On the "Lords of the press" and its stupid actions
I. Attacking and criticizing the "Lords of the press"
In a society where oppresion is escalated lies the peoples call for emancipation. And most are directly turned into the newspapers in searching or propagating the truth given.
However,
Not all "truths" are being said compltely. For as we all know that truth is sometimes "painful" to know or to say, and most articles or criticisms being truthfully said are often "intervened" by the administrators of every mass media institution, and on the threat of expulsion-forcing every writer not to tell completely or saying it underground just to tell the truth directly to the masses.
Well...
Restricting the dissimination of truth may likely to be a violation of basic rights-especially of speech, press and information as well as of expression, making every man continue searching for it continuously until its finale.
All of these restrictions in telling truth, criticism and information is the work of the "lords" of the press. Known for controlling the machinery, money and power within the press, these lord tend to restrict dissimination of truth, of not criticizing its own paper, and even firing progressive-leaning writers, commentators and staff, all in pursuit of maintaining its own control, of their "objectivity", which in fact, "apathy."
In fact,
Monopolizing truth is one of the problems in mass media, one of which is the countless use of "attack" and "defence" carrying half or no factual information, as well as taking any criticism from the writer as well as from the staff as if or totally a "personal" attack. The worst is tht they are not naging in "self criticism", despite being known as propagators of truth and of reality.
Well...
That is what the "lords" of the press do all the time, anything around them is their "personal" matter, including a right to criticize and not to be criticized objectively, the worst? Taking it subjectively as owners, and if this so called "tradition" continues to prevail? Of monopolizing truth, of not engaging in "criticism" and "self criticism" as writers and press administrators may likely to end up calling as "reaction", "backward", or worse? "Self centered".
Being a so-called "lord" of the press and other mass media tends to be good, especially in handling things and giving the "truth", but they cannot withstand a greater flood of truth despite controlling it, including their own words being said directly to the staff. And being a "commandist", a trait of a "leader" as what other think so, tends to do something that can lead to self-centered prespectives, involving "picking" of certain articles that they may interested instead of the people's yearning to get societal doings, of stereotyped writing and so forth.
Being a journalist may consider this experience a hasty one. And the worst is that the owners tend to "play" them, aside from being as "coffee makers", of "peons", or even end up having their articles as well as themselves subjected to severe criticism, their criticisms given by their "bosses" may likely to call as "subjective", since they taught that this is the way to become better writers, and yet there are the same people who tend to do "too subjective" than the ones being criticized by them. Are they engaging in self criticism the way as they criticize their staff?
Engaging in self criticism and self criticism, assessing their works objectively, as well as treating their work as professional same as their profession is a good example of a press coordinator, of a caretaker and in-charge of the press, and not of a press "lord who does not recognize the ability of the majority as well as in monopolizing truth and editing them excessively. They are intended to be "exposed" and "criticized" due to their acts from their work, their concept of trut and of treating its workers. Somehow, not all things inside the newspaper are "good", since most newspapers that bear absolute truth are rather "bad" to be read. That;s better than of reading a fabricated "truth", or a mere "lie" being typed and printed.
Make the power of the press stronger than the "Lords of the press", let truth prevail over them, and despite their attempts to manipulate, continue having their tactics expose as earlier and be criticized as much due to their intention to do so; for what is their want and thus we will recieve them.
However,
Not all "truths" are being said compltely. For as we all know that truth is sometimes "painful" to know or to say, and most articles or criticisms being truthfully said are often "intervened" by the administrators of every mass media institution, and on the threat of expulsion-forcing every writer not to tell completely or saying it underground just to tell the truth directly to the masses.
Well...
Restricting the dissimination of truth may likely to be a violation of basic rights-especially of speech, press and information as well as of expression, making every man continue searching for it continuously until its finale.
All of these restrictions in telling truth, criticism and information is the work of the "lords" of the press. Known for controlling the machinery, money and power within the press, these lord tend to restrict dissimination of truth, of not criticizing its own paper, and even firing progressive-leaning writers, commentators and staff, all in pursuit of maintaining its own control, of their "objectivity", which in fact, "apathy."
