STORM CLOUD PASSING
#This was posted on February 22, 2004 at the Solidaridad (University of the Philippines Systemwide Alliance of Student Publications and Writer's Organizations) egroups.# This was in connection to the local student council's attempt to condemn the official student paper in a resolution, which they pushed through later after I posted this.#
Another storm cloud has passed over the campus press. Reeling from attacks by the local council, UP Cebu’s student paper Tug-ani breathes a sigh of relief. It seems the concept of press freedom is more deeply rooted in the studentry, who ditched the incumbents in the student council (SC) in the recently held elections, partially in reaction to the group’s intended resolution to condemn the paper and intervene in its contents. This was with the usual prop of denouncing the “political agenda of the editors,” apparently without an ironic take on the “political agenda” of the odious resolution’s proponents. The resolution was conspicuously done to “legitimize their attacks on us” (Kara Noveda), since it was only the culmination sprung from a visceral hatred of campus press freedom, when it doesn’t accord with one’s own “political agenda.” What’s emerging with greater clarity is that such a move was undertaken for political points for the election, as the initial enthusiasm for the resolution is reportedly dampened.
The passing over of the storm cloud doesn’t afford us the luxury of letting go of the lesson. It is in times of sharp political conflicts and crises that the press is severely susceptible to attacks on its freedom. The past record in the UP system should have made that crystalline. The student paper will be accused of anything, from being washer-boys to being alien interest advocates, just to keep it in line with the standards and interests of the besiegers.
It is of paramount importance to come to the defense of campus press freedom when it is needed – that’s almost all the time – and especially when it is called for. It doesn’t matter if we don’t agree with the contents of the paper ourselves. Defending the right to free expression is clearly irrelevant to our opinion of the nature of the expression itself. This is taken for granted by civil libertarians but comes as scandalous to violators of campus press freedom. Editors and staff have the right to determine the paper’s content and can only be limited by culture, the pressure exerted by the relative social relevance of events, personal and professional sense of ethics and not by resolutions, defamation, discreditation and other more forceful means of coercion.
It’s also to ensure that the right to express unpopular opinion is preserved. In days past, causes like women’s suffrage, anti-slavery, workers’ rights and peasant land rights were unpopular ideas.
In times like these, it doesn’t do to be seen, and forced to be so, as separated from one another. Alliance members can’t be atomized units incapable of responding to urgent calls. We have to show that in violating campus press freedom, they’d be confronting a chain of fiery volcanoes, and therefore doing it doesn’t pay. That’s why we have to relearn again and again the concept of solidarity, advanced to no insignificant way in this alliance. We have internal mechanisms that may be slow to address issues like these it is true, but such cases should at the very least be agreed upon as “urgent and important,” to be discussed as soon as situations may allow. Other institutional mechanisms are easy to suggest. And one doesn’t have to reiterate that any serious advocate of campus press freedom would tackle ways to solve such a task.
In Russia, hundreds of workers went on strike because they learned that three or four workers in another industry were being laid off. It was understood that they were connected, and such attacks were an assault on the whole class. That’s unity. That’s working class solidarity. Much the same is true in other countries imbued with the same spirit, and many examples in the country illustrate the point.
If they can do it, so can we. Our interactions, our experiences and the state of our communication technologies should make the tendency of perfunctory attitudes to our serious interconnection obsolete. Sometimes the work we do does seem tedious and boring. But as long as divisive forces in society put all-out effort and resources to do what they do, so must we.
It is a proper response to feel outrage at the outbreak of campus press freedom violations. Press freedom facilitates the free flow of information crucial to our understanding of issues and events, and therefore understanding and advancement of our political rights. Developing a culture for campus press freedom in our generation adds a supernova to the galactic spirit of this freedom.
