Deadline: To be printed and submitted and posted on your blog no later than Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Requirements: Answer all questions at the bottom of each of the 3 exemplary features:
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Attendance February 26, 2008
- Franco Attento
- Aileen Tandang
- Gwen Kangleon
- Katrina Guevarra
- Rem Lucio
- Eiroll Manaolo - LATE
- Aki Menor - TRUANT
- Yuri Aguilar - ABSENT
- Allane Chiong - ABSENT
- Arnela Almirez - ABSENT
- John Basco - ABSENT
- Michael Dimaano - ABSENT
- Tomi Uysingco - ABSENT, NOT ON OFFICIAL CLASS LIST
- Yna de Leon - ABSENT, NOT ON OFFICIAL CLASS LIST
Monday, February 25, 2008
Exemplary feature writing - Rolling Stone Magazine
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/18310562/cover_story_the_tragedy_of_britney_spears/print
The Tragedy of Britney Spears
By Vanessa Grigoriadis
Posted Feb 21, 2008
Questions to ask:
- How does this article differ from the usual celebrity and gossip features? Does this article elevate itself from the typical celebrity and gossip feature?
- How does the writer hold the reader's interest about a subject matter that is over exposed?
- How does the writer appeal to readers who are not admirers or sympathizers of this celebrity?
- What voice does the writer use and does it work for the magazine's target audience?
Exemplary feature writing - New York Times
The New York Times
February 24, 2008
Battle Company is Out There
By Elizabeth Rubin
Questions to ask & activities:
- Does the writer hold your attention through a long article? If she does, how did she do it? If not, why?
- Quote the most vivid and vigorous sentences in this feature.
- Write this feature as straight news, 100 words maximum.
Summary of Class Activities February 26, 2008
Activities:
- Submission of assignments
- Return of on-the-spot written essays
- Workshop, creative criticism and discussion on assigned feature on The Manila Times College
- Reading and discussion of exemplary feature writing from The New York Times and Wired Magazine
- To learn how to improve upon one’s writing through rewriting
- To deconstruct feature story and learn what makes them work
Assignment 3.0 February 26, 2008
- Rewrite/revise/edit 300-word feature of The Manila Times College
- Rewrite/revise/edit 100-word essay on “What Makes Me Read a Feature”
- Post all works on your school blog and print copies for workshop in class
- Read feature story on this blogsite on Britney Spears from the Rolling Stones magazine as well as another feature to posted before Friday, February 29
Summary of Class Activities February 19, 2008
Activities:
- Reading and examination of sample features – what makes them work and what makes them fail
- Defining feature writing
- Short on-the-spot essay
Objectives:
- To learn to read critically as writers
- To acclimatize to workshop format
- To gauge current writing proficiency of each student
Assignment 2.0, February 19, 2008
- Define feature writing, include attribution
- Write 300-word feature on The Manila Times College
Post all assignments on your blog and print copies for everyone in class for workshop purposes
Attendance February 19, 2008
- Joseph Dimaano
- Katrina Guevarra
- Remedios Lucio
- Gwen Kangleon
- Daniela Almirez
- Ailen Tandang
- Franco Attento
- Aki Menor
- Eiroll Manalo - LATE
- Allane Chiong - ABSENT
- John Basco - ABSENT
- Yuri Aguilar - ABSENT
- Yna de Leon - ABSENT, NOT ON OFFICIAL CLASS LIST
- Tomi Uysingco - ABSENT, NOT ON OFFICIAL CLASS LIST
Third Trimester Schedule SY 2007-2008
February 11, 2008 - May 24, 2008
Activities Date
Enrollment February 4-9
Classes begin February 11
Payment deadline mid-term exam March 17
Mid term exam March 24-28
Payment deadline final exams May 5
Break March 20-23
Classes resume March 24
Final exams
-Graduating students May 12-14
-1st & 2nd students May 19-23
Trimestral break May 25 – June 8
Graduation day May 31
Complete Class List
Class List
Journ 111-Feature Writing
9:00AM – 12:00NN Tuesday
Room JS1
Faculty: Mr. Rome Jorge
- Aguilar, Yuri Mikhail S.
- Almirez, Arnela Daniela A.
- Attento, Franco B.
- Basco, John Erick D.
- Chiong, Neptali Allane
- Dimaano, Michael Joseph P.
- Guevarra, Katrina C.
- Kangleon, Ma. Jane Gwen B.
- Lucio, Remedios V.
- Manalo, Gem Eiroll D.
- Menor, Aki
- Tandang, Aileen Victoria S.
- Uysingco, Tomi - NOT ON OFFICIAL LIST
- De Leon, Yna - NOT ON OFFICIAL LIST
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Journalism ought to be dangerous
Will I be censored? Is my writing provocative and important enough to be censored?
Fat chance.
Those silenced, incarcerated and martyred for their literary work join heroes—the novelist Jose Rizal, the constitutionalist Apolinario Mabini, the poet and author Amado Hernandez, the scriptwriter Pete Lacaba and poet Emmanuel Lacaba and the journalist Benigno Aquino Jr. to name a few.
Only with utmost skill and nerve can words cut and kill. Insights incite, poetry provokes and words weaponize. Only with awakened eyes and a fiery will can men dare to take up arms or lay themselves before tanks.
Rapacious friars, kleptomaniacal despots, vote-rigging crooks and illegal gambling lords have all rightly feared wordsmiths as much as any general or politician.
