Katrina C. Guevarra February 26, 2008
Journ 111 – Feature Writing Professor Rome Jorge
Setting a New Standard in teaching Journalism
A school ran by professional journalists. Think it’s too far-fetched? Well, think again.
Being relatively new in the education industry, The Manila Times School of Journalism (now The Manila Times College) has been creating a name for itself as a school that not only provides theories essential for learning, but also gives intensive training for its students with its training programs in Print, Broadcast and English Proficiency.
“Our whole philosophy is about marrying theory with experience. That is also why we set up a TV and radio studio. We are big on giving students practical experience.”, said Dante Francis Ang, president of the Manila Times Publishing Corp. and The Manila Times College.
Ang tells us why they decided to come up with their own school for aspiring journalists, “We were frustrated with the quality of applicants to our newspaper, fresh grads from journalism schools who either didn’t possess the right skills or were competent but were already tainted by the system.” His father, Mr.Dante A. Ang, thought of establishing a school that will train students to be competent and skilled journalists. Thus, The Manila Times School of Journalism was born.
What sets the college apart from other universities is the students can work directly with the professional journalists in the Manila Times newsroom itself. “The fact that we have a daily newspaper makes the school unique, at least in the country and in Southeast Asia.”, said Ang.
Now on its 5th year, the school changed its name from The Manila Times school of Journalism to The Manila Times College --adapting the term “college’ as it offers new degree programs, AB English and AB History, starting school year 2008 -2009.
Being a student of the School of Journalism myself, I could truly say that the school was faithful to their mission of providing excellent training through practical experience. This is where the cliché of “Experience is the best teacher” proves true. For I believe that in my stay in the school I learned more from what I saw, heard and felt outside the classroom walls (especially during coverage and interviews) than when I was inside it.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Exemplary feature article # 2
Freedom to Offend
Stephen J. A. Ward
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill railed against the tyranny of majorities to silence contentious voices. Mill praised free speech in part because our fundamental beliefs crystallize into inert lumps of “dead dogma” when they are not challenged. A liberal society needs a large domain of free speech like the body needs a large supply of oxygen.
The violence that followed the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed in the Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten, was shocking. It prompted journalists to consider what a free and responsible press means in pluralistic democracies. The dispute showed that the popular phrase “a free and responsible press” may have become one of Mill’s dogmas, providing cover for troubling tensions just below the surface.
The arguments
Arguments for and against publishing and republishing the images came in two strengths – a “weak” and a “strong” version. The “weak” argument said publishers had a constitutional right to publish the images, if they so wished. The strong version was that editors “ought” to publish the images to stand up for free expression and to inform the public.
The argument for not publishing the images also had a weak and a strong version. The weak version took a middle way -- publishers had a legal right to publish but they could use their discretion because it was not “necessary” to publish the images to properly cover the story. Publication of the images would be “merely provocative.” Why unnecessarily offend Muslims, especially at a time of tension? Some editors added that publishing the images would have violated their standards against publishing offensive or graphic images. The stronger version argued that to publish the images was simply an abuse of press freedom, causing harm and little good. Publishers had an ethical duty not to publish the images.
Among the journalists who argued strongly for publication was Erza Levant, publisher of The Western Standard in Calgary, who told CBC radio that his paper has the constitutional right to re-publish the cartoons because, “it’s the central fact in the largest news story of the month and we are a news magazine, I guess our readers want to know the news.” In The Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente said on March 18th that democratic values of free speech and equality had to be defended against what she called the “multicultural myth” – the idea that “difference” makes Canada a better place. However, Ian Jack in London, editor of the literary magazine Granta, called the re-publication of cartoons an unacceptable abuse of free expression. A middle way was represented by major newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and The Washington Post. “It was a choice similar to not running images of dead bodies and offensive language,” said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post. “We described them (cartoons).” Ed Greenspon, editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, wrote that the Jyllands-Posten had the right to publish the cartoons and Muslims had the right to protest, peacefully. But re-publishing would be both a “gratuitous and unnecessarily provocation, especially given what we knew about how offended Muslims . . . felt about the cartoons.” The Globe’s policy is to publish offensive material only when “absolutely necessary to the understanding of the story.”
“Offending” responsibly?
My own view favours publication, but it falls somewhere between these arguments. Legally I defend the right of editors to publish these cartoons, for whatever reasons. A liberal democratic society needs a relatively wide area reserved for controversial and, yes, offensive speech so long as it is not hate speech. Toleration of offensive speech is a difficult but fundamental feature of an open society.