Critical thinking, action and solidarity go hand in hand in hand:)
Caesar
P. S. Fenna, may similar case daw sa inyo sa Tacloban?
+
In Memoriam
Precious Zignet Baldo
1982-2003
Friend
Kainuman
Fellow Searcher
X We should take responsibility for our actions and their consequences, as well as our inaction
X You must be the change you want to see in the world – M. Gandhi
X The biggest challenge is always the status quo – Glenn Renwick
X Experience is not what happens to you; it’s what you do with what happens to you – Aldous Huxley
X Bakit tayo umabot dito? – FPJ
#This was posted on February 22, 2004 at the Solidaridad (University of the Philippines Systemwide Alliance of Student Publications and Writer's Organizations) egroups.# This was in connection to the local student council's attempt to condemn the official student paper in a resolution, which they pushed through later after I posted this.#
Another storm cloud has passed over the campus press. Reeling from attacks by the local council, UP Cebu’s student paper Tug-ani breathes a sigh of relief. It seems the concept of press freedom is more deeply rooted in the studentry, who ditched the incumbents in the student council (SC) in the recently held elections, partially in reaction to the group’s intended resolution to condemn the paper and intervene in its contents. This was with the usual prop of denouncing the “political agenda of the editors,” apparently without an ironic take on the “political agenda” of the odious resolution’s proponents. The resolution was conspicuously done to “legitimize their attacks on us” (Kara Noveda), since it was only the culmination sprung from a visceral hatred of campus press freedom, when it doesn’t accord with one’s own “political agenda.” What’s emerging with greater clarity is that such a move was undertaken for political points for the election, as the initial enthusiasm for the resolution is reportedly dampened.
The passing over of the storm cloud doesn’t afford us the luxury of letting go of the lesson. It is in times of sharp political conflicts and crises that the press is severely susceptible to attacks on its freedom. The past record in the UP system should have made that crystalline. The student paper will be accused of anything, from being washer-boys to being alien interest advocates, just to keep it in line with the standards and interests of the besiegers.
It is of paramount importance to come to the defense of campus press freedom when it is needed – that’s almost all the time – and especially when it is called for. It doesn’t matter if we don’t agree with the contents of the paper ourselves. Defending the right to free expression is clearly irrelevant to our opinion of the nature of the expression itself. This is taken for granted by civil libertarians but comes as scandalous to violators of campus press freedom. Editors and staff have the right to determine the paper’s content and can only be limited by culture, the pressure exerted by the relative social relevance of events, personal and professional sense of ethics and not by resolutions, defamation, discreditation and other more forceful means of coercion.
It’s also to ensure that the right to express unpopular opinion is preserved. In days past, causes like women’s suffrage, anti-slavery, workers’ rights and peasant land rights were unpopular ideas.
In times like these, it doesn’t do to be seen, and forced to be so, as separated from one another. Alliance members can’t be atomized units incapable of responding to urgent calls. We have to show that in violating campus press freedom, they’d be confronting a chain of fiery volcanoes, and therefore doing it doesn’t pay. That’s why we have to relearn again and again the concept of solidarity, advanced to no insignificant way in this alliance. We have internal mechanisms that may be slow to address issues like these it is true, but such cases should at the very least be agreed upon as “urgent and important,” to be discussed as soon as situations may allow. Other institutional mechanisms are easy to suggest. And one doesn’t have to reiterate that any serious advocate of campus press freedom would tackle ways to solve such a task.
In Russia, hundreds of workers went on strike because they learned that three or four workers in another industry were being laid off. It was understood that they were connected, and such attacks were an assault on the whole class. That’s unity. That’s working class solidarity. Much the same is true in other countries imbued with the same spirit, and many examples in the country illustrate the point.
If they can do it, so can we. Our interactions, our experiences and the state of our communication technologies should make the tendency of perfunctory attitudes to our serious interconnection obsolete. Sometimes the work we do does seem tedious and boring. But as long as divisive forces in society put all-out effort and resources to do what they do, so must we.
It is a proper response to feel outrage at the outbreak of campus press freedom violations. Press freedom facilitates the free flow of information crucial to our understanding of issues and events, and therefore understanding and advancement of our political rights. Developing a culture for campus press freedom in our generation adds a supernova to the galactic spirit of this freedom.
Critical thinking, action and solidarity go hand in hand in hand:)
Caesar
P. S. Fenna, may similar case daw sa inyo sa Tacloban?
+
In Memoriam
Precious Zignet Baldo
1982-2003
Friend
Kainuman
Fellow Searcher
X We should take responsibility for our actions and their consequences, as well as our inaction
X You must be the change you want to see in the world – M. Gandhi
X The biggest challenge is always the status quo – Glenn Renwick
X Experience is not what happens to you; it’s what you do with what happens to you – Aldous Huxley
X Bakit tayo umabot dito? – FPJ
posted by www.newfreemedia.com @ 3:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home