[Note: This is a response to Patricia Evangelista's article "Once upon a time" in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (6/2/2012), which I wrote as a rejoinder to the comment of my friend, tgm_erick, to Ms. Patricia. This is raw and I will edit and/or enhance it later on. Thanks. --jsalvador]
 |
| Jose Rizal |
My friend, I always read
Patricia's column but I seldom comment on her articles.
She wrote: "[The young people] are
storytellers, all of them, and most of them still believe that a story can
change the world. I don’t, but I believe maybe, if we’re lucky, we can change a
life."
I agree with her. Our world
is not shaped by storytellers but by story makers (idea workers) who can motivate people to act.
Reporters write their news
story by retelling what happened, either based on their personal knowledge or what they are told by their resource persons (preferably, eyewitnesses or persons in authority). Selection of people to be interviewed is
crucial. As a general rule, reporters are guided by the 5 Ws (Who, What, When,
Where, Why), how? and so what? and they are expected to be objective, accurate,
factual, comprehensive (news is North, East, West, South), clear and concise,
and interesting (we, readers, are so demanding and discriminating; we ask
"why should I care about this news story?" As much as possible the
motive is limited to information dissemination. But more than that, I think,
news stories must move people to act. If this happens, it is not because of the reporters, but the event itself that they reported that agitates or evokes intense emotion in their viewers, listener or readers which may result to individual complaint or mass protest to affect a desired change.
In modern mass media, raw
video footage, I think, is the most powerful tool of communication to the
people. TV commentators, in the recently concluded impeachment trial, are
supposed to aid the viewers to better understand what transpired in the video
coverage of the trial. Sadly, due to personal, political or ideological bias,
they misinform rather than inform, miseducate rather than educate, the people.
Selection of resource persons are vital. The yellow media invited commentators
who have obvious bias against the former chief justice and, wittingly or unwittingly, input their biased
opinions which had adverse effect to the uncritical viewers. However, there
were resource persons, like Dean Agabin, fare well in providing informative
commentaries.
Journalists, particularly
columnists, like Patricia, are not reporters. They are not storytellers but story makers or idea workers. I see them as intellectuals in our society. They are
not simply storytellers, they are storymakers. Thomas Sowell, in his book
"Intellectuals and Society", discussed the role of the intellectuals
in society. "Intellectuals are defined as 'idea workers' that exercise
profound influence on policy makers and public opinion, but too often are not
accountable for results.' (Wikipedia, Intellectuals and Society). Sowell was more concerned with the "blind hubris and follies of intellectuals," but, in the process, he also provided us a deeper understanding on how the ideas of intellectuals shape society. Not because they have brilliant
ideas, but they motivate people to act.
 |
| Karl Marx |
Karl Marx, whose ideas
influenced more than half of the world and inspired them to build a classless
society, said: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different
ways. The point is, however, to change it."
"The ideas of Lenin,
Hitler, and Mao had enormous – and often lethal – impact on millions of people,
however little validity those ideas had in themselves or in the eyes of others
beyond the circles of like-minded followers and subordinate
power-wielders." (esmaeilk, a blogger)
The celebrated French
philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, an exemplar of an intellectual with political
commitment, inspired many intellectuals around the world to take social
responsibility in society. In his book "Sartre Explained; From Bad Faith
to Authenticity", David Detmer wrote:
 |
| Jean Paul Sartre with Simone de Beauvoir |
Sartre's political concerns led him to side consistently with those who are despised, oppressed, and impoverished, and to take stands seemingly in opposition to the interest of his own nation and class. Thus, while most European intellectuals of Sartre's time, included those regarded as politically "progressive" in their thinking, tended to take for granted the colonial exploitation of the Third World by wealthy Western nations.
Yet, Eric Hoffer, Sartre's
critic, said:
One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation. The intellectuals who idolized Stalin while he was purging millions and stifling the least stirring of freedom have not been discredited. They are still holding forth every topic under the sun and are listened to with deference. Sartre returned in 1939 from Germany, where he studied philosophy, and told the world that there was little to choose between Hitler’s Germany and France. Yet Sartre went on to become an intellectual pope revered by the educated in every land.
In the concluding chapter
of El Filibusterismo, Jose Rizal wrote:
I do not say that our liberty will be secured at the sword's point, for the sword plays but little part in modern affairs, but that we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the intelligence and the dignity of the individual, by loving justice, right, and greatness, even to the extent of dying for them, --and when a people reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be shattered, the tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and liberty will shine out like the first dawn.
Ideas are not neutral; they
can either be used to liberate or subjugate people. I first learned this lesson
in college when I read Renato Constantino's "The Philippines: A Past
Revisited" concerning the value and importance of writing history from the
perspective of the captives and the underside; to write Philippine history from
the point of view of the Filipinos.
This means that the principal focus must be on the anonymous masses of individuals and on the social forces generated by their collective lives and struggles... It is the task of historians to weave particular events into a total view so that historical experience can be summed up and analyzed. Such a history can then serve as a guide to present and succeeding generations in the continuing struggle for change.
How I wish to see our
journalists as story makers whose ideas affect public opinion, and
consequently, public policy, to take a paradigm shift from simply reflecting
for the people to that of reflecting with them and from their point of view.
When the journalists re-worked the personal story of their subject, with clear intent to emphasize a value, an attitude, or a mind-set, the journalists are not simply storytellers but story makers or idea workers. They aim to create a cultural shift in the mental framework of their target audience. By remaking the personal story, the journalists create an alternate culture. The objective of an alternate culture is to bring about a radical change in our relationships so as to provide conditions where change of habits and mental attitude desirable for the individuals in society are expected to happen. The stories, for example, in the "story line" are not value-free at all; they are designed to affect change. Since, change in the individual is a matter of personal choice, Patricia said, "if we're lucky, we can change a life."Well, Bishop Julio Labayen wrote, "the heart of the revolution is the revolution of the heart."
Keep well.
***
Friend, I think you won't
mind if I wrote again a long comment. I just reflect on the text I quoted from
Patricia and do some web browsing to weave my ideas. With the aid of some
prominent thinkers, over two cups of black coffee, I think I made my case. I
will edit it when I transfer the same to my blog. Again, thank you for visiting
my newly born blog :)
No comments:
Post a Comment