marriages, babies and census

I was reading news from Yahoo! Philippines and I came across an article fed by wires agency Agence France Presse. The report, "Marriage going out of fashion in Philippines", used the recently released 2008 census from the National Statistics Office to point out that getting married is no longer as big of a deal as it was years ago.

According to the census, 1,784,316 live births were registered in the country in 2008, of which 37.5 percent were born out of wedlock. Meanwhile, a total of 486,514 marriages were registered the same year (press release here). Of the cases, 41 percent were celebrated through civil rites and 36.3 percent were commenced in Catholic churches (press release here).

A growing number of Filipinos now treat marriage as an option, rather than a requirement, for starting families, said Nene Baligad, a member of a unit of the National Statistics Office that licenses people who officiate weddings.

"Nowadays, some couples just live in and only get married after having four or five children," she told AFP.

"You can't really say it's for practical reasons, since you can be married on the cheap. It's more like, we Filipinos tend to follow what is in fashion."

What the article failed to argue however, is that a decrease in registered marriages does not necessarily mean couples more often opted to living together instead of actually getting married.

NSO's release on live births also included statistics on teenage mothers. A total of 186,527 babies were born to teenage mothers, a 7.64 percent increase from 2007. This figure side by side the number of illegitimate babies born in 2008 may also show the lack of knowledge and the problem with education.

If NSO has provided the trend by age, we may be able to provide more analysis.

Allow me to say, I am proud that we may be the only country who does not allow divorce. Of course, there are biblical perspectives as to why divorce should not be an option but I am more concerned with the mindset divorce policies encourage. But I am for the inclusion of sex education in classroom discussion. And the way the article has made the connection between marriage statistics and the divorce bill was not clearly woven out.

question and answer

I recently attended a seminar for media workers on how to reduce stigma and discrimination in AIDS and HIV. What made the seminar interesting and lively is when Dr. Eric Tayag of the National Epidemiolody Department presented the results of the 2010 Philippine HIV & AIDS Registry. As always, after every press conference reporters would storm in sources for a more personal interview. Of course, a personal interview in reality is not possible as other reporters would join once they see someone getting an exclusive.

Seeing reporters storm in Dr. Tayag reminds me of the days when I was part of that commotion.

I was not always confident of my questions and I would usually rely on other reporters' question in hopes that they would be asking the "right" questions. 

Of course, this is a reversed mindset. Asking questions, even if just for clarification makes the reporter recognizable to the person being interview. Most especially when he/she is of high profile, reporters would usually fight over the source's attention. It seems like a badge of honor to some reporters.

But yes, I left that life. And I am about to leave the media industry. I honestly miss those days. Who knows, I might be back and by that time, hopefully, most likely, I am more confident of who I am, able to ask the questions I ought to have asked a long time ago.

side comments in a show

In one of Desperate Housewives episode, Teri Hatcher comments on the Filipino nursing schools:

"Can i just check on their diplomas? I just want to make sure that they're not from some med schools in the Philippines "

Is this not the feudalist culture? That such people within an important institution in the society feel powerful and superior enough to comment on cases where societies of lesser economic power can be degraded especially when these societies rely on human power to make their economy stable. And to make such comment, a joke or a criticism, may in effect destroy what may be a source of living for thousands of Filipinos, and the very credibility Filipino nurses and doctors are most famous for, hospitable and caring as part of their cultural upbringing.

Freedom of expression is never absolute. a sense of responsibility must come into place, that one does not step on the rights and dignity of another. The power of the media must be directed towards an informed public, to which the people will be equipped with enough information to make their own stands and act accordingly. an insensitive comment only drives people towards a wrong direction.

it's called ethics my friend.

a culture of indifference

This afternoon, I happen to read a blogpost by a journalism student. This certain post talked about the current state of the Philippine Collegian (Kule). He narrated that when he was asked by the publisher of the Philippine Daily Inquirer how the Kule was, his first reaction was to say that the publication is "too progressive".

"Critical of the nation's leader[s]", he criticizes the Kule for failing to give "updates on what's happening in school". Moreover, he posits that being the official publication of the university, it only represents a "small percentage of the entire UP community". He goes on further to the conclusion that the editors of three years ago are definitely a lot better, as they had at least showed "hint[s] of decency".

He ends his post by saying that "sometimes we are too immersed with ideals that we fail to see what is real" and that it is "no wonder not many journalism students are interested to join the Collegian".

Dismay is an understatement of what I felt after I had read the post.

For one thing, the Journalism Department itself teaches the students to be critical of the nation's leaders, of the policies they make, and the current situation of the country for one mere reason, it is a responsibility of journalists to the public. In simple terms, communication theories call it "watchdogs". To ask for updates, pardon me for saying, is very high school. There's a big difference between the two.

However, given that argument, I believe the Kule never failed to give updates on the current situation of the college, as it even publishes the statements of the students councils on the issues that the university is facing. It has not failed to air the eviction of tambayans in CMC. What this student might be looking for is the UP administration's side, something the Kule has attempted but the admin completely ignores.

To question idealism is to question the very principles that is taught in our department. It is this idealism that has developed ethical and news standards. It is this idealism that graduates aim for the best, for a change in the system as they see the reality in our society. It is this idealism that has taught students to look beyond the fame, the money and work on the very essence of journalism itself, a public service, a responsibility to the citizens of this nation. To question idealism is to entertain a culture of indifference, a shame in this profession.

