young actor has an impact on an ordinary person’s life. Given the plethora of problems confronting Philippine society in general and the entertainment sector in particular, the so-called entertainment journalists should never run out of relevant topics to cover. In case they don’t know yet, the field of entertainment goes beyond showbusiness as it covers theater and other aspects of culture and counter-culture like independent music and documentaries. For example, reporting the working conditions of contractual workers who work behind the camera could better shape public opinion than exposing a young actor’s sexual orientation.

Going back to last Sunday’s airing of a private affair by a highly-rated entertainment show, the male anchor who interviewed the young actress always claims to be an entertainment journalist. If that were indeed the case, there is clearly a conflict of interest as he also openly admits working as a talent manager. That he also endorses selected products and services also complicates the situation.

A private affair packaged as a “legitimate news story” reflects the prostitution of entertainment journalism nowadays, no thanks to showbiz anchors and reporters who do not understand the professional standards; and to media organizations that tolerate this situation.

In the final analysis, this results not in the meaningful shaping of public opinion but in the shameful dumbing down of audiences. If these showbiz anchors and reporters want to become real entertainment journalists, they should start adhering to the highest standards of the profession and start pursuing relevant stories that the public needs to know.

Right from the start, you already sense that there is something wrong with this media event.

One minute, the male host claims “Walang topic na off limits.” And then the female co-host later describes the foreign dignitary as a “rock star.”

Yes, the stage has been set last November 16 at the National Museum for the human spectacle that is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The audio-visual presentation that precedes the combined town hall meeting, interview and online chat – the host uses the term “townterchat” to describe this media event – is positively slanted for Clinton as it mainly highlights her strengths. In my opinion, the AVP seems to address only one question: “How awesome is Hillary Clinton?”

Not surprisingly, the comments from the audience prior to her entrance consist mostly of positive comments. Reviewing the “townterchat’s” one-hour video, I counted 11 positive comments and two neutral comments (the last two pertaining to what food Clinton should eat and what place she should visit in Mindanao).

When Clinton finally joins the hosts for the “townterchat,” what is expected to be a no-holds-barred encounter becomes a social gathering where the ever gracious hosts do not bother to raise controversial issues. In the first place, what can one expect from the two hosts who take it upon themselves to sometimes give positive compliments to Clinton in between questions coming from them, the live audience and social media (Facebook, Twitter and Skype).

Out of the 22 questions asked during the “townterchat,” I classified 13 as serious and nine as light or neutral. Even then, one cannot find depth in the discussion in a situation where questions like what’s inside Clinton’s purse get mixed with how the US intends to reform its immigration policies. Is this the hosts’ concept of no topics being off limits? Is this how they define pluralism in the newsroom?

It doesn’t help any that a comedian helps facilitate the questions from the audience as the mood becomes generally light, and the questions not so controversial (even for those classified as serious ones).

Toward the end of the spectacle, there is no in-depth discussion of the nature of relations between the Philippines and United States. This is quite strange, considering that this year marks the 60th year of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the two countries.

If many Filipinos are not so familiar with the contents of the MDT which is, incidentally, only two pages long, the “townterchat” does not help any in getting, for example, Clinton’s assessment of its impact in the past six decades.

And then, all of a sudden, a student leader shouts, “There is nothing mutual about the mutual defense treaty!” Holding up a streamer, he also shouts “Junk VFA!” as security personnel lead him out of the venue. The student leader turns out to be the editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian, the official student publication of UP Diliman.

Instead of asking Clinton her reaction to the claim that there is nothing mutual about the MDT, the female host opts to ask: “Ma’am, what attitude do you take toward protesters who greet you…similar to the one we had earlier?” This gives Clinton the easy way out to easily dismiss the protester and hide behind nebulous words like democracy and free speech.

This media event is better off called “townterchat” even if the word does not exist. To call it a “press conference” would be a misrepresentation of the basic principles and standards of journalism. To quote from Kovach and Rosenstiel, journalism “must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.”

What happened last November 16 is nothing but a “praise” conference, an event that should have no room in the programming of a leading broadcast network and is better off organized by unscrupulous advertising and public relations firms. As we all know, these shady entities are the ones that churn out what are jokingly referred to in the media as “praise” releases.

There is much debate on the allegedly uncouth behavior of the campus journalist who disrupted the “townterchat.” There are those who argue that he was unethical, arguing that The Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics explicitly states that a journalist should “comport (himself or herself) in public or while performing (his or her) duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of (the) profession. When in doubt, decency should be (his or her) watchword.”