The Manila Times itself has garnered its share of attacks. Deposed presidents Estrada and Marcos each tried to silence the newspaper, the former with a lawsuit and a change of owners and the latter with arrests and a shut down during martial law. Noteworthy as well is how the Philippines has become as one of the deadliest places for journalists, second only to Iraq; 22 have died from 2000 to 2006 alone.
Those writing from danger’s jagged maw have much to consider: Am I putting my publication and the livelihood of its employees at needless risk or am I furthering its highest ideals? Has the threat of a government clampdown made my writing conscientiously rigorous or unconsciously sanitized?
But for those far from harm’s way, another question arises: At a time that calls for blood and sinew, does my writing offer nothing but froth and pastry?
Literary heroes such as Rizal, Hernandez and even expatriate writer and labor leader Carlos Bulosan have proven that aesthetic disciplines do not insulate a man from the struggles of the day. Rather, our craft—be it fiction, poetry or journalism—further involves us in the concerns of the nation and its people. The struggle to author empowering and nationalist literature is itself a worthy and necessary cause.
These times call for words honed well and aimed with mortal intent. This is the year for writing dangerously.
Talons and raptors
We writers ought to take the threat of censorship as a dare to deserve the attention and enmity of the enemies of truth. They have given us something to write about and, mark these words, we will.
We readers ought to take the assault on press freedom as a call to exercise critical thinking—to sniff out and shun both propaganda and biased attacks; to examine the media ownership and authorship; to verify the veracity of contentions and the logic of arguments; and to seek not just entertainment and trivia, but literature and relevant knowledge. Nothing threatens the despotic and the corrupt more than an informed and empowered public. We will be that threat.
I was but 14 years old when my family and I joined the People Power Revolt of 1986. When the late dictator Marcos fled, I thought it would be a true revolution that would bring lasting change. How wrong I was.
I was among the first to stake my body at Edsa on the Second People Power Revolt of 2001. When we unseated President Estrada, I thought we had sent a warning to all politicians that the same fate awaited them should they turn to corruption. How wrong I was.
I remain steadfast to the ideals of people power. I still espouse revolution. I mean to be a threat to tyranny.
It takes a nation to save a nation. I am one among many. And I aim to make things right.
Fat chance.
Those silenced, incarcerated and martyred for their literary work join heroes—the novelist Jose Rizal, the constitutionalist Apolinario Mabini, the poet and author Amado Hernandez, the scriptwriter Pete Lacaba and poet Emmanuel Lacaba and the journalist Benigno Aquino Jr. to name a few.
Only with utmost skill and nerve can words cut and kill. Insights incite, poetry provokes and words weaponize. Only with awakened eyes and a fiery will can men dare to take up arms or lay themselves before tanks.
Rapacious friars, kleptomaniacal despots, vote-rigging crooks and illegal gambling lords have all rightly feared wordsmiths as much as any general or politician.
The Manila Times itself has garnered its share of attacks. Deposed presidents Estrada and Marcos each tried to silence the newspaper, the former with a lawsuit and a change of owners and the latter with arrests and a shut down during martial law. Noteworthy as well is how the Philippines has become as one of the deadliest places for journalists, second only to Iraq; 22 have died from 2000 to 2006 alone.
Those writing from danger’s jagged maw have much to consider: Am I putting my publication and the livelihood of its employees at needless risk or am I furthering its highest ideals? Has the threat of a government clampdown made my writing conscientiously rigorous or unconsciously sanitized?
But for those far from harm’s way, another question arises: At a time that calls for blood and sinew, does my writing offer nothing but froth and pastry?
Literary heroes such as Rizal, Hernandez and even expatriate writer and labor leader Carlos Bulosan have proven that aesthetic disciplines do not insulate a man from the struggles of the day. Rather, our craft—be it fiction, poetry or journalism—further involves us in the concerns of the nation and its people. The struggle to author empowering and nationalist literature is itself a worthy and necessary cause.
These times call for words honed well and aimed with mortal intent. This is the year for writing dangerously.
Talons and raptors
We writers ought to take the threat of censorship as a dare to deserve the attention and enmity of the enemies of truth. They have given us something to write about and, mark these words, we will.
We readers ought to take the assault on press freedom as a call to exercise critical thinking—to sniff out and shun both propaganda and biased attacks; to examine the media ownership and authorship; to verify the veracity of contentions and the logic of arguments; and to seek not just entertainment and trivia, but literature and relevant knowledge. Nothing threatens the despotic and the corrupt more than an informed and empowered public. We will be that threat.
I was but 14 years old when my family and I joined the People Power Revolt of 1986. When the late dictator Marcos fled, I thought it would be a true revolution that would bring lasting change. How wrong I was.
I was among the first to stake my body at Edsa on the Second People Power Revolt of 2001. When we unseated President Estrada, I thought we had sent a warning to all politicians that the same fate awaited them should they turn to corruption. How wrong I was.
I remain steadfast to the ideals of people power. I still espouse revolution. I mean to be a threat to tyranny.
It takes a nation to save a nation. I am one among many. And I aim to make things right.
How NOT to write a feature
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/topofthehour.aspx?StoryId=89652
Society columnist quits over OFW bashing
Complaints sent via the Internet and through othery types of media led a Manila-based society columnist to resign from her job following her negative comments about overseas Filipino workers in the Middle East, ABS-CBN Middle East News Bureau reported Thursday.
Bureau chief Dindo Amparo reported that Filipinos in the Middle East proved they can make a difference by uniting for a cause against columnist Malu Fernandez.