I also believe that it is ethically permissible to publish and re-publish the cartoons if published in a contextualized manner. I think you can “offend,” responsibly. I do not say that editors have a “duty” to publish the images. Too much depends on context to make such a sweeping claim. But I do think that in certain contexts, there are serious reasons to support responsibly publishing the images.
A publication would be “merely provocative” if it simply published the cartoons under a headline that read: “Take that, you Muslims!” or otherwise showed contempt. But one could publish responsibly in an informed and non-contemptuous manner. How? By explaining the reasons why some Muslims oppose the depiction and the history of that belief; by examining the social and political causes of the protests; by avoiding simplified images of Islam; by speaking with moderate Muslims; by exploring how democracies might deal fairly with such issues.
What reasons would support thoughtful re-publishing? No doubt the images would still offend. But journalists would have discharged their duty to provide a diverse forum on a major issue, without allowing fear of offending or intimidation to limit the discussion. But is it “necessary” to see the images? It is difficult to respond to this objection because what is “necessary” to a story is quite subjective. To play devil’s advocate, I suggest that people need to see these cartoons in the press for themselves, rather than have them described, or by having to turn to Google. Today, I still talk with non-Muslim people who oppose the publications or talk about them with conviction, although they have not seen the cartoons. When they do see the cartoons, they have a greater understanding about the reasonableness of various positions.
Another reason to responsibly publish the images is that a publication might feel that members of the mainstream media should stand behind the principle of free expression, against clear threats of intimidation. Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten, said he published the cartoons not to mock Muslims but to test the limits of free expression. He said that recent incidents of self-censorship in Europe have caused “widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam.” Now isn’t this a crucial social issue? Is this being “merely provocative”? Therefore, it is not enough to say that something is offensive. The usual rule is that publications avoid offensive material if it serves no greater purpose than to shock or titillate. But that is just the issue in the cartoon debate. One can’t assume that publishing the cartoons serves only to provoke. Furthermore, not publishing the cartoons creates the danger of a slippery slope that leads from the cartoon case to the next story that offends deeply held beliefs. I do not see how the middle-way editors can publish other culturally controversial images or stories in the future, if the only test is whether the story is offensive to devout persons.
Freedom to offend
Finally, I am concerned that this whole torturous debate indicates that some people are too ready to think that the potential of causing “offence” is a knock-down reason not to publish something. We are in danger of losing a balance between freedom and responsibility. There are responsibilities to speak out, as well as to remain silent. A love of building bridges between cultures does not entail the silencing of those who may not want to build a bridge, or do not want to speak in measured tones. Of course we should educate citizens to tolerate and respect each other. But we should also teach that in a plural society, expect to be offended.
The right to offend trumps the right not to be offended. In light of the cartoon case, journalists need to ask not only, “What are the limits of a free press?” but also “What are the limits of social responsibility?”
http://www.journalismethics.ca/ethics_in_news/ward_freedom_to_offend.htm
Stephen J. A. Ward
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill railed against the tyranny of majorities to silence contentious voices. Mill praised free speech in part because our fundamental beliefs crystallize into inert lumps of “dead dogma” when they are not challenged. A liberal society needs a large domain of free speech like the body needs a large supply of oxygen.
The violence that followed the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed in the Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten, was shocking. It prompted journalists to consider what a free and responsible press means in pluralistic democracies. The dispute showed that the popular phrase “a free and responsible press” may have become one of Mill’s dogmas, providing cover for troubling tensions just below the surface.
The arguments
Arguments for and against publishing and republishing the images came in two strengths – a “weak” and a “strong” version. The “weak” argument said publishers had a constitutional right to publish the images, if they so wished. The strong version was that editors “ought” to publish the images to stand up for free expression and to inform the public.
The argument for not publishing the images also had a weak and a strong version. The weak version took a middle way -- publishers had a legal right to publish but they could use their discretion because it was not “necessary” to publish the images to properly cover the story. Publication of the images would be “merely provocative.” Why unnecessarily offend Muslims, especially at a time of tension? Some editors added that publishing the images would have violated their standards against publishing offensive or graphic images. The stronger version argued that to publish the images was simply an abuse of press freedom, causing harm and little good. Publishers had an ethical duty not to publish the images.