Given that the nature of the questions and comments during the event, I can actually argue that he was the one who articulated (despite the limited time he had) the reality of US hegemony which is the exact opposite of what Clinton is claiming. If media organizations claim objectivity and fairness as their standards in the pursuit of the journalism profession, then they should have a conscious effort to ask not just a hodge-podge of serious and light questions but also a barrage of controversial ones. In the case of Clinton, questions that are potentially embarrassing should also be raised like the US economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region (including the Philippines) and its role in the Arab Spring movements in the Middle East.

It is unfortunate that this campus journalist is now being vilified for not adhering to the highest standards of the journalism profession. What proves to be ironic is that in the context of the media event that was organized, he was the one who asserted journalism in this rare chance of sharing the same room with a high-ranking official of the most powerful nation in the world.

Malaking bahagi ang progresibong pahayagan sa pagharap sa anumang pag-aalinlangan.

Naging “newsie”* ako sa Philippine Collegian (o Kulê) noong 1988. Hindi tulad ng maraming kakilala’t kaibigang taga-Kulê, wala akong mahabang karanasan sa pagsusulat. Sa katunayan, kinuha ko lang ang kursong Peryodismo sa UP Diliman bilang pagtugon sa hamon ng kapatid kong lumabas sa aking “comfort zone” ng Agham at Matematika.

Ang kawalan ng kakayahan sa pagsusulat ay ugat ng aking personal na pag-aalinlangan. Hindi rin nakatulong ang aking pulitikal na kababawan sa pag-intindi sa mahalagang papel ng pahayagang pangkampus. Nang magsimula akong maging “probee” ng Kulê, hindi nakakagulat na wala akong konsepto ng pag-uulat bilang pagmumulat, pati na rin ng peryodista bilang aktibista.

Pero ang pambansang sitwasyon ay nakapagpabago sa aking personal na disposisyon. Ang huling bahagi ng dekada 80 ay wala kasing pagkakaiba sa kasalukuyang panahon. Ito ang panahon ng pakikibaka para sa tunay na repormang agraryo. Mainit din ang debate sa isyu ng pananatili ng mga base militar at armas nukleyar ng mga Kano. Napakaraming insidente ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao dahil sa “total war policy” ng pamahalaan. Tunay na madaling matulak sa aktibismo ang maraming estudyante noong panahong iyon.

Ang paghuhubog ng opinyong pampubliko, ayon sa aking mga patnugot, ay kailangang gawin sa pamamagitan ng tamang datos at malalim na pagsusuri. Unti-unti kong naigpawan ang pulitikal na kababawan sa pamamagitan ng tuluy-tuloy na pagbabasa at pakikisalamuha. At dahil sa lingguhang pangangailangang makapagsulat ng mga balita (na nangangahulugang higit pa sa isang artikulo ang kadalasang ibinibigay sa mga patnugot), unti-unti akong nasanay sa epektibo’t mabilisang pagsusulat.

Sadyang marami kang matututuhan sa pagtatrabaho sa isang pahayagang pangkampus tulad ng Kulê na bahagi ng tinatawag na alternatibong midya. Nagiging normal na kalakaran hindi lang ang pagsusulat kundi ang pagpupuyat. Nagiging katanggap-tanggap ang paggampan sa mabigat na gawain kahit na walang kapalit na malaking pera (at kung minsan nga’y abonado ka pa).

Nakikita mo kasi ang kahalagahan ng pagpapayaman ng kaalaman, bukod pa sa pagsisilbi sa interes ng nakararaming mamamayan.

Ang iyong progresibong pag-uulat ay tinitingnan bilang kagyat na pangangailangan.

Higit pa sa prestihiyo ng pagiging bahagi ng opisyal na pahayagan ng mga mag-aaral ng pinakamalaking kampus ng pambansang unibersidad, alam mong isang malaking responsibilidad ang pagpapatuloy ng mahabang kasaysayan nito ng progresibong pag-uulat tungo sa malawak at malalim na pagmumulat. Pero higit pa sa paggising sa natutulog na kamalayan, alam mong may papel din ang midya sa organisadong pagkilos tungo sa sa makabuluhang pagbabago. Sa kontekstong ito, hindi ka magdadalawang-isip na maging bahagi ng pagkilos at gamitin ang peryodismo para isulong ito.

Bilang bahagi ng Kulê, alam mong sa simula lamang ang iyong personal at pulitikal na pag-aalinlangan. Sa paglipas ng panahon, unti-unting lumilinaw ang lahat, sa puntong hindi mo na maikakaila ang iyong “tunay” na kulay.

Kahit na itim ang tinta ng iyong pluma, nananatiling pula ang diwa ng iyong pakikibaka.