In her column titled "From Boracay to Greece," which saw print on "People Asia" magazine, Fernandez detailed her unusual and spur of the moment Holy Week vacation in Greece.
Fernandez said that following a friend's advice, she flew on economy class to Greece. The plane made a stopover in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. It was her written observations during the flight and while in the city that got Fernandez in trouble.
“I forget that the hub was in Dubai and the majority of OFWs were stationed there. The duty-free shop was overrun with Filipino workers selling cell phones and perfume. I wanted to slash my wrist at the thought of being trapped in a plane with all of them,” she wrote.
Fernandez said this was aggravated when one of her fellow passengers spoke to her and said, “Hey there? Where are you from? Are you a domestic helper as well?"
The columnist went further by insinuating that due to the large number of OFWs in the plane wearing cheap perfumes, the expensive brand she had on immediately evaporated into thin air.
“I had resigned myself to being trapped like a sardine with all these OFWs smelling of AXE and Charlie cologne while my Jo Malone evaporated into thin air,” Fernandez said.
Based on prices from the Jo Malone Web site, a 100 ml bottle of cologne ranges from 30-59 British pounds (around 2,800-5,500 Philippine pesos).
Who's the diva?
Fernandez's statements spread like wildfire on the Internet and earned the ire of communities of Filipino workers abroad, especially in the Middle East.
The migrant workers immediately issued statements and sent e-mails to blogs expressing their anger against Fernandez.
The statements can be found at this special blog (http://selvo.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/mahaderang-matapobre-sa-ofws/#comment-1042).
To make matters worse, Fernandez wrote in her succeeding column in the "Manila Standard Today" that she was only being true to herself.
"Many people often find my direct attitude to be rude or obnoxious. I really don't mean to be anything but true to myself," she said.
"Now, I seriously ask you, am I being a diva or are people around me just lacking in common sense? Perhaps it's a little of both!" she added.
Her statements further enraged the Filipino workers. She later apologized.
“I am humbled by the vehement and heated response provoked by my article. To say that this article was not meant to malign, hurt or express prejudice against the OFWs now sounds hollow after reading through all the blogs from Filipinos all over the world,” Fernandez said in her latest statement on the online version of Manila Standard Today.
She added: “I am deeply apologetic for my insensitivity and the offensive manner in which this article was written, I hear you all and I am properly rebuked.
It was truly not my intention to malign hurt or express prejudice against OFWs.”
Fernandez admitted being insensitive and offensive, as she apologized to the OFWs for whatever she had written.
Sought for an interview by ABS-CBN, Fernandez declined.
She, however, sent a letter, saying, "I take full responsibility for my actions and my friends and family have nothing to do with this. To date I have submitted my resignation letters to both the Manila Standard and People Asia, on that note may this matter be laid to rest.”
Not yet finished
Meanwhile, abs-cbnNEWS.com received dozens of feedback e-mails against Fernandez after news broke out about her anti-OFW statements.
“We are already having a hard time here working under the hot climate, then we get a strong below the belt blow by our own kabayan who has totally no idea on being an OFW,” Francis Sangalang wrote from Dubai.
Another OFW, who declined to be named, said: “I seldom come across articles that bring my blood pressure up to a record high. This article by Malu Fernandez has led me to set a new personal record. To say that this is ‘nakakakunsumi’ (troubling) is an understatement of the highest degree.”
The special blog was also created to compile comments against Fernandez. The comments ranged from defending her column as being about perfumes to to downright below the belt statements.
Contract worker Florencio Laron wrote from Saudi Arabia and said, "All I have to say is that may breeding siya (masama nga lang) (only, it's bad) and she [doesn’t] deserve to be a Filipino.”
An anonymous e-mail sender, meanwhile, said, “Her side comments were uncalled for. She should have kept them to herself. This is bigotry at its purest. What’s worst is she did it to her fellow Filipinos. The bad part is her pathetic attempt to justify what she wrote.”
Information from the Web site of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration said a total of 462,545 OFWs or 58 percent of the total number of Filipinos employed abroad were in the Middle East as of last year.
Last year, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas said OFWs sent a total of US$12.6 billion in remittances to their families in the Philippines.
Let us reject those who thrive solely on self-promotion, simply coast along on their fortuitous circumstances or gloss over the ill-gotten or exploitative means of obtaining their wealth.
Let us reject those that brag about their prissiness, vanity and conceit as status symbols. Our articles should never denigrate those whose livelihoods lie in the service industry. They are professionals, not indentured servants.
Let us put a stop to name-dropping articles that do not serve the readers any useful information.
We must demand well-crafted, concise, engaging and insightful writing. We must demand true journalism.
If ever we do feature their ilk, let us be critical. Let us not add to the hype that buoys these people.
When we do feature high society personalities and "the beautiful people," they must have something more than good looks or rich and famous parents. They must be accomplished. They must possess character, talent and grit.
We should also do articles that highlight the natural beauty of our country and that espouse immersing ourselves in authentic local culture and environment in ways that preserve these.
Let us be critical in our reviews of products, services and properties to better serve the public. (Is it Filipino-owned/made? Does it give fair compensation to its laborers/suppliers? Is it environment friendly and humane to animals? Is it of true value?) Let us not put products a notch higher simply because they are imported or give preference to people simply because they are foreign.
Let us uphold Filipino archetypes of beauty and masculinity with models we can identify with and fashion we can use.
Let us value the power we have as media to shape popular culture.
