ATTACKING THE MESSENGER INSTEAD OF THE MESSAGE

You need not read this entry.

This is just a rundown of the experience I had when I commented on another’s blog. As one popular blogger/columnist aptly described it, it was highly illuminating, though it’s not for me to say whose arguments were found to be wanting in depth and substance.

Again, this is for my personal consumption. Nevertheless, if you’re curious enough to know how our discussions went through and how the blogger eventually called me a “TROLL”, then by all means feel free to continue reading this entry down to the last letter.

In a previous article, the blogger advanced a proposition which caught my attention:

“I make a distinction between a responsible media and a licentious one. The right to freedom of the press properly belongs to a responsible media, not to a licentious one. Obviously it is always in the best interest of media to blur the distinction between the two so that licentiousness can pass off as an exercise of press freedom.”

I must admit that the proposition, on its face, sounds valid and worth considering. However, when you take a more detailed scrutiny of the possible implications such a proposition offers, that’s when you see the loophole. It’s dangerous to say the least. Probably only those who have tyrannical tendencies would openly embrace it as part of state policy. Journalists in the true sense of the word definitely abhor it. To me, the blogger seems oblivious to the fact that media establishments, like the Daily Tribune for example, are continuously being monitored by an insecure government or being threatened by an equally one-sided Secretary who’s always busy persecuting critics of the Arroyo administration.

I then countered the blogger’s proposition by asking the following questions in the context of the current state of affairs:

“1. How do you distinguish between a responsible media from a licentious one? The demarcation line is very thin and smacks of subjectivity.

2. Who determines what a licentious media is and what a responsible media should be? Gloria Arroyo? Ignacio Bunye? Arturo Lomibao? Raul Gonzalez? Mike Defensor? Ronaldo Puno? Ricardo Saludo? The publishers/editors/columnists of the Manila Standard, Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Star? RJ Jacinto? NBN 4, IBC 13, RPN 9?

3. Which is more irresponsible and licentious, media that parrots government propaganda masquerading as news OR media that is now perceived as anti-GMA?”

To which questions, the blogger answered:

“Had you asked your questions without the obvious bias, I would have responded. As it is, I won’t even dignify them with an answer.”

Haha. This is usually the escape goat of someone who could not defend his/her own proposition. Instead of facing the music squarely, the blogger capitalized on the possible motives for such questions. The blogger obviously failed to see the bigger picture that even the mere attempt at distinguishing responsible media from a licentious one is fraught with the obvious bias for which said blogger was precisely apprehensive about.

And thinking that the antic was a cheap shot for an admittedly eloquent blogger, I then retorted:

“All of us have biases. I’m sorry to say this but it’s too hypocritical for us when we say we have no bias one way or the other. In the first place, it was you who sought to distinguish between a responsible media from a licentious one. Now, you refuse to answer that by saying my questions are biased. Interestingly, those that profess to carry the badge of a “responsible” media have less readership nationwide than those now accused of being licentious.”

Besides, the facts will bear me out that two other commenters likewise tried to ask the same questions, practically pleading the blogger to answer them categorically, bargaining even that the blogger simply disregard the allegedly biased premises in my questions.

Probably pissed off by my insistence, the blogger did promise to give an answer in the next blog entry. True enough, the blogger did. But did the next entry really answer my questions? Unfortunately, it did not. Worse, the blogger deviated from the original issue and instead proceeded to make a purely theoretical discussion on what is “news” and “journalism” and how to differentiate “news” from “actual events”. The blogger went as far as citing an online encyclopedic definition of “yellow” journalism to mean “the endemic practices of particular organizations to operate as mouthpieces, for rather limited and particular allegiances, rather than for the public trust”. What the blogger did not realize was that the definiton itself provided the knock-out blow to the original proposition.

My observation to the said blog entry more or less centered on this conclusion:

“If we go by this definition, practically all media, whether print or broadcast, pro or anti-GMA, are “guilty” of this kind of journalism. This was the reason why I asked you HOW do you distinguish between a licentious media from a responsible one, WHO is to determine what is licentious and what is not, and WHICH is more licentious, media parroting government propaganda masquerading as news or media that is now the target of Raul Gonzalez’ tirades.”

To which the blogger answered with this single word:

“Precisely.”