International Relations students from the Lyceum of the Philippines University emailed questions on the culture of blaming in Philippine society. I think my answers are worth sharing to a broader audience as I tried to highlight the misuse of social media these past few days and a news media organization’s responsibility due to the resulting case of cyber-bullying.

Yes, I refer particularly to the cyber-bullying experienced by a motorist who committed two mistakes last August 2 – driving his car through a flooded area on Mother Ignacia Avenue in Quezon City and having a television crew catching his misfortune in time for the primetime newscast that night.

Is it fair to say that sisihan or continuous blaming is inherently Filipino, or is this exemplified by just a segment (or the majority) of the population?

Sisihan or blaming is neither inherently Filipino nor patently cultural. The so-called blame game happens in various ways. In the context of the public domain like mass media and social media, I think “passing the buck,” so to speak, happens as a result of one’s lack of a level-headed demeanor.

Blaming others, for example, could be a person’s knee-jerk reaction when confronted by a mistake he or she is accused of committing. It could serve as a defense mechanism of sorts so that the focus could be transferred to others instead of himself or herself.

Playing the blame game could be a reflection of either the lack of maturity of the person being confronted or the lack of information as regards the situation he or she is in. The latter two, of course are not mutually exclusive so the situation of buck-passing could be both.

A more level-headed or mature individual is wont to either immediately own up to his or her mistakes or refrain from commenting until he or she has enough information to provide a sound and sober analysis of what had happened.

In the case of the unfortunate University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law student whose misfortune last August 2 was caught on camera by a leading broadcast station, his perceived decision to blame others should be properly understood in the context of the questions he was asked (which we know nothing about) and the selected sound bites that were aired.

In my opinion, the particular news report is slanted to highlight his mistake, as well as the manner in which he tried to explain it (which clearly he was not successful doing so).

Public opinion definitely went against this particular UP student as the circumstances surrounding his predicament (it was learned later on, for example, that he was in a hurry due to a family emergency and that he was not familiar with the route he had taken) were not clearly explained in the particular news report. What was highlighted was his perceived act of stupidity and alleged arrogance toward the bystanders and the government for not properly informing him of how deep the flood was.

As the audience, is it true that the ordinary persons have a short attention span in following whatever direction the actors point us to? If yes, do media acknowledge this fact and use it to reinforce sisihan behavior/strategy?

Media are not expected to mirror social reality as they provide only the important information needed in the shaping of public opinion.

This is the reason journalists exercise utmost care in presenting data and analyses given limitations of space (print and online) and airtime (radio and television). The people should not be blamed for their alleged short attention span as limitations are imposed by the news media organizations themselves, particularly the gatekeepers of information.

It is commendable that the leading broadcast station immediately pulled down the video report in its website and issued a public statement denouncing the vilification the law student got in the social media. This news media organization is clearly against cyber-bullying and upholds the seventh point in the Philippine journalist’s code of ethics: “I shall not in any manner ridicule, cast aspersions on or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin.”

Much as the handling of the August 2 report of the law student’s misfortune leaves much to be desired, the consequent action of the station makes up for it. My personal recommendation, however, is for the broadcast station to also engage in self-criticism and perhaps issue a public apology if the August 2 news report is found to be unfairly slanted against the unfortunate law student.

In its reflection, the broadcast station could look into the extent of its responsibility for the cyber-bullying this law student continues to endure in social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter. One of the FB hate pages, for example, now has more than 65,000 “fans” as of this writing. The name of the unfortunate law student also became a trending topic worldwide on Twitter last week as many social media users engaged in ad hominem attacks, going to the extent of maligning the student’s family, social status, ethnicity, school and even his appearance.

I think it is necessary to assess the news segment based on the prescribed code of ethics. Only then can future events like this be avoided as, just like other news media organizations, it goes about reporting events to properly inform people.

Unless the Aquino administration adopts the “Bayan Muna version,” I cannot find any reason to support current government initiatives to pass a freedom of information act (FOIA).

As it is, the proposed consolidated version of the FOIA pending in the House of Representatives is so watered down that access to information becomes practically absent. My major concern here is the proposed creation of an Information Commission whose powers and functions include, among others, the imposition of “temporary or permanent ban on the disclosure of information, upon finding that the disclosure will be detrimental to national security and public interest.” (Sec. 20[d], emphasis mine)

It is bad enough that public interest is not in the definition of terms. What makes matters worse is the broad definition of national security. According to the draft bill, national security “refers to a state or condition wherein the national interests of the country, the well-being of its people and institutions and its sovereignty and territorial integrity are protected and enhanced.” (Sec. 2[f])

If the administration adopts this version of the FOIA, it is possible to deprive people of information by just simply invoking this broad definition of national security. It becomes possible, after all, to invoke the nebulous phrase “people’s well-being” not only in denying access to information at a particular time, but also in permanently banning it.