Exemplary feature writing - Wired Magazine
Raising the Dead
By Noah Shachtman
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/matthews.html
Questions to ask:
- What captivates you about the story? Hoe does he paint a picture for the reader? Cite the passages that are most compelling for you.
- Who is the target audience for this publication? How does the story relate to them? Does the story appeal to other demographic groups as well, and if so, why?
- What "rules" did the writer break?
- How does the writer end the story? Why is it effective?
Breaking the spell
To read literature and journalism not as a reader but as a writer; to watch theater and cinema not as an audience wanting an escape but as a thespian, stagehand or director looking for a lesson; to taste food and wine not to satiate hunger or thirst but to deduce, judge and critique—these are the very opposite of enjoyment, entertainment and contentment (except, of course, for the smart-alecky, who are themselves the very opposite of enjoyment, entertainment and contentment to those around them).
Instead of suspending one’s disbelief and allowing one’s self to be swept away by a story, one is busy eyeing flaws and inconsistencies. Instead of savoring the magic and the mystery, one is dissecting its anatomy as one would a cadaver. Instead of getting drunk and savoring the moment, one is spitting it out to sample some more. It’s a shameful waste.
But as an artisan—whether one’s craft be literary, graphic, musical, theatrical or even culinary—to break the spell and break apart a piece of work to see what makes it tick is a necessity. True, with a critical eye, even masterpieces seem less megalithic and the masters less than immortal. Instead, we realize that even masterpieces are the works of mortals like you and I, doable by mortals such as you and I.
Summary of Class Activities February 12, 2008
- Explanation of syllabus, requirements and class format, most especially the class workshops and interactive digital media (blog)
- Expectation setting: who among the students truly wants to be a journalist, what they dream of becoming and why they honestly are studying in the Manila Times School of Journalism
- Read through of essay “To Feature Writers”
- Assignment
- Attendance and collation of emails
Rationale:
- To get to know one another and break the ice
- To establish candor and emphasis on practical learning
- To stress the necessity of attendance and punctuality as workshops form the bulk of class work
Attendance February 12, 2008
- Remedios Lucio
- Eiroll Manalo
- Katrina Guevarra
- Arnela Almirez
- Aileen Tandang
- Kristina de Leon
- John Basco
- Gwen Kangleon
- Franco Attento
- Aki Menor
- Yna de Leon - NOT ON OFFICIAL CLASS LIST
- Yuri Aguilar - ABSENT
- Allane Chiong - ABSENT
- Tomi Uysingco - ABSENT, NOT ON OFFICIAL CLASS LIST
Assignment 1.0, February 12, 2008
- Put up your class blog with photo & blog roll.
- Post & print copies of excellent feature writing.
- Buy and finish reading Strunk & White’s “The Elements of Style”
- Prepare for on-the-spot feature writing next class
- Read “For Feature Writers” by Rome Jorge
Monday, February 11, 2008
Name names
Are you one of those who forward chain emails that claim good fortune to those who resend them and a horrible fate to those who disregard such instructions, promos promising free I-pods and other prizes for simply spreading the message, dire warnings about brain-eating maggots hidden in sashimi or campaigns to “save” free access to Yahoo mail or Freindster.com by enjoining everyone to spam these companies with pleas from users?
Are you a blogger – a citizen-journalist empowered with a web log – who feels you are not accountable to the same ethics as mainstream journalists and can post anonymously without substantiation or through attributed research and firsthand sources or to temper opinions with balanced viewpoints and contextual information?
If you are, then you are being foolish. And you have to stop.
You are spreading unverified secondhand allegations, generalizations, rumors and rants from unaccredited or unaccountable resources. You are creating a culture of urban mythology and viral disinformation.
In the digital age where citizen journalists can have as much public presence and access as established mainstream media on the internet and where the doctrine of Web 2.0 espouses that content ought to come from the users themselves, truth and insight are lost amid a barrage of noise and lies. On the information highway, virtual stalking, pseudonym name-calling and avatar assassination are becoming commonplace, as was the case for Kathy Sierra atheadrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html. The World Wide Web is becoming a habitat for shysters, fear-mongers and wannabe pundits.
Here is another question:
Are you one of those who think we in the established media feel threatened by bloggers? This is a sentiment often expressed in heated online arguments between amateur journalists and their professional counterparts, as was the case on the comments page to the opinion page Tony Long, copy editor for Wired Magazine, atwww.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/theluddite/2007/04/luddite_0412. Quite a number of readers think that we mainstream media practitioners are entrenched elitists endangered by the rise of citizen journalists.
If you are, then you are mistaken and confused.
Established media entities will remain as they are – as the trusted sources of information – whether they publish with ink on murdered trees or with pixels on electronic screens. And we professional writers are not our publishers; adapting publishing’s business model to the virtual medium is not our prime concern.
The craft journalists possess remains necessary regardless of technology. The discipline and ethics of journalism comes not with the job title, but with the responsibility of having an audience. To exempt yourself from the rigors essential to truth telling is to forfeit your own credibility.
Technology - besides empowering the common man in nearly every endeavor: karaoke for singers, digital cameras for photographers and web logs for writers - has not only led to the democratization of the field but also to amateurism in content and craft, proving that tools alone do not make an artisan. What distinguishes a bona fide media organization is no longer its reach with audiences but its credibility to the public.
