Don’t take it personally

A blogger got it all wrong, I think. He took it personally, and raised the issue to absurd lengths when he attempted to write an intelligent retort to Dana Batnag’s blog post that raised the question why there was no liveblogging or citizen journalism coverage at all in the recent polls.

Firstly, Dana wasn’t looking for Manila-based bloggers who went to Mindanao to cover the event. She was looking for Mindanaon bloggers, especially those who live in ARMM and thus had that unique, first-hand look at the elections.

Secondly, having taken the issue personally, the blogger went to absured lengths as to connect the blog post to the non-issue that is “blogging vs. journalism”. I wonder if the blogger wishes to make his particular post a link-bait but I wish to give the benefit of the doubt.

Thirdly, he absolutely missed the point that Dana may be making, which is to invite Mindanaoan bloggers to the discussion, to encourage them to speak out in the blogosphere starting with the ARMM elections as a good and relevant issue.

It is doubtful that Dana was insulting the bloggers for apparently chickening out of the ARMM elections and using the utter lack of liveblogging and citizen journalism pieces on the polls as a justification for putting one over blogging.

Dana actually has expressed admiration for bloggers for expressing themselves and for showing folks (especially journalists) issues and matters that are more often than not are overlooked by media.

Speaking of media, I have stated earlier that it is a “non-issue”, this “journalism vs. blogging” thing and let me explain why. Journalism and blogging may not have been cousins from the very start, but they have found common cause through the years. Blogging has expanded the realm of political discussion which used to be limited only to the pundits who write for the papers. Not anymore with the popularity of blogging. Meanwhile, journalists have seen the internet in general and blogging in particular as a new terrain, a new media, and a new source of information. The latter, with a dash of salt, so to speak, because the media should be wary of the unruly and anarchic nature of the internet (as in anybody, including frauds may pose as pundits or reference persons). Today, we benefit immensely from new media — the fusion of old and new.

The extremists both in journalism and blogging should stop this so-called debate because such only loses sight of the ultimate goal that is to present the truth and to make sure that the ugly truths are corrected/remedied, and that the beautiful truths be heralded and made into good examples for all to emulate.

There are limits to championing blogging as a mass media alternative, I tell you, and it is the fact that it cannot be considered a mass medium, at least for now. The internet is a very elitist medium that can only be accessed by the country’s upper class, middle class and a sprinkling of the lower classes. This is called the digital divide. If and when blogging reaches tens of millions, (as in the daily reach of radio and TV), then let’s debate on it as a mass medium. The challenge everyday and everytime is for bloggers to attempt to get involved the issues confronting the true majority who have no access or very limited access to the internet.

Which takes us to what Dana wants to know perhaps by implication in her assailed blog post: What the hell is the situation in ARMM? Do they have internet there? Are there bloggers there? Were bloggers there victims of harassment during the elections? Did they have phone cameras for documenting the polls? — Truly relevant questions that aren’t meant to demean citizen journalism or blogging, but to give ourselves a sobering look especially to those bloggers who harbor this messianic complex about themselves and blogging.

Now, I cannot stop some extremists from harboring their own illusions, but what takes the cake is the pretension or portrayal that they speak for all of us bloggers. Speak for yourself and don’t dare (mis-)represent us in your rantings.