My reply:

“Therefore, if everyone is guilty of “yellow” journalism, then what moral ascendancy does the government have to insist that press freedom belongs only to a responsible media? Otherwise stated, when everybody is licentious, who are we to accuse the other of the same “crime” that we ourselves are committing? He who cries foul must come to court with clean hands.

If not for the help of the “licentious” media with all its exposes and the whole day coverage the mainstream media gave to Erap’s impeachment trial, people would not have gathered at Edsa (which eventually convinced the AFP to withdraw it support for Erap) and Gloria Arroyo would not have assumed power in 2001.”

The blogger took exception to the last paragraph by countering:

“So… abuse should be tolerated, and glorified even, depending on who is committing it. Oh my gosh, what an admission!

Licentiousness is not limited to libelous reports nor ones that violate the right to privacy. Licentiousness is about abuse of power.”

I answered back, saying:

“Read between the lines. I’m merely trying to point out that if it was not licentious then to expose Erap’s excesses, why is it licentious now to expose GMA’s equally, if not more corrupt governance? If it was useful for Impeachment Prosecutor Gonzalez then to use some of PCIJ’s investigative findings, why is it seditious now for Secretary Gonzalez? What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.”

“Thank you for the additional definition. You hit the nail right on its head. If there is any difference between the licentiousness of media perceived as anti-GMA and the licentiousness of media in cahoots with Gloria, the latter obviously enjoys the legal protection of the DOJ with its tortiously criminal minds and the intimidating presence of PNP chief and concurrent Editor-in-Chief Lomibao with the barrel of his gun. This is the licentiousness that smacks of abuse of power.”

This was the stage where the blogger got really irritated (at least judging from the way the reactions sounded). Take note of the “attack the messenger” strategy in capitalized portions (emphasis mine):

“I gave you categorical answers. On my terms. If you expected me to say this-or-that is the answer and not support that with reasons, YOU’RE OUT OF YOUR MIND. Now if you still were not able to find the answers among my words, the problem isn’t mine. Unlike other bloggers and writers, I give answers that lead to more questions and discussion with the goal of going deeper into the issue more deeply rather than merely impose my opinion so that people will or will not support the government or the opposition or the LEFT.

Nice quotes from famous men. But famous men are never infallible in their reasoning. MENTAL EXERCISE IS BETTER.”

Naturally, as anybody would, I retaliated:

“Okay then. I will not force you to make categorical answers. Just like acts committed under PP 1017, it’s really hard to defend the indefensible. I will just have to accept your answers on my own terms too.”

“There you go again. Just because I am anti-GMA, you tend to dismiss my opinions and compare me to other bloggers you regard as superior because they toe your line of reasoning. Worse, you resort to labeling by indirectly accusing me as part of the Left (otherwise, why capitalize (emphasize) only the “left” and not the “opposition”?). Besides, I was not imposing only my opinions, I was asking you questions, which, to me, you miserably failed to answer.”

“The last time I checked your entry, you quoted your definition of “yellow” journalism from Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. If that’s what you call “mental exercise”, I’d rather not. I’d rather rely on the tried and tested principles of a former US President than quote from an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

This time the blogger got pissed off to the hilt that the reactions were a bit insulting (emphasis mine):

“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA I gave you answers YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND and you’re still whining as though you’re being magnanimous?”

“YOU GIVE YOURSELF TOO MUCH CREDIT. YOU WERE NEVER LUMPED INTO THE CATEGORY OF WRITERS AND BLOGGERS.”

“Wow, you are benighted. You’re comparing literary work with encyclopedic definition. Don’t you know the difference between those two? My gosh!”

“I WONDER NOW WHY I EVER WASTED MY TIME ANSWERING YOU. YOU’RE A TROLL, NOTHING MORE.”

I would have wanted to post one last comment but… BAM! I got rejected. The territory became hostile to a commenter like me with an opposing view. Hehe.. The maximum tolerance policy gradually became a calibrated preemptive response (CPR). All I wanted was an honest-to-goodness discussion on valid issues.

Just the same, I will not take it against the blogger who had every right — no matter how rude — to ridicule me. I won’t make a big deal out of it either or else I be falsely accused of being publicity hungry. Oh my, let the people decide who between us is the real troll. I just felt the need to defend my person and narrate some of my personal blog experiences before I forget that this site also serves as my online journal or diary.

Well, so much for my constitutional right to be heard. Let’s proceed now to more relevant topics…