True, there is much we all can fault mainstream media: the blatant self-promotion of television networks of their own shows on their news programs, the favoring of know-nothing celebrity columnists and the regurgitation of press releases by newspapers, and the devolution of objective feature writing into slick advertorials in magazines. But again, these commercial considerations are the business of publishers; the true journalists among us persist within and without the system. And the faults of conventional media do not excuse exponents of the new media from not doing better.
Needless to say, there are many excellent examples of online amateur journalism. But these are still far from the norm.
We cannot pigeonhole blogs and other emerging technologies as simply venues for ranting. Those who clamor for accountability, accuracy and craft appreciate the technology’s potential. Those who persist in their amateurish ways stunt new media’s maturation.
I myself am both a professional journalist and a blogger.
Personally, it matters more that my writings appear on the web at www.manilatimes.net and my own blog.360.yahoo.com/hanepdesigns than on print. Any newspaper – no matter how relevant or insightful – will, by the end of the day, be nothing more than wrapping paper for Christmas décor, salted fish and dead bodies left on the highway. Any glossy magazine – no matter how glamorous or racy – will, after a few months, be nothing more than a dog-eared dust collector piled in a dentists’ waiting room. But what is published on the web is most often available 24/7 globally, free and reproducible without generation loss.
It also makes all the difference that I am a fulltime staff writer and columnist for a bona fide newspaper as well a regular cover story and features contributor to several established magazines. My livelihood depends on my writing. I am only as good as my last work. My real name is on every article and I can be sued, fired, corrected, castigated or even commended. I am accountable to my readers, to my editors and to my publishers. I take responsibility. It comes with the territory of being a writer, regardless of the medium.
The clamor for maturity in the new media is rising. Tim O'Rielly – internet guru, Web 2.0 exponent and mainstream publishing magnate – has proposed the Blogger's Code of Conduct. Its draft currently reads in part:
Read it in its entirety at radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html and apply it. And quit being foolish, mistaken and confused.
Are you a blogger – a citizen-journalist empowered with a web log – who feels you are not accountable to the same ethics as mainstream journalists and can post anonymously without substantiation or through attributed research and firsthand sources or to temper opinions with balanced viewpoints and contextual information?
If you are, then you are being foolish. And you have to stop.
You are spreading unverified secondhand allegations, generalizations, rumors and rants from unaccredited or unaccountable resources. You are creating a culture of urban mythology and viral disinformation.
In the digital age where citizen journalists can have as much public presence and access as established mainstream media on the internet and where the doctrine of Web 2.0 espouses that content ought to come from the users themselves, truth and insight are lost amid a barrage of noise and lies. On the information highway, virtual stalking, pseudonym name-calling and avatar assassination are becoming commonplace, as was the case for Kathy Sierra atheadrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html. The World Wide Web is becoming a habitat for shysters, fear-mongers and wannabe pundits.
Here is another question:
Are you one of those who think we in the established media feel threatened by bloggers? This is a sentiment often expressed in heated online arguments between amateur journalists and their professional counterparts, as was the case on the comments page to the opinion page Tony Long, copy editor for Wired Magazine, atwww.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/theluddite/2007/04/luddite_0412. Quite a number of readers think that we mainstream media practitioners are entrenched elitists endangered by the rise of citizen journalists.
If you are, then you are mistaken and confused.
Established media entities will remain as they are – as the trusted sources of information – whether they publish with ink on murdered trees or with pixels on electronic screens. And we professional writers are not our publishers; adapting publishing’s business model to the virtual medium is not our prime concern.
The craft journalists possess remains necessary regardless of technology. The discipline and ethics of journalism comes not with the job title, but with the responsibility of having an audience. To exempt yourself from the rigors essential to truth telling is to forfeit your own credibility.
Technology - besides empowering the common man in nearly every endeavor: karaoke for singers, digital cameras for photographers and web logs for writers - has not only led to the democratization of the field but also to amateurism in content and craft, proving that tools alone do not make an artisan. What distinguishes a bona fide media organization is no longer its reach with audiences but its credibility to the public.
True, there is much we all can fault mainstream media: the blatant self-promotion of television networks of their own shows on their news programs, the favoring of know-nothing celebrity columnists and the regurgitation of press releases by newspapers, and the devolution of objective feature writing into slick advertorials in magazines. But again, these commercial considerations are the business of publishers; the true journalists among us persist within and without the system. And the faults of conventional media do not excuse exponents of the new media from not doing better.
Needless to say, there are many excellent examples of online amateur journalism. But these are still far from the norm.
We cannot pigeonhole blogs and other emerging technologies as simply venues for ranting. Those who clamor for accountability, accuracy and craft appreciate the technology’s potential. Those who persist in their amateurish ways stunt new media’s maturation.
I myself am both a professional journalist and a blogger.
Personally, it matters more that my writings appear on the web at www.manilatimes.net and my own blog.360.yahoo.com/hanepdesigns than on print. Any newspaper – no matter how relevant or insightful – will, by the end of the day, be nothing more than wrapping paper for Christmas décor, salted fish and dead bodies left on the highway. Any glossy magazine – no matter how glamorous or racy – will, after a few months, be nothing more than a dog-eared dust collector piled in a dentists’ waiting room. But what is published on the web is most often available 24/7 globally, free and reproducible without generation loss.
It also makes all the difference that I am a fulltime staff writer and columnist for a bona fide newspaper as well a regular cover story and features contributor to several established magazines. My livelihood depends on my writing. I am only as good as my last work. My real name is on every article and I can be sued, fired, corrected, castigated or even commended. I am accountable to my readers, to my editors and to my publishers. I take responsibility. It comes with the territory of being a writer, regardless of the medium.
