Filipino Voices Manifesto (for download too)

21 Responses to “Filipino Voices Manifesto (for download too)”

1. sef dudeo on September 19th, 2008 2:23 pm

   I had fun reading your manifesto.. It made me sleep after reading approximately three pages. What were you saying about your editorial policy (or lack thereof), though? Do you mean the absence of a policy is your official policy?

   I guess that says it all. I welcome the addition of FV to the blogosphere.

2. benign0 on September 19th, 2008 2:59 pm

   Great stuff Nick! This one you wrote is particularly relevant:

   […] each contributor and writer can provide that balance […]

   I think as a group that works with virtually no editorial policy, we need to rely on one another to both stay focused and stay diverse.

   Here’s my stab at The Challenge on Section 5 of the Manifesto (a proposed Vision statement):

   FV is a community of unlike-minded individuals united in a common passion for free inquiry. We see nothing as so sacred as to be immune from a healthy re-think. We articulate and publish our ideas here with the aim of subjecting these to the close scrutiny and evaluation of all who take the time to agree or, even better, beg to differ. Our aim is to lead the way in turning Philippine society from one that is beholden to personalities, tradition, dogma, ideology, superstition, and slogans into one that embraces and thrives on critical evaluation, debate, transparency, and mutual respect. We believe that it is only through such a transformation at the very fabric of our collective psyche that the virtues of enlightenment, originality, and conviction, upon which were built the vast economic, spiritual, and cultural wealth of the societies we aspire to emulate could sustainably take root in Philippine society.

3. retsytomaquin on September 19th, 2008 7:22 pm

   challenge: FV is an informative tool towards formation of public opinion, associated with a collaborative views of every Filipino. This further means that FV advocates ideas of all Filipinos in whatever context of Social strata without any degree of deprivation. FV fosters a definite purpose, the unity/solidarity
   among Filipinos in the whole archipelago towards formation of Public Opinion. FV represents the public being a group of interesting ideas that leads to an issue. Thus, Fv is relative to the degree of communication among people.

4. Flow on September 20th, 2008 2:17 pm

   Thanks Sir Nick

5. BrianB on September 22nd, 2008 2:31 am

   Stop this idiocy. Just be sincere and natural.

6. cvj on September 22nd, 2008 2:47 am

   Striving for ‘balance’ leaves us open to manipulation. For example, if i say the earth is shaped like a sphere then someone can come along and say that it is shaped like a saddle. Then we arrive at a ‘balance’ and conclude that the earth is flat. Where it says ‘balance’, i suggest we substitute ‘variety’ or ‘diversity’.

7. Bencard on September 22nd, 2008 5:12 am

   nah, not all readers are as stupid as you think. if you say something moronic, they will see through it no matter how you embellish it with pretentious language - balance or no balance. most readers will not just buy your argument just because you say it. it has to make good sense.

   your comments need not be “balanced”. just be able to defend it. i think what the manifesto is trying to achieve is balance in the opportunity for writers or commenters to voice out their positions so that FV would not just be a “chorus of all tenors” (to quote what i said in previous post).

8. Bencard on September 22nd, 2008 5:37 am

   nick, if there’s anything, other than illegal speech, that should be “banned” from FV, it is ad hominem that assails the person or profession of a writer rather than the content of his comment. that kind of attack contributes nothing to the the objectives of FV. instead it unnecessarily foments discord, bad blood, ill-will and, most of all, disunity.

   for instance, what has my being a lawyer got to do with the price of fish as some rabid partisan tried recently to put in issue just because he didn’t agree with my pro-gma comment? i’m not being sensitive but it is quite frustrating when you try to carry on a healthy discourse and from out of the blue someone will get personal and attack you in your face. i wouldn’t be surprised if the guy got some approving “applause” from some of our people here given that gma is not that popular. still, it’s wrong in every way, shape or form. i know some other blogs have that kind of orientation and i don’t think FV is one of them.

9. cvj on September 22nd, 2008 8:20 am

   criticizing professions and the writer(s) should be fair game as it is part of the discussion. as for “discord, bad blood, ill-will and, most of all, disunity.”, this is not facebook or friendster so why hold back and censor (or self-censor) for the sake of ‘unity’?

10. Bencard on September 22nd, 2008 8:57 am

    it’s your call, nick. don’t let this “i.t. genius” lay down the rules here. if FV want this blog to be what you envision in the manifesto, you know what to do with his ‘bright’ idea.

    remember we are not politicians here. we don’t have to go the way of the detestable partisan mudslinging and muckraking. it’s easy to call somebody “idiot”. it’s harder to show what he is saying is nonsense.

11. benign0 on September 22nd, 2008 2:39 pm

    Actually, it probably won’t take much to convince Pinoys that the Earth is saddle-shaped.

    Just pay Sharon Cuneta her usual fee of Php 10 million to endorse that theory on TV or get a cardinal to issue a pastoral letter to be read in the next Sunday mass and sit back and wait…

12. cvj on September 22nd, 2008 3:28 pm

    That’s typical elitist mindset for you.

