In a way, this is some "food for thought" kind of a thing. Food for hard thinking actually. In fact, I thought of posting it in our "Eats OA" food blog considering how this whole "bloggers vs mainstream media" issue being ~ "Eats OA", I mean "It's OA", yet more like "OR (Over Reaction)". Aptly enough, it's about the "OR" (or who "Owns the Right") to be the "Official Reporter (OR)" vs who's "Over Rated (OR)"...
I've just read about some reporters under the Presidential news beat to be up in arms against the accreditation of bloggers in covering Presidential events. Suggestive of their point is that bloggers don't have the kind of credibility they've been qualified for under the significance that they've earned it more than anyone else through a 4-year course and have gone through great extent of experiences before having earned such "Presidential prestige".
Journalists as they claim themselves to be, they somehow lack the knowledge on "freedom of expression" amidst today's social media generation. I guess, they're too caught up in covering for their own story rather than for that of the environs and issues within the public confines they're covering and reporting for... It has become a case of scooping out exclusivity for all its gain rather than the merits of revealing the truth or simply being informative. It's when instead of covering the news, it's now "cover it for our use". "Covering" is after all (and ironically) a means of uncovering. Consequently, the more blunt you are as offensively natural as to the point of being blasphemous, the greater it appeals to people (not necessarily readers); to which these mainstream media practitioners are also up against considering their dwindling market share I suppose... In this case however, it was the "Degree-holder Journalists" who were condemnatory.
Whereas among these "looked down upon" however popular (and even infamous) bloggers, as likewise pointed out, they rely on their substantial following more than the veracity of content. Yet more than the awareness, the engagement rate is rather much more given priority for their clout's potential add-on but not necessarily an impressive credential. They outwardly, capitalize on people's gullibility over controversies or trending topics to say the least. Fake news is as fake a reporter you are...
Regardless of affiliation, there are however media entities (either mainstream or social media) that fall for these controversial issues' potential draw. Thus, it gets tweaked, twisted or even exaggerated for all its rewarding pull. And so as "influencers", they become the influential party they are among their respective followers notwithstanding if it's of good or bad influence.
Blatant of such influence as detrimental (and misleading) arguments is how their supporters inadequately look at it as a "vindicating lie" in favor of what or who they're fighting for but not (or blindly never) as a "wrongful representation" of their own cause and against rights (both constitutional and moral) at the expense of (their) humankind. Yet they don't mind with their condescending belief that the "casualties" deserve it; never mind the evil act as long as it's justified by their ironically "unjust neutrality" (yup, that's how they "neutralize" I guess)... Funny thing is that when "neutralized" once the tides have been reversed, they'll be as defensive and infuriated. And they can't seem to take it much like their blind loyalty over common sense.
All of these said, to cover news or issues may it be a Presidential event or some police beat, among today's "social mediated" society, information dissemination even "tsismis" has ridden the technological breakthrough bandwagon. You can't stop modernization as much as its adapting civilization and the vulnerability of a "conforming" populace. It's an opinionated society we belong to... Similarly, common sense has become "rare sense" which people even rarely use. And it's common sense to know that you don't need a degree to be able to express your thoughts. Being "titled" doesn't necessarily correspond to being "entitled".
It was a critical sentiment of the concerned mainstream media personalities to ask for such perquisite against those they believe to be inferior and unworthy to be within their level. Contradictory, while "sense of entitlement" is another thing yet an opinion we generally express as a haughty prerogative we despise, it's similarly something we heedlessly convey to have. There are however media people who have learned to adapt. And of all people, traditional media people should know better being in a corporate as well as "political" set up that they belong to wherein by-passing, partisanship, factionalism among other issues happen compared to bloggers' supposed "self-employed" status. Although within the blogoshpere, it has become relatively political...
On the other hand, may bloggers prove their true worth and competence with a credible argument. And while at it, have the mettle to apply common sense as opposed to the usual audacity to just blurt out or rant about unfounded news article for the sake of hits, views, reach, more followers and even for "popcorn moments" perhaps. You could as well use your inventiveness to come up with a term for the kind of bloggers you are (aside from "blah-ggers") to somehow be fair to "real" bloggers who could most likely have way less than half of your followers but can compose (and be composed) with way more sense and probably with higher IQ than you... Don't be sensitive as well since you know the truth; 'cause if it hurts, it must be true. It'll however set you free, hopefully...
