battle of the blogs

si manolo quezon ba ang pinatatamaan ni benignO?

one blogger’s citation of another blogger’s work serves the double purpose of also promoting the former’s own blog (at least if the latter sets their blog to allow trackbacks). This eureka moment of mine suddenly makes the style of some bloggers suspect in my book – those who pepper their work with so many links to other blogs. I made the observation yonks ago about how the style of a noted blogger has evolved from making very sharp-edged, highly-focused entries to the ones we see today that have more of the stock-take-cum-shotgun approach of a content consolidator.”

the daily dose is the only blog i know that is always peppered with links to other blogs, which style, yes, promotes the daily dose, but also provides a unique service to readers like me who want to know the latest developments and utterances on the political scene but can’t be bothered or don’t have the time to do all that research. i don’t know though that manolo’s posts have lost some edge and focus over time – i haven’t been into the blogosphere all that long. truth is, i never count on manolo for edge or focus. for that i read dean jorge bocobo and ellen tordesillas.

but yes, benignO raises a valid concern re the “establishmentisation” of the pinoy blogosphere where the success of a blog is measured by its popularity, i.e., the number of other blogs that link to it and the comments it gets per post, never mind the substance or lack of it or the vision or lack of it. it’s like preferring formula box-office hit movies to indy films when indy films are easily the more edgy and visionary:

For Indy film producers, an audience is a bonus. For Studio movie producers, an audience is the whole point. The latter is driven by credentialism and the former by insight. We all know mass appeal brings home the bacon, whilst edginess and loyalty to vision attracts a far smaller subset – insightful minds. That ultimately is the choice faced by every content producer, be they film makers, illustrators, writers, and – yes- bloggers.”

which brings me to tonyo cruz (whom i found through manolo’s daily dose) and the filipino blogosphere’s insipid aristocracy.

… the Pinoy blogosphere aristocracy are just behaving as expected: aristocratic and elitist. Some would cry “repression!” only when its their own voices that are being muffled or muzzled. Some would gladly lay down a virtual red carpet for their own online writing projects on Philippine issues, but would demean the efforts of others. At other times, these clowns cry for “democracy” when all they really want to say is “listen to me only” or “listen to me first”. Some are fans of a near-total absence of online accountability. As to the threat of repression, the question of the need to fight repression is set aside by insinuations that the new ones may be inviting harm all by themselves (ain’t that the same “blame the victim” outlook which they also detest in posts elsewhere).

There is a danger to the way these characters view themselves. They may be harboring not ill thoughts about others, but an overestimation of their self-worth. Given the discussions on related topics, it is not farfetched that they would soon propose a canon for the Pinoy blogosphere and anoint themselves as the new “gods” to whom we should solely and exclusively look for truth.

That is not democracy. That is only a complete reproduction of mass media and Philippine education in general. Full of elitism and bullshit, exclusivist rather inclusive, and finds as questionable the entry of new voices such as Lozada, Panlilio and the nameless masses.”

i LUV it. this is the kind of “edgy” i’m looking for – not the personal angst-laden kind of edgy but the politically edgy that takes a stand, that selflessly fearlessly speaks out against elitist bullshit, never mind kung makasakit man o makasagasa. ‘ika nga, truth hurts but it cures. (well, it should.)

tonyocruz is, i gather, correct me if i’m wrong, referring to some of his fellow bloggers in filipino voices whose reactions to the recently launched blog of jun lozada verged on the supercilious, judging it wanting just because it’s not like their own blogs? because jun lozada dares do more? because, oh no, he has hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of comments already, talbog silang lahat, talbog tayong lahat, pati si kitty go? he must be doing something wrong, like brian gorrell? LOL

even the noted blogger has fallen into the trap. almost belittling lozada’s filipino ideology of nationhood just because it wasn’t crafted with the help of the blogocracy? and even warning of capital flight because jun lozada quoted lenin, never mind that lenin was speaking a truth about land reform? maybe benignO’s right.

there ought to be a law

senator ping lacson said on tina monzon palma’s talkback that he didn’t think there was anything wrong with doing a TV commercial selling a facial lotion for men because there is no law forbidding it.

i suppose, correct me if i’m wrong, there is no such law in the u.s. either, which might explain why we copycats don’t have one?