In fact,
Monopolizing truth is one of the problems in mass media, one of which is the countless use of "attack" and "defence" carrying half or no factual information, as well as taking any criticism from the writer as well as from the staff as if or totally a "personal" attack. The worst is tht they are not naging in "self criticism", despite being known as propagators of truth and of reality.
Well...
That is what the "lords" of the press do all the time, anything around them is their "personal" matter, including a right to criticize and not to be criticized objectively, the worst? Taking it subjectively as owners, and if this so called "tradition" continues to prevail? Of monopolizing truth, of not engaging in "criticism" and "self criticism" as writers and press administrators may likely to end up calling as "reaction", "backward", or worse? "Self centered".
Being a so-called "lord" of the press and other mass media tends to be good, especially in handling things and giving the "truth", but they cannot withstand a greater flood of truth despite controlling it, including their own words being said directly to the staff. And being a "commandist", a trait of a "leader" as what other think so, tends to do something that can lead to self-centered prespectives, involving "picking" of certain articles that they may interested instead of the people's yearning to get societal doings, of stereotyped writing and so forth.
Being a journalist may consider this experience a hasty one. And the worst is that the owners tend to "play" them, aside from being as "coffee makers", of "peons", or even end up having their articles as well as themselves subjected to severe criticism, their criticisms given by their "bosses" may likely to call as "subjective", since they taught that this is the way to become better writers, and yet there are the same people who tend to do "too subjective" than the ones being criticized by them. Are they engaging in self criticism the way as they criticize their staff?
Engaging in self criticism and self criticism, assessing their works objectively, as well as treating their work as professional same as their profession is a good example of a press coordinator, of a caretaker and in-charge of the press, and not of a press "lord who does not recognize the ability of the majority as well as in monopolizing truth and editing them excessively. They are intended to be "exposed" and "criticized" due to their acts from their work, their concept of trut and of treating its workers. Somehow, not all things inside the newspaper are "good", since most newspapers that bear absolute truth are rather "bad" to be read. That;s better than of reading a fabricated "truth", or a mere "lie" being typed and printed.
Make the power of the press stronger than the "Lords of the press", let truth prevail over them, and despite their attempts to manipulate, continue having their tactics expose as earlier and be criticized as much due to their intention to do so; for what is their want and thus we will recieve them.
II. Regarding the actions taken by the "Lords of the press"
Stereotypism, bastardising people and events, sensationalizing tragedies and successes, and subjectivism are the actions taken by the "lords of the press" as well as their idea what they got used to all in pursuit of profit and of attracting readers. For sure most people condemn this kind of idea-action well, for it spoils the topic and worse? Corrupts ideas especially through its exaggerateness given in its articles instead of straight to the point ones.
Well...
As most people use to read some articles that carries a "booze" like appeal to them. Especially regarding life, like heroes, sex scandals, murder cases, anything that seemed abusive into the eyes and minds of people. Murder cases are intended to be "straight to the point", in a police like manner-especially regarding the cause, the action as well as the results given. But most tend to be exaggerated, especially the victim-being overkilled by the press itself! Same as the people who hath won in a prize in a contest, we may give some insights about that person and its contribution, as well as itslesons to be said, but most, lke he ones I have said seemed too exaggerated to say, as if they create an idol, a god, and not thinking that person as a man. People who contrinute well for the cmon good are intended as heroes with lessons in order for others to emulate, but not as idols to be worshipped. And reading articles about hem are inteded to inform and give ideas as well as lessons, not to bastardize people and in case of dead ones, to be overkilled by words. And all of these is what the "lords" of the press thinks of it, all for profit through its exaggerated articles given from paper to visuals.
Just like Mao Zedong said about "stereotyped" writing in Yenan last 1942, he told that "subjectivism" is the instrument of writers as propaganda or as a form of expression. And he urged them to destroy these "monsters" like rats running accross the street with everyone yelling: "Kill them! Kill them!" That's true, since subjectivism creates stereotypes badly, especially regarding man, its life and contributions. Or tragedies happened. The effects are quite simple to say-overkilling, idol worship and other ideas that worsen man and its thinking upon reading, listening or watching.