I've just read about some reporters under the Presidential news beat to be up in arms against the accreditation of bloggers in covering Presidential events. Suggestive of their point is that bloggers don't have the kind of credibility they've been qualified for under the significance that they've earned it more than anyone else through a 4-year course and have gone through great extent of experiences before having earned such "Presidential prestige".
 |
| PCOO Roadshow on FOI with Islaw Kalabaw |
Journalists as they claim themselves to be, they somehow lack the knowledge on "freedom of expression" amidst today's social media generation. I guess, they're too caught up in covering for their own story rather than for that of the environs and issues within the public confines they're covering and reporting for... It has become a case of scooping out exclusivity for all its gain rather than the merits of revealing the truth or simply being informative. It's when instead of covering the news, it's now "cover it for our use". "Covering" is after all (and ironically) a means of uncovering. Consequently, the more blunt you are as offensively natural as to the point of being blasphemous, the greater it appeals to people (not necessarily readers); to which these mainstream media practitioners are also up against considering their dwindling market share I suppose... In this case however, it was the "Degree-holder Journalists" who were condemnatory.
Whereas among these "looked down upon" however popular (and even infamous) bloggers, as likewise pointed out, they rely on their substantial following more than the veracity of content. Yet more than the awareness, the engagement rate is rather much more given priority for their clout's potential add-on but not necessarily an impressive credential. They outwardly, capitalize on people's gullibility over controversies or trending topics to say the least. Fake news is as fake a reporter you are...
Regardless of affiliation, there are however media entities (either mainstream or social media) that fall for these controversial issues' potential draw. Thus, it gets tweaked, twisted or even exaggerated for all its rewarding pull. And so as "influencers", they become the influential party they are among their respective followers notwithstanding if it's of good or bad influence.
Blatant of such influence as detrimental (and misleading) arguments is how their supporters inadequately look at it as a "vindicating lie" in favor of what or who they're fighting for but not (or blindly never) as a "wrongful representation" of their own cause and against rights (both constitutional and moral) at the expense of (their) humankind. Yet they don't mind with their condescending belief that the "casualties" deserve it; never mind the evil act as long as it's justified by their ironically "unjust neutrality" (yup, that's how they "neutralize" I guess)... Funny thing is that when "neutralized" once the tides have been reversed, they'll be as defensive and infuriated. And they can't seem to take it much like their blind loyalty over common sense.
All of these said, to cover news or issues may it be a Presidential event or some police beat, among today's "social mediated" society, information dissemination even "tsismis" has ridden the technological breakthrough bandwagon. You can't stop modernization as much as its adapting civilization and the vulnerability of a "conforming" populace. It's an opinionated society we belong to... Similarly, common sense has become "rare sense" which people even rarely use. And it's common sense to know that you don't need a degree to be able to express your thoughts. Being "titled" doesn't necessarily correspond to being "entitled".
It was a critical sentiment of the concerned mainstream media personalities to ask for such perquisite against those they believe to be inferior and unworthy to be within their level. Contradictory, while "sense of entitlement" is another thing yet an opinion we generally express as a haughty prerogative we despise, it's similarly something we heedlessly convey to have. There are however media people who have learned to adapt. And of all people, traditional media people should know better being in a corporate as well as "political" set up that they belong to wherein by-passing, partisanship, factionalism among other issues happen compared to bloggers' supposed "self-employed" status. Although within the blogoshpere, it has become relatively political...
On the other hand, may bloggers prove their true worth and competence with a credible argument. And while at it, have the mettle to apply common sense as opposed to the usual audacity to just blurt out or rant about unfounded news article for the sake of hits, views, reach, more followers and even for "popcorn moments" perhaps. You could as well use your inventiveness to come up with a term for the kind of bloggers you are (aside from "blah-ggers") to somehow be fair to "real" bloggers who could most likely have way less than half of your followers but can compose (and be composed) with way more sense and probably with higher IQ than you... Don't be sensitive as well since you know the truth; 'cause if it hurts, it must be true. It'll however set you free, hopefully...