Good morning Ma'am Rachel!
Hi classmates!
I have uploaded my file in scribd.com since I do not know how to upload a .pdf file here in the blog. Sorry for the inconvenience. Here is the link to my presentation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102584218/Media-Justice-and-the-99-Francis-Salvador. My presentation can be downloaded and is a public document.
Thank you and have a great day ahead. :)
All the best,
Francis Ryan A. Salvador
The Internet, social media networks particularly, played a major role also in the Arab Spring--a wave of revolution that toppled regimes in the Middle East and North Africa. Although our government's inability to protect our rights in the world wide web can sometimes be deplorable, it can also work to our advantage. The Occupy Mendiola and Occupy Makati movements, for example, were published on the Internet prior to the actual protests. But since our government has not found a way (law) yet to restrict our movements on the Internet, it has become easier for us to organize into groups pushing for a common goal/advocacy.
ReplyDeleteThe devastation caused by the unusually strong habagat or monsoon demonstrated how media made use of social media to improve their coverage. By monitoring how ordinary citizens were affected by the typhoons, they were able to help bring attention of government offices and volunteers as well as their rescue and relief capabilities to those most in need. At the same time, by keeping their ears to the ground through social media - facebook and twitter mainly - they were able to put color into their stories. For many observers, the fact that government offices, media as well as ordinary citizens were still able to communicate to each other through social media has enabled rescue work to be done better this time around compared to the time of Ondoy in 2009. But of course, there were also instances of hoaxes being spread around through social media and many were victimized. But for the most part, these "trolls" were quickly stamped out and discredited so that the more timely and accurate information can get through. As one citizen put it, this is no time to play games with online media. Social media networks have indeed come into their own as a legitimate source of information and a force for good and social justice. It is just a matter of enhancing credibility of sources over time that the power of individuals over social media can truly be harnessed. I believe that for mainstream media, social media can be a partner, but not necessarily a replacement. Each has a role to play in social movements, not just rebuilding the areas affected by the habagat but also for other causes such as climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, women's rights, the RH bill, freedom of information. The list goes on...
DeleteFor mainstream journalism, the writing on the wall indicates that we should expect bloggers to be our rivals and watchdogs. Right now, mainstream media still enjoy high credibility and a monopoly of audience attention. But citizens who use New Media to communicate and advocate are gaining increasing attention, not just from other members of the public but from the mainstream media itself. Newsrooms are constrained from hiring more reporters; in community papers, there are relevant beats or stories that cannot be covered by reporters, who are assigned to the major beats. I think that coexistence can work for the public’s benefit. In a 2010 Cebu forum participated by bloggers and mainstream journalists, editors admitted that in covering the 2010 elections, they monitored also many bloggers, advocacy websites and citizen-journalists to get a better grasp of what’s happening in the grassroots, in remote areas covered only by civil society groups. Bloggers also admitted that a lot of them need help with basics, like grammar, news writing, ethics, standards. So there’s a need for collaboration, for both sides to learn from each other. Who knows? This might address fears of shoot-from-the-hip pseudo-journalists, as well as the muzzling and loss of “soul” in corporate-controlled media. We just have to be open to dialogue and collaboration.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ping that lack of government regulation of the Web has a negative and positive side. On one hand, you have online trafficking and Internet pornography. On the other hand, groups or individuals marginalized in mainstream media or having advocacies to push have the Internet as their portal to equalize public discourse. Philippine media is so closely modeled after the American model, we accept the projection of objectivity and impartiality as a journalism ideal. It’s just a construct, one of many biases because to be neutral, not to take sides is a bias, too. The so-called alternative media have messages that should be in the public agenda. In Cebu, NGO advocates exposed the Provincial Government’s purchase of a property that was substantially submerged in water. Aside from the high value of the property, owned by an official of the Provincial Government, this property was to be used for a toxic material dumpsite. So the alternative media is not just a bunch of radical troublemakers out to disturb the status quo. If we trace history, the revolutionary press were troublemakers and propagandists who used their pen to organize the people to rebel and throw off the shackles of colonialism. In a democracy, every stakeholder—not just people who can afford to own a newspaper or a radio station—should have access to the means of communicating their message. It’s for the public to sift through that information and choose which messages to prioritize.