The clamor for maturity in the new media is rising. Tim O'Rielly – internet guru, Web 2.0 exponent and mainstream publishing magnate – has proposed the Blogger's Code of Conduct. Its draft currently reads in part:
- We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog. We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
- We connect privately before we respond publicly.
- When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action. We will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.
- We do not allow anonymous comments.
- We ignore the trolls. We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about our blog or us as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel.
Read it in its entirety at radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html and apply it. And quit being foolish, mistaken and confused.
Gender advocacy is a minefield
At the Lopez Jaena Fellowship on gender sensitivity I attended in 2005, a professor lectured against the male-dominated media that objectifies women in men’s magazines. Even gadget and car magazines featured women, she pointed out. She noted that most women felt bad about themselves after seeing unattainable role models in fashion magazines.
I had to remind her that the czar of today’s most widely read men’s magazine franchise as well as several international women’s fashion magazine titles is a woman.
I also observed that many gay magazines seem to be objectifying men on their covers.
Perhaps, instead of blaming men, we should blame technology. The advent of high quality printing has put the premium on visuals instead of text.
Perhaps, instead of suspecting gender bias, we should blame the physical world. You can project, but you cannot truly show intangible traits such as intellect or character on a photograph. But you can write about it. That’s why there’s text to go along with the pictures.
Perhaps we should blame human nature. The urge to idealize beauty is both ancient and universal. But just as the Greeks composed odes as well as they sculpted marble into gorgeous forms, so should we value women who have both substance and sensuality.
Perhaps we should blame greed. In the quest to dominate, many pander to the lowest common denominator and use the basest of appeals. Is it not enough to be simply profitable while still delivering compelling and intellectually stimulating content?
As many of you may know, there is no money in journalism, at least not for the writer. Personally, it helps clarify my motive for pursuing my craft, though proper compensation would be most welcome.
Besides writing for this newspaper, I also write for a women’s, a men’s and a lifestyle magazine (Mega, Manual and Lifestyle Asia). In my good fortune, The Manila Times as well as these magazines put a premium on content. All the women I’ve profiled have been truly beautiful – possessing minds, hearts and souls that are even more beguiling than their looks. And these publications choose to focus on such minds, hearts and souls.
Writers, photographers and publishers are much like readers; we all have choices. You are what you buy. You are what you sell. You are your work.
Starving writers working for free food?
Always, they feed us at theater press cons and exhibit openings. Often, they supply ready made articles called press releases. Sometimes, they giveaway boxes of cookies to encourage journalists to stay until the press con ends. But never have I personally experienced anyone doling out money on these events.
Do free meals, press passes and gifts compromise our objectivity as reporters? Are the events, performances and exhibits that see print not necessarily the best ones, but simply the ones with the best PR, the kind that lavishes writers food and gifts?
Some of the most vibrant exhibits I’ve seen are in hole-in-the-wall galleries such UFO, Penguin and Theo. Some of the most exhilarating performances I’ve witnessed are by little-know groups such as the Bitaw spoken-word troupe and The Dancing Wounded. All of them neither invite the media nor provide press kits with all the vital information. I can’t blame them.
“We stopped inviting the press. No one ever came,” remarks Norberto Roldan, proprietor of Green Papaya. Some come to conclude that no free food equates to no press coverage.
It is hard writing any sort of criticism about the current cultural scene; things are so desperate for local artists, any negative reportage is like kicking a man already down and out. But cultural reportage is harder still when artists make no effort to inform the media what they are about.
Some argue that no one can claim to be a “critic” in any field unless one pays for one’s own tickets and comes anonymously—no special treatments. But such an approach deprives one of inside information. Any audience can see for themselves, but only the reporter reveals to his public the context, insight and anecdotes privy to the press.
Newspaper journalism in the Philippines often pays peanuts. Newspaper journalists always lack time, busy as they are writing for daily publications. Unless a PR firm, government agency or institution pays for travel, the media organizations can ill afford to send reporters to distant events. And unless artists provide complete press kits regarding their work, harried journalists naturally favor those that provide biographies, synopsis, thesis and good photographs.
Many worthy exhibits and performance, despite excellent PR work, fail to get press coverage from reporters with conflicting schedules. Some story ideas, despite the lobbying of reporters, fail to see print as editors have precious little space to spare on their often-crowded pages.
Perseverance in work that hardly pays proves a journalist’s worth. Many do it for love rather than compensation or convenience. But anyone abusing such love is mean.
In the Life & Times section, free food and giveaways do not obligate us to write on performances or exhibits that later reveal themselves to be lacking newsworthiness. Unless deserving of compliments, we simply state the facts. Exceptionally distasteful works oblige us to warn the public. Press releases take a backseat to freshly written features. When press releases do see print, they are stripped of self-serving superlatives and endorsements.
The starving writer appreciates free food. But he loves true artistry even more.
Do free meals, press passes and gifts compromise our objectivity as reporters? Are the events, performances and exhibits that see print not necessarily the best ones, but simply the ones with the best PR, the kind that lavishes writers food and gifts?
Some of the most vibrant exhibits I’ve seen are in hole-in-the-wall galleries such UFO, Penguin and Theo. Some of the most exhilarating performances I’ve witnessed are by little-know groups such as the Bitaw spoken-word troupe and The Dancing Wounded. All of them neither invite the media nor provide press kits with all the vital information. I can’t blame them.