In an interview, my uncle said, "If I had known that Journalism would be defined such as it is today, I wouldn't have entered Journalism in the first place."

At first, I didn't quite understand why he was able to say such things, as if he has lost hope of the future generation of journalists.

After reading a post written by his former students, I hate to admit that he might be right after all.

* not so convincing noh? ako rin, nahihirapan sabihin. abangan kung bakit *

reaction on the statement

(angst, angst, angst)

We were sitted on the floor at the film lobby one afternoon. Marian told her story of a time she interviewed a broadcast media practitioner (I choose not to name the person). After the interview proper, the braodcaster asked her if she was from the CMC student council. With Marian answering yes, the broadcaster commented on the statement we released against the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007 saying that we obviously don't know what we're doing. It lacks research but it is however forgivable since we are mere students.

Excuse me. If I may...

Do not talk to us about research. We are students of the College of Mass Communication. We know what is research. It is what we do. Omitting research is by far a disgrace not only to the university that has taught us to be the best that we can be but also to the public we serve.

We know very well the implications of our actions, that our words may be accused of inciting "terror", if the Gloria administration in particular wants us, the vigilant ones to be arrested. It is for this very reason alone we must be certain of every criticism we pose.

This "terror" we chose to ignore, the risks we are ready to take.

We should not be antagonized for our actions. To be explicit about it, the statement is humiliation to media practitioner who chose to sit and be quiet when students, those younger and inexperienced if I may say so, chose to stand up and fight for the same right we all should be concerned about, the fight to press freedom.

I would rather see students of this college proactive than passive. It is better to risk making mistakes and apologize in the end than to regret that we should have done something when we still have the chance.

I remain standing and will continue to uphold this statement.

reaction paper slash balahurang papel

I really don’t know how I was able to conceive such notion, but every time a teacher assigns a reaction paper, I always feel like it’s one of those joke papers I have to do, something I wouldn’t really take seriously.

Maybe it had something to do with that relate-it-to-yourself kind of approach you are expected to use in going about the paper. It isn’t like a diary that anyone would actually be honest, now would it? I mean, how can anyone actually appreciate a relate-it-to-yourself essay with no juicy gossips in it? Seriously.

At the same time, let’s not kid each other and be blatant to say that in any reaction paper, there is only one objective of the student, to try to verbalize what the professor actually wants to hear.

Say, if it’s a seminar sort of gathering, the most common entry would be “I’ve learned a lot of things regarding this field because blah, blah, blah and I will be using it for the rest of my life.”

If it’s a testimony, “I’m really inspired to what he/she said especially when he/she talked about blah, blah, blah,” then ending it with that sort of thought provoking, emotionally appealing sentence.

On the other hand, if it’s a talk done by the teacher himself/herself, most of what might come out in the paper are points of agreement and not of disagreement. For a simple-minded high school student, why would anyone dare to disagree if you’re only aim is to get good grades.

Talking about all those high school reaction papers reminds me how I used to sweet-talk and play around with words just to make it sound “good”.

Then, why do I have to do one again? There must be more to life than this. (Imagine the bumping of the head on the wall)

Then I ask, what is the essence of a written form? Why do I actually have to write all these reaction papers in the first place? For the teacher to find out if I was actually listening to what they were saying, if that’s the only purpose I need to achieve, it makes the paper quite superficial, wasting printer inks and white paper. Think of all the trees I’ve misuse for all these nonsense. (I know. Ma’am Rara has gotten into me. I’ve become conscious of the environment. Yes, me, the patron of Ate Gloria’s take-out-in-a-styro lunch and plactic-cupped iced tea. How ironic)

It rather brings me back to media as a whole. In one of our discussions in our thesis proposal, (god. Thesis. Don’t remind me) is media a source of information? Yes, of course. However, it is not completely a source of information since it contains a lot of trash as well especially in television (and yes, in less than a year, I’ll eventually be one of those people working in the network responsible for such trash. Depressing, I know)

This makes me go back to my question. What is the essence of media? What is the purpose that media must serve?

In simple terms, to be a source of information. But unless it’s as brightly colored as Barney, it would really never sell. (I really hate Barney, that singing purple dinosaur that suggests homosexuality to children, that goes for Tinky Winky as well. What is it with the color purple in the first place? Haha, me and my children’s show angst. I call for the revival of Batibot! bwahaha)

Sell. Ratings. Business. (which reminds me of my very own business-minded, profit-oriented, marketing organization, the student council. angst. angst. angst) All these concepts deviate the media for serving its true purpose, just like that wasted reaction paper. Every space is power, and must therefore be used with responsibility. (reminds me of Spiderman. And being the Marvel fan that I am, I hate the third movie, bad)

If you had the opportunity to reach thousands of people, what will tell them? Will you say to them what they want to hear? Or what they needed to hear which will also serve the very essence of media, to make use of the space and serve its very purpose. (talk about good use of space. I just love Conrado de Quiros’ three previous columns. click here)

The reaction paper is a joke paper because I chose it to be.

Instead, make it a chance to address the issues that I think should be critical about, to be able not to conform to what everyone else is doing, to flop but make every sense of space I use up.

The reaction paper is what I want it to be; the media is what its practitioners want it to be, and never what the people wants to see, a choice and never a trap. A stage play will never be “poor” because of its audience; it’s the people who worked in it.

(Apologies for the side comments. I’m actually having fun with this. Then again, I still have to do my reaction paper. I really needed to convince myself to make good of it, now do I. Hate you Sir for this)