13. bimbim on September 23rd, 2008 3:03 am

    Nick,

    Some suggestions:

    1. In most instances, keep it short and sweet.

    2. It is never about the author. Its always about the idea. If you believe the reverse, you’re just endlessly massaging egos of your writers.

    3. There is no such thing as “balance” or “equality” — and so we must strive for the more real concept of equity.

    4. How about writing on issues from a national and democratic viewpoint in contraposition to the colonial and elitist viewpoint that dominate all media?

    5. How would FV handle the use of Filipino language(s)?

    6. Will FV prioritize issues of the middle class and relegate issues of workers, farmers, the national minorities, and sexual minorities?

    That’s it — and it is obvious that the paper is too looooong.

14. Nick on September 23rd, 2008 10:06 pm

    @bimbim, thank you for the great suggestions! I really do appreciate it.

    Yes, I know it’s long… I myself, almost fell asleep reading my own work. It is the first draft, and I only released it so that I could get input from everyone.

    Yes, equity would be a more apt term for this. Because balance would mean, for example, that there is a 50% divide between those who are for or against the RH bill, which is not the case.

    Yes, I believe number 2 is enshrined within the manifesto itself. Where the idea is king, and the analysis will always be the main focus.

    And with regards to Filipino language, actually, Flowell one of our writers will be writing in the Filipino language, which i thoroughly encourage.

    As to number 6. no, of course not. A few of our writers who are passionate about these issues, such as Schumey, have been unavailable for the moment.. but already we are in the process of bringing a few more in the fold, because these issues are very much important.

    Again.. your input is great.. I appreciate it..

15. of intellectual doldrums & filipino voices on September 24th, 2008 8:50 pm

    […] a recent manifesto (better late than never?) founder Nick cites James Surowiecki’s “Wisdom of the Crowds” to justify fv’s […]

16. cvj on September 26th, 2008 8:38 pm

    Nick, i think commenter Teo’s idea (over at Angela’s blog) of an editorial summation of sorts is a good one. Since our discussion of issues comes in bursts according to the topic of the day, perhaps you can have an entry that summarizes the issues discussed when the heat on a particular topic subsides.

17. Nick on September 26th, 2008 9:12 pm

    @cvj, yes, in fact, I believe that was the only constructive criticism I could find.

    I was disappointed with her reply, and i believe, that this is why it is very difficult for such initiatives such as ours to flourish in an environment where we are constantly bombarded with naysayers, and those who say we can’t make a difference.

    I ask.. Strive to make a difference or remain stagnant because people believe we can’t?

    I say strive.

    She comments,

    fv’s goals are just a tad lofty. scrap the manifesto. forget about making a difference or influencing the national discourse or doing better than mainstream media or climbing mountains a la martinlutherking

    This is the most defeatist statement I’ve come across in a long while.

    In my opinion, a collaboration of new media with old media is the best road to take..

    The suggestion by teo, and not Angela’s, is fair, and actually very good. I have already been on the works for such a thought, although the implementation will still be collaborative, most likely through a wiki based application. This isn’t new actually, Benign0 actually brought it up a few months ago. I will bring it up in our next update, and will continue working on it.. Hopefully will be finished in the weeks to come.. as for now, I will volunteer to do such a summary.

    I have said my peace, I will no longer comment on this non-issue.

18. Bencard on September 27th, 2008 12:03 am

    nick (”enc”), how come you are not addressing my posts @ 5:37 & 8:57 (9/22)? are you ignoring them because you think what i raised was also a “non-issue? i thought you are open to all views. i think whether you agree with them or not, it won’t hurt if you state your position for all to know.

19. Nick on September 27th, 2008 3:10 am

    @Bencard, I read the commentary, I apologize for not making my views on this known.

    I have to say that although we don’t go the way of politicos, I am also not trying to impose an old media type of confined commentary…

    In any case, I understand what you are trying to say.

    Furthermore, the answer I provided to Bim with regards to (number 2 and 3) her points made, I think is a clear indication of where I stand.

    And although in an ideal world, personal attacks would be out of the discussion altogether, it’s hard to implement, only self regulation.

    At this point, I can moderate when such arguments take place, but this is the only form of “editorializing” that I am willing to take. I think moderating is the best solution at this point, so as to weed out the personal attacks from the actual meat of the comment..

    But, in short, I still move for a free market of ideas, and if the bad and the ugly come into the trading, we must let it be, unless the market is at stake, of which I am certain, in the minor skirmishes of the day, it will survive.

20. Nick on September 27th, 2008 3:13 am

    @Bencard, your critique was fair, and constructive.

    As for others such as Angela’s, where she simply wants us to cease from improving, or trying to think through the challenges, that is something that should not even be entertained.

21. Swimming against the current of Pinoy nature | Filipino Voices on September 30th, 2008 2:05 pm

    […] had quite a lot to say about Nick’s attempt to come up with a manifesto for Filipino Voices. The bottom line of all […]

Leave a Reply