To a "lord", he or she does not matter for that person wanted profit by monopolizing truth and thinking of "truth searching" as its own business and not as a daily devotion. Only to get criticized much by the staff, the other writers, or worse? The readers.
In addtion to that,
As every article started to grow steretypical and bastartdised, it negates much of information as well as the truth given. And perhaps, instead of creating heroes with lessons, we create clowns and jesters in a circus called "society". Somehow these "lords" of the press, in trying to accumulate enough profits or more tends to "invent" heroes than knowing about them clearly, about their lives, contributions and lessons.
Due to the fat that writers tend to be objectie at all times, the "lords" of the press likely "turned" the into subjective ones. Although some tend to cling to their principlesfor the sake of handling truth in a careful manner. Most of the papers, especially ones catering to the middle and upper class, tends to say much of "anniversary statements", of messages bearing "optimism" as well as of the growing economy that seemed too contrary to the realities being seen in our daily lies! All of these are the works of the "lords" of the press, whose another objective is to curry favor to the upper and middle classes. The worst? Of giving them half-truths and fabricated lies. The lower classes, despite reading it word by word nd understanding it may never accept it clearly-for they experienced the contrary, and too intelligent to accept these sugar-coated messages given whose facts asolutely bitter to accept through!
Just like the first writeup regarding the "lords" of the press, as they control anything connected to mass media, (equipment, building, budget, etc.) they have their "right" to manipulate and choose truth according to their own taste. Kinda stupid since it absolutely negates the dissimination of truth although they record the daily doings of the society
And thus,
In order to "negate" their attempts, of using poison to counter the poison (antidote), the possibility of using their idea and concept.
First and foremost, is that the writers ususally filled the pages wit das that seemed too contrary. For example, they tried to connect child deliquency to leftist activism, of rape victims to poverty, kinda desparate isn't it? And as they continue filling it, it may look pleasing, but the thought in connection to the reality is empty.
Second, is that writers seemed deaparate to tell something although the event being recorded is fit to be written. But, instead of writing the entire events, the basics, and the "know, how, and why", it turned out to be too irrelevant,a truthless "praise" than of a "straight to the point" information, or in case of editorials, a "mere feature" than of a "societal criticism". How would you imagine a certain writer wrote about his/her "vacation" whilst the rest are deeply concerned about the crisis?
And third, writers ought to "escape", as some articles seemed contradicting to the realities happened. (With the excemption of literary pieces, and other works that stimulate imagination and entertainment) creating exaggerated messages, especially leading to an empty substance out of a known "truth" in an event, or in a person, is a form of escapism. "For writers tend to make it longer, literally applicable-but truthfuly empty."
These are the few attempts that part of a greater tactic in order to carry favor wth the upper and middle classes that the "lords" of the press trying to cater, especially when it comes to giving information and truth. Like what I have said-their actions negate truth, for they bastardise and invent rather than to give what is exact and concise to the ideas of the people. Not noticing that they are giving the right information based on what being said or the evidences being told through.
Well...
As most people use to read some articles that carries a "booze" like appeal to them. Especially regarding life, like heroes, sex scandals, murder cases, anything that seemed abusive into the eyes and minds of people. Murder cases are intended to be "straight to the point", in a police like manner-especially regarding the cause, the action as well as the results given. But most tend to be exaggerated, especially the victim-being overkilled by the press itself! Same as the people who hath won in a prize in a contest, we may give some insights about that person and its contribution, as well as itslesons to be said, but most, lke he ones I have said seemed too exaggerated to say, as if they create an idol, a god, and not thinking that person as a man. People who contrinute well for the cmon good are intended as heroes with lessons in order for others to emulate, but not as idols to be worshipped. And reading articles about hem are inteded to inform and give ideas as well as lessons, not to bastardize people and in case of dead ones, to be overkilled by words. And all of these is what the "lords" of the press thinks of it, all for profit through its exaggerated articles given from paper to visuals.