For journalists trying to get information from government offices, they may also find it hard to comply with media organizations’ tight deadlines with this provision: “The government agency shall comply with such request as soon as practicable, and in any case within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt thereof. The period may be extended whenever the information requested requires a search of the government agency’s field or satellite offices, examination of voluminous records, the occurrence of fortuitous events or other analogous cases.” (Sec. 22[3])

As far as the “Bayan Muna version” is concerned (i.e., House Bill No. [HBN] 133 introduced by Bayan Muna Reps. Teodoro Casiño and Neri Javier Colmenares), it is clear that “(a)ll government agencies shall expeditiously grant information requests from journalists.” (Sec. 8, HBN 133) Aside from that, compliance for requests from the general public is also more expeditious compared to the proposed consolidated version: “Each government body, upon any request for information, shall afford access to the appropriate source of official information being requested within five (5) working days after its receipt. In no case shall this period be extended unless there is a need to sort, search or collect the specific official information being requested from voluminous sources of information, in which case, the person making the request shall be duly notified of the extension and reasons therefore. In no case shall the extension be more than seven (7) working days counted from the expiration of the fifth working day.” (Sec. 9)

What also makes HBN 133 both progressive and media-friendly is the existence of a “sunshine clause” which is conspicuously absent in the proposed consolidated version. Please read Sec. 5(k) of HBN 133 to know what is meant by a sunshine clause: “All classified information contained in all government agency records that (1) are more than 25 years old, and (2) have been determined to have historical value shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Subsequently, all classified information in such records shall be automatically declassified no longer than 25 years from the date of its original classification.”

This particular provision clearly helps not only journalists but also other interested researchers in getting relevant information to analyze issues that continue to haunt us today like the dark days of Martial Law (1972-1986).

In 1995, then US President Bill Clinton through an executive order authorized the release of previously classified national security documents “more than 25 years old [and deemed] to have permanent historical value.” As a result declassification of confidential documents in the US, I wrote in a position paper I submitted to the Philippine Senate in 2009 that “The Baltimore Sun requested and got hold of two previously classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) manuals titled `KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation – July 1963′ and `Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983.’ The latter gave details on torture methods used against suspected subversives in Latin America in the 1980s, effectively refuting past denials of the CIA. By requesting the classified information, details like these were published in a January 1997 article by The Baltimore Sun: `Torture methods taught in the 1983 manual include stripping suspects naked and keeping them blindfolded. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, dark and soundproof, with no toilet.’”

Here in the Philippines, one can only imagine what a persistent journalist or researcher could uncover if a Freedom of Information Act were to include a sunshine clause as proposed by Casiño and Colmenares. Perhaps it would be possible to finally know, for example, who ordered the 1983 assassination of former Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr., the incumbent President’s father.

It is in this context that the Aquino administration should adopt the “Bayan Muna version.” As it is right now, the proposed consolidated version of the FOIA is nothing but a case study in irony: Because of its weaknesses, the law that supposedly promotes and upholds access to information is the one that could be used to restrict it.

There is no denying that the state of the nation address (SONA) last July 25 is a made-for-TV production and that President Benigno Aquino III spends most of the time playing to the camera.

All the necessary elements for TV audience consumption are there –non-text visuals (e.g., pictures, tables, graphs and charts), sound bites (i.e., one-liners and so-called quotable quotes) and the delivery of the speech in Filipino (highlighted by colloquial expressions every so often).

Because of these elements, I assume that many Filipinos had the patience to listen to the 53-minute speech which could be summed up using two adjectives: “telling and promising.” Depending on your political beliefs, you may want to add a third one: “condescending.”

Of course, the more politically astute are wont to use two adjectives to describe the SONA: “delusional and illogical.”

The more media-savvy audience, however, may see through the fluff and conclude that, as in many events covered by the media, the SONA is a spectacle that is strong in form but wanting in substance.

While statistics are used to back up the claims of a “telling” present and a “promising” future, the arguments, for the most part of the SONA, are strengthened not by persuasion but by speculation.

In exposing corruption, it may be surprising to know that the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) reportedly spent P1 billion on coffee alone. But the details behind this alleged expenditure is not clearly explained in the SONA. Was this spent for only one year or a period of nine years (particularly 2001 to 2010 during the previous administration)? Was this consumed by only the employees or the GOCC’s clients? The context is important to better appreciate the alleged corruption at the PAGCOR.