ReplyDeleteWe saw the usefulness of social media very recently when Metro Manila and nearby provinces suffered the wrath of Habagat. Many Marikina residents like me depended on Twitter, specifically information from @nababaha and @MarikinaPIO, for information about the river water level and local government announcements. The government’s Project Noah also used people’s tweets with the hashtag #FloodsPH to create a flood map which will be used to identify flood-prone areas in the Metro and nearby areas. The hashtags #ReliefPH and #RescuePH also worked wonders in bringing immediate help to those who need it.
ReplyDeletewhile ready access to the Internet and use of social media have made it possible for people to gather in the streets and stage a protest, the problem seems to be that there is no single agenda being presented in these "occupy" type of protests. Take occupy wall street for instance, the "we are the other 99 percent" seem to have their own versions of their other 99 percent grievances.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike. As what I have pointed out in my earlier comment, social media has been an effective tool for the Occupy Movement as it coordinated activities and connected to individuals. The problem with this is that everybody can voice out anything which may confuse the real cause and objective of the movement. This is not only true for the Occupy movement but for any activity that relies heavily with the use of social media.
Deletethis is the very reason why the communist government of the people's republic of china is restricting access to the Net. but the Chinese people in general, it seems, do not seem to mind the gatekeeping being done. in this line, some of the beijingers i've talked to viewed Occupy Wallstreet and the Arab Spring rather negatively.
ReplyDeletei agree with Ping. although it would be better if "occupy" movements focus on one rallying point. social media is a potent tool to mass up bodies for "occupy" events. but unless such actions are well-planned, it would be just one flash mob.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet today is indeed a reminder of libertarian press. It is a comeback of the freedom that people have in them to bring out to the public what they must know.Advertising does not control the Internet. Although it has helped many websites survive, the social networking site is not dependent on advertising sites to carry out its goals. To give JUSTICE to that, yes advertisers have enabled Facebook and other sites to survive and gain profits, but they do not look at the contents (posts) to decide whether they should continue advertising or not. In short, the content is not the basis for advertising. Facebook and other social networking sites for the public to know the real situations, make their voices heard, and even kick start advocacy. As an example, Willie Revillame was not immediately reprimanded by ABS CBN for making a minor dance shamelessly in TV for a sum of money. It was only through Facebook did the public see (as most of them do not bother watching Willie live on TV) the recorded video. From there, thousands of bloggers and other netizens flooded Facebook with statements against Willie. ABS CBN was soon forced to "discipline" and let go of their previously "untouchable" talent.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the news stories and articles posted in the Internet are true, these are manifestation that the freedom to express one's opinion exists in the new media.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSocial networking sites and personal blogs have proven to become the most powerful means for freedom of speech. Post something on Facebook or Twitter and that information becomes tremendously and instantly viral, regardless of its veracity since it's equally easy to segregate hoax from truth in the internet. Never mind if the post gets deleted in a few minutes because the statement will surely have reached thousands (or millions) already by then, and will continue to spread out. No wonder that in these times of prevalent repression of the truth within monopolized media bodies, a lot of people usually resort to social networking for "real" news.
DeleteThe issue of the absence of net neutrality in the Philippines is not as serious as the US. However, this is a concern expressed by sectors opposing the merger of Sun Cellular and Smart Communications. Because of the merger, mobile internet is now dominated by two giants—Smart and Globe. In amending the E-Commerce Act, legislators should include provisions that would prevent internet providers from abusing their positions as internet gatekeepers. The law should be able to protect consumers from slow connection to the internet and blocked or limited access to websites. In making sure the Internet remains open, activism such as the 99 Percent Movement, will flourish.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGiven that "Social networking sites and personal blogs have proven to become the most powerful means for freedom of speech" these days, getting their voices heard truly becomes a predicament for those who do not have access to social media. But in a democratic country like ours, the option remains for everybody to go out in the streets -- OCCUPY the streets -- and voice out their concerns.
ReplyDeleteEither way, there is no escape from injustice. People get heard but are seldom listened to. Website contents are controlled; rallyists are pepper-sprayed and even physically hit. And these injustices become "legal" all because of deceiving laws filled with loopholes. In the end, the people's concerns do get aired on TV but very seldom do they actually get what they asked for.