yet i’m sure no u.s. senator or representative or governor or mayor endorses commercial products (even if there is no law forbidding it) simply because the american public – which holds elected officials to the promise of public service, nothing more, nothing less, and who are a lot more sophisticated than we are about tv commercials – would raise a terrible howl and question his/her integrity and credibility to kingdom come. s/he’d be the butt of jokes – tagged a sell-out – from jay leno to whoopie et al, and would never hear the end of it, unless/until the tv commercial is made to go away.

pero dito sa atin, inaakalang okey lang itong pag-e-endorse ng government officials ng commercial products. anong masama kung kumita sila ng extra, maliit daw ang suweldo ng senador. the attitude is, basta he or she is (perceived to be) doing a good job as a public servant, okay lang to do movies, tv commercials, whatever he or she wants to do on the side, just like any enterprising citizen.

excuse me, but this is precisely why we get the kind of government officials we do, for whom public service is a parttime job, who say one thing and do another, and who do not have the brains or the chutzpah to get the country out of the economic pits but instead have only a lot of the same old same old faith na hindi tayo pababayaan ng diyos. meanwhile, they make hay while the sun shines, sell soap and skin whitener and facial lotion and fabric softener and herbal supplement and cheap instant noodles, que cheap!

a lot of credibility is lost when a senator peddles a branded product whose advantages over other brands is questionable because it’s just a lot of hype, as all advertising is. a lot of credibility is lost when a senator makes movies to entertain the masses when s/he should be working for higher national interests such as food security, quality education, and a host of other concerns.

and it is certainly not in the national interest to encourage crass materialism and consumerist values, raising needs essential and non-essential that are beyond gratifiying for the masses of ill-fed poor who watch tv in this third world country.

what will it achieve

i take it as an auspicious sign that the first response to HUWAG IBOTO was a “second the motion without any reservation!” thanks, anna de brux :)

but being contradicted is cool, too, and arbet bernardo‘s quick riposte, “kesa naman kay Miriam o Enrile.= P” made me laugh, oo rin nga!

and then i heard dzmm teleradyo listeners weighing in on the matter, and the winning argument was, “may karapatan ang mga senador to do what they want, sila rin merong freedom of speech!” lol.

say pa ng isa, si vilma santos nga, nagbebenta ng sabong panglaba, pero okey lang sa mga taga-batangas, magaling naman siyang labandera, ehek, gobernadora.

mercifully the next reaction was manolo quezon‘s, which gently reminds me that a boycott of those senators and vice-president will achieve nothing of consequence.

…if stuart-santiago says, don’t vote for politicians who do product endorsements, what will it achieve? It will validate the assumptions of the politicians when they undertook those endorsements. They won’t lose or win on the basis of a boycott on the basis of their endorsements. And those who do win despite such a boycott will only serve to entrench the practice. An advocacy of a boycott would only be effective if done -now, prior to elections- by boycotting the products they endorse. A mass-based approach to an issue raised and ventilated (and most effectively wielded) by the middle and upper classes is self-defeating. It’s not that it’s the wrong fight -just the wrong target, considering those expected to do the fighting.”

true. for now we would be a tiny tiny minority at best whose boycott of these politicians would hardly make a dent in the final count. but i have this romantic notion that the impossible, like EDSA, is possible. that one day, a tipping point might be reached and, as in Jose Saramago’s Seeing, the government will hold electionsbut nobody will come until late afternoon, and only to cast blank ballots.

hope springs eternal.

HUWAG IBOTO

sa susunod nilang pagtakbo – ke for president, ke for senator, ke for barangay tanod – HUWAG IBOTO

ang mga senador na ito: LOREN LEGARDA, CHIZ ESCUDERO, PING LACSON, MAR ROXAS, MANNY VILLAR, PIA CAYETANO, KIKO PANGILINAN, DICK GORDON, BONG REVILLA, at ang bise-presidenteng ito: NOLI DE CASTRO, who cannot see, who refuse to see, that by endorsing commercial products for television, or by advertising their so-called achievements long before campaign season, or by making movies, they stoop to the level of entertainers hungry for public adulation and reveal themselves to be ruled by narrow self-interests not befitting the high offices they hold.