THEIR IGNORANCE IS CULPRIT

By Philip M. Lustre

Obviously , the digoons (I will use the lower case to refer to the rabid, fanatic supporters of the sick old man of the South) were outsmarted by Time. I don't think Time intended it. It was more of a function - or consequence - of the digoons' ignorance. 

Time has a global market to meet. The Philippines is a small market for them. They know and understand that Filipinos are not a reading people. Their revenues (sales of printed copies and advertising income) in the Philippines have been not that high compared to bigger markets like North America and Europe.

The digoons' problem stems (I prefer to use the present tense) from their ignorance of the operations and dynamics of the newspaper business. They may have generated some savvy in nontraditional media, particularly social media, because of their ability to produce troll accounts and engage in bot operations to reflect am inordinate quantitative interest on their troll operations. 

But traditional media is different.Very, very different indeed.

Now let me engage into some lectures. In journalism school, I use to tell students that there's such thing as newsroom management. Those news accounts and feature stories that normally appear on the pages of print media materials like newspapers, newsmagazines, and magazines usually undergo some processes. 

The publishing processes are different from the social media processes. They are more rigorous. They are products of centuries of traditions. They do not appear as whimsical as one could imagine as in other media platforms like social media. 

Traditional media like print media have sets of professionals, who work in news publishing: the writers, the editors, who function as gatekeepers too, and the logistic officers, who provide the resources necessary for smooth news gathering, news writing, news editing, and news publishing. They comprise the editorial arm, or half of the print media business.

The other half is the business arm. They are distinct and different from the editorial arm. This is comprised of the revenue guys. The advertising people bring as much as advertising revenues for the publications. They go out and solicit ads from industries, governments, civil society, and other entities that would place advertisements of the publication's pages and pay. 

The circulation people sell the printed copies and bring in revenues. Hence, the business side ensures revenues and income that could propel the business operations of a publication.

As a rule, the editorial and business arms of any publication operate as separate republics. One does not dictate on the other. But they talk and coordinate. 

The business arm could tell the editorial side what the market want. The editorial side could inform the business arm on the thrust of the editorial contents of the publication. The editorial side does not have to seek the permission of the business side when it comes its editorial judgment. Neither do the editorial side interferes in the business judgments of the other side. 

These are the dynamics in the print media. Such dynamics are products of centuries of traditions.

Little did the digoons understand that the polls called by Time were not initiated by its editorial department. It came mainly from the business people, whose intention was to create a hype on its project on 100 most influential people in the world. 

The polls were launched to create some hype to boost sales of printed copies and generate advertising revenues. The polls were a marketing ploy, which the digoons took hook, line, and sinker without understanding their ramifications, implications, and complications. 

They wrongly thought that by joining the polls and making the sick old man from the south the first in the polls, their idol would land on the cover of Time magazine. Wrong. Their limited mind hardly understands the dynamics in print media. They are grossly ignorant of its operations and dynamics.

As a rule, Time's editorial department does not hold such kind of polls, which are unscientific and crude by all means. If ever it does, it would likely commission a credible polling institution to do an equally credible opinion poll. 

Editorial people do not resort to popularity contests. On the contrary, they abhor those things, knowing that they could yield unfavorable results. 

Hence, the digoons were surprised to find that the sick old man was just one of the 100. He was not on the cover page. The devastating fact for them was that Sen. Leila De Lima, their idol's nemesis, was listed as another influential leader - and in a different category: Icons. 

They could not believe it. They were mad. Now, they are calling for a boycott of Time. Who have the last laugh? Your guess is as good as mine.

What had happened to the Time's polls. Actually, they were no polls by standards of social research. They were just inquiries.. The hard copies of their results most likely ended in the filing cabinet for future use or whatever. The polls could have been hyped, but they were of very little use. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the digoons were used.

WRONG JOURNALISM

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

This is an experience I’ve almost forgotten. I was about to consign it to oblivion, when I felt that the current situation required me to narrate it once more, if only for its latent wisdom.

Nearly five months ago, I attended a media forum and workshop, where participants were some journalism students from a downtown university, while the rest were a mixture of working journalists. The moderator, a seasoned journalist, who had worked in local dailies and now a journalism teacher in one of the better universities, opened the workshop by asking participants, particularly the students, their assessment of the current state of Philippine media.

A student in his early 20s immediately responded by declaring his frustration over what he described as the nature of new coverage. It’s too one-sided, he declared, but not to favor the current administration, which, at that time, was gaining international notoriety and condemnation for the growing spate of extrajudicial killings (EJKs).

We were mostly inclined to accept his diatribes because it was his right to express his mind. But what surprised us was his sweeping generalization that the perceived lack of fairness to favor the government was caused by the machinations of what he termed as “dilawan,” or “yellow forces” in local mass media. He did not offer any proof. It was just one sweeping statement to reflect the thinking of many people, who support the incumbent president and his violent antidrug war, which is now being perceived as a war against the poor, or those people "with a pair of dirty feet."  

Not a few quizzical brows went up by such daring, sweeping generalization. It did not escape my attention either. As a journalist and teacher, I had to do my share to disabuse what I considered the student’s poisoned mind.  I did my share to explain. I spoke out of my commitment to truth.

Journalism has three basic tenets, I said. These are truth, balance, and objectivity, or fairness. Every journalism student should understand those basic tenets because everything revolves on these tenets, I said.

Truth is the journalist’s fundamental commodity, as he goes out and competes in the marketplace of ideas, I said. Of course, I express my indignation at the sweeping generalization that if the news reports did not conform to his mindset, it was yellow and should be condemned.

Then, I went to explain media’s role as society’s watchdog. Mass media’s role is to report the truth. It works without an agenda. If ever it works to favor certain parties, then it becomes a propaganda machine, I said. It was my way to inculcate into the young man’s mind that mass media should not be a propaganda machine of the party in power.

As I explained mass media’s role, I could not help but take a dig on the kind of journalism education he was getting from the downtown university, the owners of which are known supporters of the incumbent president, and, of course, his teachers. Then, I summed p my discussions by telling him that mass media functions basically "to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted."

I could not help but frame my statement with the clarifying premise, saying “I don’t know what your teachers taught you in school and I don’t have any personal knowledge, but if I were your teacher, I would tell you … blah … blah … blah.”

Actually, I viewed the poor student as victim of prevalent mind-conditioning - or even mind-poisoning - that emanates from a growing culture of populism, where every issue should be settled by taking a short cut instead of engaging in the circuitous route premised on the twin principles of rule of law and due process.

The student hardly spoke as I explained the rudiments of journalism, which his teachers apparently deprived him in journalism school. I did not have to engage in any sophisticated discussions of the issue. I just stuck to the fundamentals.

Incidentally, it has been a habit among the president's rabid supporters to blame everything to the "yellow forces," which, at this point, have become some sort of a phantom enemy. 

If they were referring to the Liberal Party (LP), they should at the very least know that the LP has been emasculated by mass defections to the ruling PDP-Laban and the "Super Majority" in Congress.

Blaming everything to the Yellows is easy. It is the product of a lazy mind. Engaging in that sweeping accusation is a function of monumental ignorance and stupidity.