“We stopped inviting the press. No one ever came,” remarks Norberto Roldan, proprietor of Green Papaya. Some come to conclude that no free food equates to no press coverage.
It is hard writing any sort of criticism about the current cultural scene; things are so desperate for local artists, any negative reportage is like kicking a man already down and out. But cultural reportage is harder still when artists make no effort to inform the media what they are about.
Some argue that no one can claim to be a “critic” in any field unless one pays for one’s own tickets and comes anonymously—no special treatments. But such an approach deprives one of inside information. Any audience can see for themselves, but only the reporter reveals to his public the context, insight and anecdotes privy to the press.
Newspaper journalism in the Philippines often pays peanuts. Newspaper journalists always lack time, busy as they are writing for daily publications. Unless a PR firm, government agency or institution pays for travel, the media organizations can ill afford to send reporters to distant events. And unless artists provide complete press kits regarding their work, harried journalists naturally favor those that provide biographies, synopsis, thesis and good photographs.
Many worthy exhibits and performance, despite excellent PR work, fail to get press coverage from reporters with conflicting schedules. Some story ideas, despite the lobbying of reporters, fail to see print as editors have precious little space to spare on their often-crowded pages.
Perseverance in work that hardly pays proves a journalist’s worth. Many do it for love rather than compensation or convenience. But anyone abusing such love is mean.
In the Life & Times section, free food and giveaways do not obligate us to write on performances or exhibits that later reveal themselves to be lacking newsworthiness. Unless deserving of compliments, we simply state the facts. Exceptionally distasteful works oblige us to warn the public. Press releases take a backseat to freshly written features. When press releases do see print, they are stripped of self-serving superlatives and endorsements.
The starving writer appreciates free food. But he loves true artistry even more.
The peg that stumbles
Is producing a Filipino version of a foreign trend your idea of creativity?
Do you use a “peg?”
You get to hear that word a lot in publishing, design and entertainment.
A “peg” is that trendy magazine you show your photographer, your stylist and your model and say, “I want the same lighting, the same treatment and the same look.”
A “peg” is that trendy foreign website your client shows you and your Web design team when he tells you that he wants something “very similar.”
A “peg” is that catchy but obscure decades-old song that you tweak and overlay with Filipino lyrics and claim as your own. And when people notice the uncanny resemblance you say, “They were just ‘influences.’”
Recently, allegations surfaced that the song “Pinoy Ako” by the band Orange and Lemons resembled “Chandelier” by The Care; that “Stay” by Cueshé resembled “The Greatest View” by Silverchair; and that “Leaving You” by Session Road resembled “Garmonbozia” by Superdrag. In their defense, these bands used the words “peg” and “influences” quite liberally.
Buy, download and listen to the songs. You be the judge.
And that’s precisely the problem. Regardless of what lawyers say, we the buying public are the judges. Our lack of patronage can be the death sentence for local creative industries. And sadly, some might deserve it.
The music industry is but one of many accused of crossing the line between using foreign influences as pegs and ripping them off. The majority of local television programs, magazines, movies and advertisements have become formulaic.
With rampant piracy, dwindling local movie patronage, poor reading habits and apathy toward commercials the people and their wallets have spoken.
Filipinos can tell. Many read the same foreign magazines, watch the same foreign movies, listen to the same foreign albums and browse the same foreign websites. Anyone with access to originals will prefer those to local knock-offs.
Putting a local face on a foreign trend no longer passes muster with the increasingly informed tastes of Filipinos. A derivative of a foreign influence lacks identity; if you can copy it, so too can others. We want something truly fresh and new.
Local musicians cannot expect support as they decry piracy when they themselves practice plagiarism.
Local designers cannot expect international recognition when their works are obvious rip-offs.
Local publishers and movie companies cannot expect patronage when their productions are but poor copies of the foreign competition.
Using a creative peg is an effective marketing and communication strategy; if it worked for them it should work for you. Everything comes from something and we all need our inspirations and influences. Benchmarks prod us to surpass them. Pegs, when properly used, can lead to originality.
But if we aspire for radical innovation, insights into the Filipino soul and timeless artistry, we should look to ourselves, to what we intimately know and yet perhaps overlook.
“Filipino” should be more than just a theme we occasionally use. It should be our main preoccupation. There are endless interpretations and innovations that can be made of our own culture. Each Filipino has a different homeland in his mind. Who we are is polyglot, constantly mutating and inclusive. And that is our strength. Our culture is so much uncharted territory; there is room for every Filipino’s imagination.
Oi! read this, you hacks!
Plagiarism and idea theft is rife in the digital age. Documents and websites of published stories can be cut and pasted by hacks into rehashed articles with a click of a mouse.
Everything comes from somewhere else. Nearly everyone is copying without permission these days. But these are not excuses to steal ideas or plagiarize. That’s bollocks.
It does not matter whether ripping off is common practice or not. Ethics is not dictated by popularity; morality is not decided by consensus.
Translations, spoofs and intertextuality are all well and good. But you have to acknowledge your influences and sources. And you have to honor them with your own excellence.
One’s writing, when inspired or derived from another work, only becomes original when one takes it further or injects something from one’s own experience, generation and culture.
Cinema and music illustrate well the defining line between originals and copycats.
The movie "Kill Bill" borrows heavily from Hong Kong Kung Fu features and Japanese animé. But though Quentin Tarantino’s movies are obvious tributes to his influences, they still possess that unique Tarantino signature. He gets away with it because he’s good at it and because he’s very much Quentin Tarantino.