Among the journalists who argued strongly for publication was Erza Levant, publisher of The Western Standard in Calgary, who told CBC radio that his paper has the constitutional right to re-publish the cartoons because, “it’s the central fact in the largest news story of the month and we are a news magazine, I guess our readers want to know the news.” In The Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente said on March 18th that democratic values of free speech and equality had to be defended against what she called the “multicultural myth” – the idea that “difference” makes Canada a better place. However, Ian Jack in London, editor of the literary magazine Granta, called the re-publication of cartoons an unacceptable abuse of free expression. A middle way was represented by major newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and The Washington Post. “It was a choice similar to not running images of dead bodies and offensive language,” said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post. “We described them (cartoons).” Ed Greenspon, editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, wrote that the Jyllands-Posten had the right to publish the cartoons and Muslims had the right to protest, peacefully. But re-publishing would be both a “gratuitous and unnecessarily provocation, especially given what we knew about how offended Muslims . . . felt about the cartoons.” The Globe’s policy is to publish offensive material only when “absolutely necessary to the understanding of the story.”
“Offending” responsibly?
My own view favours publication, but it falls somewhere between these arguments. Legally I defend the right of editors to publish these cartoons, for whatever reasons. A liberal democratic society needs a relatively wide area reserved for controversial and, yes, offensive speech so long as it is not hate speech. Toleration of offensive speech is a difficult but fundamental feature of an open society.
I also believe that it is ethically permissible to publish and re-publish the cartoons if published in a contextualized manner. I think you can “offend,” responsibly. I do not say that editors have a “duty” to publish the images. Too much depends on context to make such a sweeping claim. But I do think that in certain contexts, there are serious reasons to support responsibly publishing the images.
A publication would be “merely provocative” if it simply published the cartoons under a headline that read: “Take that, you Muslims!” or otherwise showed contempt. But one could publish responsibly in an informed and non-contemptuous manner. How? By explaining the reasons why some Muslims oppose the depiction and the history of that belief; by examining the social and political causes of the protests; by avoiding simplified images of Islam; by speaking with moderate Muslims; by exploring how democracies might deal fairly with such issues.
What reasons would support thoughtful re-publishing? No doubt the images would still offend. But journalists would have discharged their duty to provide a diverse forum on a major issue, without allowing fear of offending or intimidation to limit the discussion. But is it “necessary” to see the images? It is difficult to respond to this objection because what is “necessary” to a story is quite subjective. To play devil’s advocate, I suggest that people need to see these cartoons in the press for themselves, rather than have them described, or by having to turn to Google. Today, I still talk with non-Muslim people who oppose the publications or talk about them with conviction, although they have not seen the cartoons. When they do see the cartoons, they have a greater understanding about the reasonableness of various positions.
Another reason to responsibly publish the images is that a publication might feel that members of the mainstream media should stand behind the principle of free expression, against clear threats of intimidation. Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten, said he published the cartoons not to mock Muslims but to test the limits of free expression. He said that recent incidents of self-censorship in Europe have caused “widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam.” Now isn’t this a crucial social issue? Is this being “merely provocative”? Therefore, it is not enough to say that something is offensive. The usual rule is that publications avoid offensive material if it serves no greater purpose than to shock or titillate. But that is just the issue in the cartoon debate. One can’t assume that publishing the cartoons serves only to provoke. Furthermore, not publishing the cartoons creates the danger of a slippery slope that leads from the cartoon case to the next story that offends deeply held beliefs. I do not see how the middle-way editors can publish other culturally controversial images or stories in the future, if the only test is whether the story is offensive to devout persons.
Freedom to offend
Finally, I am concerned that this whole torturous debate indicates that some people are too ready to think that the potential of causing “offence” is a knock-down reason not to publish something. We are in danger of losing a balance between freedom and responsibility. There are responsibilities to speak out, as well as to remain silent. A love of building bridges between cultures does not entail the silencing of those who may not want to build a bridge, or do not want to speak in measured tones. Of course we should educate citizens to tolerate and respect each other. But we should also teach that in a plural society, expect to be offended.
The right to offend trumps the right not to be offended. In light of the cartoon case, journalists need to ask not only, “What are the limits of a free press?” but also “What are the limits of social responsibility?”
http://www.journalismethics.ca/ethics_in_news/ward_freedom_to_offend.htm
Exemplary Feature Writing Sample 1
The fruits, and sorrows, of faith
Jul 12th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Belief clearly affects people's state of mind, but don't ask how
WHATEVER else they profess, most world religions say happiness is not as simple as it seems; earthly pleasures can easily prove to be a chimera, and true felicity is said to lie in overcoming selfish impulses, or in devoted service to others and to God. Where religions often disagree is on the result of this spiritual effort. Some speak of self-annihilation, others of union with God, others of a very personal sort of reward.
