GRPundit

Democracy is no fun when the majority don't use their heads, and it's the season of not using heads again - well, all year every year in this country actually, but we're having elections real soon, so we're taking it up a notch and oh boy here we go again. Maybe the Philippines only exists to be an example of how to completely corrupt democracy. It takes a special kind of people to mess democracy up the way Pinoys do, like a massive unspoken collusion that works in reverse of how ants operate or behave. It's not like Pinoys have no exposure to what could be learned from the rest of the world as if we're in isolation. It's not as if Filipinos are too poorly equipped to tell good from bad. Pinoy society screw-ups are due to a potent combination of so many things cultural, it's like a melting pot of everything you could do to something that could potentially excel so that it ultimately fails. And when that something fails excuses abound and everyone goes...

In recent weeks we've seen jargon like "social news network", "online journalist", "citizen journalists", and "crowdsourcing" coming into the quaint lingo of some "media practitioners" (hey, there's another one!). None of these are clearly defined in the context of the practice of journalism and, more importantly, none of these have added any significant clarity to the "debate" around the role of these media people in our overall journey towards becoming a more just society. For me it is quite simple. There are only three operational classes that describe how an information channel can operate: (1) Provide information (2) Seek to influence (3) Peddle influence News reporters do Item 1, columnists do Item 2, and publicists do Item 3. A "media practitioner" or channel can be one or a combination of the above three. How much more complicated can it be? The thing I find quite amusing about people like Maria Ressa...

Impeachment being denominated "political" does not mean that the role of media during such trials is–to Hofilena–to "enrage them or inspire them" for partisan ends. Impeachment is "political," because the accusers come from a body of politicians–elective representatives of the qualified electors in their respective districts–and the accused is a public officer charged with having abused or violated the public trust; hence, the penalty for the convicted officer handed down by another assembly of politicians, the Senate, is removal from an office of public trust and perpetual disqualification from holding public office thereafter. But even though the accusers and the judges are politicians and the trial itself is dubbed as "political"; the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachments (2011) clearly provide otherwise, since Senators–in their role as judges–are required to solemnly swear to or affirm that each one of them "will do impartial just...