What proves to be worse in failing to provide the context is the President’s resort to speculation: “Baka po kahit ngayong iba na ang pamunuan ng PAGCOR ay dilat na dilat pa rin ang mata ng mga uminom ng kapeng ito.” And mindful that coffee helps keep people awake, the allusion of how certain corrupt individuals at PAGCOR could sleep soundly at night proves to be the President’s sensible transition (even if there is no logic in the argumentation): “Hanapin nga po natin sila, at matanong: Nakakatulog pa po ba kayo?”

Can you relate to the Filipino colloquial expressions that peppered the text of the SONA? Just to cite a few examples: Naman. Oks lang. Tongpats. Did you also like the one-liners used by the President? In protecting the government’s territory, for example, he said: “Ang sa Pilipinas ay sa Pilipinas; kapag tumapak ka sa Recto Bank, para ka na ring tumapak sa Recto Avenue.”

The use of colloquial expressions and one-liners fulfills, on one hand, the objective of making the message understandable to a broader audience. However, they could also compromise the formality of the tone and end up trivializing the serious issues being discussed.

In the case of the SONA, the use of the word “wangwang” to refer to the prevailing culture of corruption ends up oversimplifying the issue and provides a hasty generalization of the problem. It is nothing but a useful sound bite as it gives a new definition to the word. Just to cite an example: “Ang panlalamang matapos mangakong maglingkod—iyan po ang utak wang-wang.” Aside from “utak wang-wang,” the President also introduces new phrases (e.g., kampanya kontra wang-wang, pagwawang-wang sa mga ahensya ng gobyerno, nagwawang-wang sa pribadong sektor).

That the word “wangwang” (spelled “wang-wang” most of the time) was used 19 times only means one thing: The Aquino administration has intended to make the SONA memorable by virtue of its merely being quotable. The officials, particularly the President, need to play to the camera as they deliver what audiences want to hear even if the message is not necessarily the truth.

Indeed, the SONA sacrifices content to focus more on the form. So what does the SONA stand for at present? The letter S stands not for state but for “spectacle” and the N stands not for nation but for “nothing.”

As many state universities and colleges (SUCs) in the Philippines are protesting cuts in the budget for tertiary education, some students and faculty members of Ateneo de Davao University are denouncing the alleged ban in the use of social media like Facebook.

Some people may think that it’s an overreaction, considering that restricted Internet access only happens from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. As quoted by GMA 7, a school administrator said that “the sheer number of people who go on Facebook…heavily overburdens the university’s Internet service bandwidth, such that it negatively impacts on the university’s other online services.”

Explaining further the restrictions on Internet access in his school, the administrator adds: “We want our personnel to focus more not on social networking but on their necessary work, basically educational work. And second, disciplinary also (kasi) we want to avoid students to be having Facebook while in their classes.”

Saving precious Internet bandwidth is understandable as a school tries to make do with limited resources. At the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman where I work, for example, there was a time when access to social media like Friendster and YouTube was not allowed during office hours. The increase in the university’s service bandwidth eventually made it possible to allow social media access (although there are still restrictions at present with regard to using apps on Facebook, as well as engaging in bandwidth-hogging activities like downloading large files via torrent).

What proves to be debatable, however, is the perception that social networking is not part of the learning process. In the context of e-learning, the Internet is a vital tool for research and communication. While it is true that there are people who waste their time logging on to Facebook just to play games and chat with friends, I would like to think that the more responsible students, staff and faculty members make better use of social media in getting information related to their academic work.

At a time when the Internet makes it possible for researchers to conveniently retrieve information and communicate with colleagues regardless of physical location, school administrators should be more conscious of new media’s role in the academe and should not consequently get in the way of increasing productivity through responsible use of the Internet.

The same issue was raised when the administration of the University of Southern Mindanao (USM) in Kabacan, North Cotabato prohibited access to social networking sites after its president reportedly “caught some employees inside some of the offices at the university opening Facebook and other websites during office hours.”

Even if some of them were caught playing online games, many employees “complained that the ban was unfair since they spend most of their time on the Internet researching for their reports and class subjects. For them, the latest trend in learning and teaching is using Internet.” A USM faculty member argues: “This is what we call, e-learning, meaning, using modern technology to advance learning and education.”

Clearly, the solution to the problem of limited Internet bandwidth in schools is not much the outright banning of social networking sites (which are precious sources of information) but the imposition of an honor code among students, staff and faculty with regard to responsible use of the Internet.

If necessary, administrators could be educated on e-learning so that they could have a better appreciation of the role of social media in education and not look at the likes of Facebook as “unnecessary distractions” on campus.