The Koran puts it simply. “Happiness in this life, and in the hereafter” is promised to “those who believe and lead a righteous life”—there is no other way. In the Christian tradition, there is much talk of joy and sorrow being intertwined: you can't have one without the other. Christian monastics cultivate a state known as charmolypi, joy-sorrow: tears for the woes of the world, and gratitude for God's mercy.
But on a more earthly level, sociologists agree that the practice of a faith and broad happiness with life do seem to be related, though nobody has much idea why. “We don't know whether people go to church because they are happy, or whether they are happy because they go to church,” says Andrew Clark, an economist who helped conduct a survey of 30,000 Europeans in 21 countries.
But if religion is a significant factor in making people satisfied, it should presumably show up somewhere in a global investigation of well-being, like the Gallup survey mentioned elsewhere on these pages. Dalia Mogahed, who oversees Gallup's research on Muslim opinion, has made some stark observations about that poll. There are, she notes, many Muslim countries where men and women alike are fed up with life. But of the ten places with the highest correlation between being female and (relatively) satisfied, nine are mainly Muslim: Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Palestine, Jordan and Morocco. Ms Mogahed says this reflects the travails of being a Muslim man as much as any blessings of being female. In traditional lands, where men expect to be breadwinners, many suffer the trauma of being jobless or doing hard, ill-paid work. Another factor, she thinks, is that one big source of female and child poverty in the West—single motherhood—hardly exists in Muslim societies.
Some may find such conclusions too complacent about the fate of Muslim women. Margot Badran, an American scholar of feminism in Islamic countries, says that in most of them there is a palpable sense of grievance among women. “But that doesn't imply that they are miserable, or consumed by victimhood—it just tells us we need a more nuanced picture of life than any simple spectrum of happiness can capture.”
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9481510
Jul 12th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Belief clearly affects people's state of mind, but don't ask how
WHATEVER else they profess, most world religions say happiness is not as simple as it seems; earthly pleasures can easily prove to be a chimera, and true felicity is said to lie in overcoming selfish impulses, or in devoted service to others and to God. Where religions often disagree is on the result of this spiritual effort. Some speak of self-annihilation, others of union with God, others of a very personal sort of reward.
The Koran puts it simply. “Happiness in this life, and in the hereafter” is promised to “those who believe and lead a righteous life”—there is no other way. In the Christian tradition, there is much talk of joy and sorrow being intertwined: you can't have one without the other. Christian monastics cultivate a state known as charmolypi, joy-sorrow: tears for the woes of the world, and gratitude for God's mercy.
But on a more earthly level, sociologists agree that the practice of a faith and broad happiness with life do seem to be related, though nobody has much idea why. “We don't know whether people go to church because they are happy, or whether they are happy because they go to church,” says Andrew Clark, an economist who helped conduct a survey of 30,000 Europeans in 21 countries.
But if religion is a significant factor in making people satisfied, it should presumably show up somewhere in a global investigation of well-being, like the Gallup survey mentioned elsewhere on these pages. Dalia Mogahed, who oversees Gallup's research on Muslim opinion, has made some stark observations about that poll. There are, she notes, many Muslim countries where men and women alike are fed up with life. But of the ten places with the highest correlation between being female and (relatively) satisfied, nine are mainly Muslim: Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Palestine, Jordan and Morocco. Ms Mogahed says this reflects the travails of being a Muslim man as much as any blessings of being female. In traditional lands, where men expect to be breadwinners, many suffer the trauma of being jobless or doing hard, ill-paid work. Another factor, she thinks, is that one big source of female and child poverty in the West—single motherhood—hardly exists in Muslim societies.
Some may find such conclusions too complacent about the fate of Muslim women. Margot Badran, an American scholar of feminism in Islamic countries, says that in most of them there is a palpable sense of grievance among women. “But that doesn't imply that they are miserable, or consumed by victimhood—it just tells us we need a more nuanced picture of life than any simple spectrum of happiness can capture.”
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9481510
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Where the ink dries up
This is a test post.
Welcome to "Where the ink dries up", a blog created for the sole purpose of a requirement for feature writing class under Professor Rome Jorge.
Welcome to "Where the ink dries up", a blog created for the sole purpose of a requirement for feature writing class under Professor Rome Jorge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)