It is undeniable that the widespread popularity of the 99% movement relied tremendously on the use of social media as pointed out in the article. Occupiers, as they are called, created Facebook sites, tweeted the latest activities of the movement and uploaded quite a number of videos causing the public to join their cause. In general, it can be said that it was such an effective organizing tool to connect to individuals.
ReplyDeleteHowever, aside from the being a tool for coordination, social media was also used by Occupiers to dissipate contents of mainstream media agencies and its agenda bringing forth a wider and broader set of information, and more voices and perspectives heard. The social media has increased the level of public interaction by providing individuals the chance to participate in the discussions. The downside, of course, is that content begins to lack legitimacy as virtually anybody can post his opinion online. This may bring in misleading information or illegitimate statements which may affect the overall objective of the movement.
While I was making the report, I am having doubts including the Arab Spring. Social media did play an important role in the dissemination of the information and groups particularly in Facebook where massive calls for protest are organized. I focused on how the Arab Spring and Occupy Movement started. Arab Spring started when Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in protest of police corruption and ill treatment in Tunisia. While in the Occupy Movement, a media-outfit called for people to be on the streets.
ReplyDeleteWith this two, I could not help but compare that the isolated case of a man fed up with his government became a spark for the different waves of unrest in West Asia and on the other hand, the 'We are the 99%' became a slogan only after Adbusters called for a march on the streets.
I was thinking, In the Arab Spring with its use of the social media merely a tool or the main instigator?
It may be largely debatable but what is important is its role in mobilizing these groups and the support of a collective action it delivers to the outside world with less intervention from the corporate media outlets.
To expound further on what Francis said, the Arab Spring showed the power of the social media vis-à-vis the state-controlled press. Without the social media, it is very easy for repressive governments to suppress any information it deems inimical to its existence. Now, the game has changed.
DeleteReports of citizens burning themselves surely won’t make it to state TV, but people can read about it through blogs (or, who knows, a video of which may have been uploaded in Youtube, too). It is easy to criticize bloggers because they have no editors (and for other reasons). However, they are in an excellent position to write about things the mainstream media (MSM) won’t dare write about.
I can cite here one example: Remus Fuentes died of heat stroke in 2010 while participating in a marathon organized by Milo Philippines. His father blamed the organizers because of their unpreparedness in dealing with such medical emergencies (the last station even ran out of water). The story was largely ignored by the MSM (most likely because it will put a major advertiser in a bad light) but bloggers ceaselessly pounded on the subject for a long time.
The “Occupy” protestors (in New York and elsewhere) are always loud, but their message isn’t really clear. They rail about the growing economic divide between the rich and the poor and the injustices brought about by that reality, but they aren’t really successful in proposing any alternative (other than ‘tax the rich!’). The so-called media elite is definitely part of the top 1%, and therefore it isn’t surprising to know that they did their best to limit the public reach of the protestors. Let’s look at this in the local context.
ReplyDeleteFew will argue that corporate giants own all major Philippine media outlets. Corporations will almost certainly not operate at a loss, and this poses problems. American media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted that “The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism.” The consequence of this is readily discernible. It is now easy to see why unfair labor practices perpetrated by corporations (even by media network themselves!) do not get reported at all. Without a doubt, strengthening not-for-profit media outlets can help in counteracting this imbalance.
Filipinos are no strangers to responding to public demonstrations of the causes they hold close to their heart. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, it was social media that played a critical role in harnessing a show of force. In the Philippines, what comes to mind is the 1986 Edsa revolution that was sparked in part by Cardinal Sin's call over radio for Filipinos to go to Edsa and prevent the Marcos forces from having their way with the opposition. Unexpectedly and fortunately, what came later was a bloodless revolution that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and installed Corazon Aquino as the new president. The process is the same, but perhaps the means of announcing or rallying the troops has changed over time thanks to technology. THese days, it has also become quicker to get people to come from all over and come together for a common cause. And with smartphones, and data plans becoming cheaper than ever, the ability to get people of common interests together will become even easier. The question is, what cause will be dear enough for them to actually take part in or fight for. Not all causes will be popular and not all movements will really make a difference.
ReplyDelete