Just like Mao Zedong said about "stereotyped" writing in Yenan last 1942, he told that "subjectivism" is the instrument of writers as propaganda or as a form of expression. And he urged them to destroy these "monsters" like rats running accross the street with everyone yelling: "Kill them! Kill them!" That's true, since subjectivism creates stereotypes badly, especially regarding man, its life and contributions. Or tragedies happened. The effects are quite simple to say-overkilling, idol worship and other ideas that worsen man and its thinking upon reading, listening or watching.
To a "lord", he or she does not matter for that person wanted profit by monopolizing truth and thinking of "truth searching" as its own business and not as a daily devotion. Only to get criticized much by the staff, the other writers, or worse? The readers.
In addtion to that,
As every article started to grow steretypical and bastartdised, it negates much of information as well as the truth given. And perhaps, instead of creating heroes with lessons, we create clowns and jesters in a circus called "society". Somehow these "lords" of the press, in trying to accumulate enough profits or more tends to "invent" heroes than knowing about them clearly, about their lives, contributions and lessons.
Due to the fat that writers tend to be objectie at all times, the "lords" of the press likely "turned" the into subjective ones. Although some tend to cling to their principlesfor the sake of handling truth in a careful manner. Most of the papers, especially ones catering to the middle and upper class, tends to say much of "anniversary statements", of messages bearing "optimism" as well as of the growing economy that seemed too contrary to the realities being seen in our daily lies! All of these are the works of the "lords" of the press, whose another objective is to curry favor to the upper and middle classes. The worst? Of giving them half-truths and fabricated lies. The lower classes, despite reading it word by word nd understanding it may never accept it clearly-for they experienced the contrary, and too intelligent to accept these sugar-coated messages given whose facts asolutely bitter to accept through!
Just like the first writeup regarding the "lords" of the press, as they control anything connected to mass media, (equipment, building, budget, etc.) they have their "right" to manipulate and choose truth according to their own taste. Kinda stupid since it absolutely negates the dissimination of truth although they record the daily doings of the society
And thus,
In order to "negate" their attempts, of using poison to counter the poison (antidote), the possibility of using their idea and concept.
First and foremost, is that the writers ususally filled the pages wit das that seemed too contrary. For example, they tried to connect child deliquency to leftist activism, of rape victims to poverty, kinda desparate isn't it? And as they continue filling it, it may look pleasing, but the thought in connection to the reality is empty.
Second, is that writers seemed deaparate to tell something although the event being recorded is fit to be written. But, instead of writing the entire events, the basics, and the "know, how, and why", it turned out to be too irrelevant,a truthless "praise" than of a "straight to the point" information, or in case of editorials, a "mere feature" than of a "societal criticism". How would you imagine a certain writer wrote about his/her "vacation" whilst the rest are deeply concerned about the crisis?
And third, writers ought to "escape", as some articles seemed contradicting to the realities happened. (With the excemption of literary pieces, and other works that stimulate imagination and entertainment) creating exaggerated messages, especially leading to an empty substance out of a known "truth" in an event, or in a person, is a form of escapism. "For writers tend to make it longer, literally applicable-but truthfuly empty."
These are the few attempts that part of a greater tactic in order to carry favor wth the upper and middle classes that the "lords" of the press trying to cater, especially when it comes to giving information and truth. Like what I have said-their actions negate truth, for they bastardise and invent rather than to give what is exact and concise to the ideas of the people. Not noticing that they are giving the right information based on what being said or the evidences being told through.
Conclusion
Every media practitioner are advised to dissiminate truth, but as they enter the actual, they end up being controlled by those who monopolize truth and advised to write what seemed pleases to them. Remember, we record truths to be dissiminated to the people, and not to any particular sector that the "lords" of the press wanted. If we wanted "balanced news" and "fearless views" as the "exponent of Philippine progress", "truth shall prevail"-for that is what every media practitioner ought to be.