In the music business, there are only two good reasons to cover somebody else’s song: Either you do it better or do it different. Edwin Starr remade George Harrison’s Hare Krishna anthem “My Sweet Lord” into a southern gospel song. The Black Crowes amplified and electrified Otis Redding’s sweet and soulful “Hard to Handle” to create kick-ass blues rock.
But unlike plagiarism where the similarity of words can be proven in a court of law, idea theft is harder to substantiate. Different executions can produce very different results from the same concept. Ideas, intangible as they are, have no proof of their existence until they have been drafted or published.
Yet ideas do have value. It is original ideas, and not just fine execution, that elevates the artist above mere artisans.
Certain magazines discourage their staff from associating with those of the competition for fear of story ideas being leaked. Advertisers have lost jobs because of loose talk on elevators. We in The Manila Times refrain from contributing to establishments that have conflicting, compromising or competing interests.
But what if a writer repeatedly features the same people and places one already wrote a year ago and uses the same contacts to further themselves? It happens all the time. Bollocks?
I say never mind the bollocks. Good writers aren’t one-hit-wonders. While copycats cling onto stolen words, gifted writers produce good stories prodigiously. Let the hacks rot as hacks.
Everything comes from somewhere else. Nearly everyone is copying without permission these days. But these are not excuses to steal ideas or plagiarize. That’s bollocks.
It does not matter whether ripping off is common practice or not. Ethics is not dictated by popularity; morality is not decided by consensus.
Translations, spoofs and intertextuality are all well and good. But you have to acknowledge your influences and sources. And you have to honor them with your own excellence.
One’s writing, when inspired or derived from another work, only becomes original when one takes it further or injects something from one’s own experience, generation and culture.
Cinema and music illustrate well the defining line between originals and copycats.
The movie "Kill Bill" borrows heavily from Hong Kong Kung Fu features and Japanese animé. But though Quentin Tarantino’s movies are obvious tributes to his influences, they still possess that unique Tarantino signature. He gets away with it because he’s good at it and because he’s very much Quentin Tarantino.
In the music business, there are only two good reasons to cover somebody else’s song: Either you do it better or do it different. Edwin Starr remade George Harrison’s Hare Krishna anthem “My Sweet Lord” into a southern gospel song. The Black Crowes amplified and electrified Otis Redding’s sweet and soulful “Hard to Handle” to create kick-ass blues rock.
But unlike plagiarism where the similarity of words can be proven in a court of law, idea theft is harder to substantiate. Different executions can produce very different results from the same concept. Ideas, intangible as they are, have no proof of their existence until they have been drafted or published.
Yet ideas do have value. It is original ideas, and not just fine execution, that elevates the artist above mere artisans.
Certain magazines discourage their staff from associating with those of the competition for fear of story ideas being leaked. Advertisers have lost jobs because of loose talk on elevators. We in The Manila Times refrain from contributing to establishments that have conflicting, compromising or competing interests.
But what if a writer repeatedly features the same people and places one already wrote a year ago and uses the same contacts to further themselves? It happens all the time. Bollocks?
I say never mind the bollocks. Good writers aren’t one-hit-wonders. While copycats cling onto stolen words, gifted writers produce good stories prodigiously. Let the hacks rot as hacks.
Cross cultural ponderings
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/sept/05/yehey/life/20050905lif4.html
CULTURE VULTURE
By Rome Jorge
Cross dressers and cross cultural ponderings
"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
- Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi
ON September 2, I watched Repertory Philippine’s “Taming of the Shrew” at the On Stage Theater at Greenbelt 1. Despite my lack of sleep, their rendition of the William Shakespeare’s immortal comedy was a raucous romp of unrelenting hilarity that kept me awake and chuckling. What tickled the audience the most was its adherence to one theater convention of Shakespeare’s time; men played all the parts. Women were banished from the stage. To emphasize the point, the actors put on their dresses for the next scene at center stage.
Just as with traditional Japanese theater, Renaissance men played women’s parts because women on stage were thought to be too alluring and verging on prostitution.
Here I was, watching a play by Filipinos with English accents set in Italy. It was funny and cool. But it also got me thinking.
Shakespeare set most of his plays in Italy because it was the seat of culture of the Renaissance, the superpower of Christendom. Did he ever try to write his play in Italian or require his actors to speak with Italian accents? Did he ever feel like a phony for not ever having been to Italy? If he could, would he go, write and cast Italian? Would his play be less the epitome of English literature had he been a stickler for authenticity?
Shakespeare is regarded as the world’s foremost playwright. But had the British Empire not colonized half the world and stunted and trampled the growth of a hundred cultures, would he still be as highly regarded? Perhaps he would be what Goethe is to English speakers. Or perhaps he would still be more.
Shakespeare’s latinophilia seems anachronistic and downright ironic today, since his works are regarded as the benchmark of the English literature. As immortal and timeless as his works may be, even his morality seems outdated.
Updated versions of “Taming of the Shrew” such as the movie Ten Thing I Hate About You have turned the originals’ chauvinistic approach on relationships on its head and become lighthearted treatises on female empowerment, men’s egos and all that we do for love. They have to—because the moral conventions of Shakespeare’s time are insufferable to today’s audience.
And while the immortal lines from the “Merchant of Venice”—”If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”—are often cited to counter bigotry and anti-Semitism, his stereotypical portrayal of a Jewish moneylender is simply racist.
Shakespeare wrote his plays at a time when English was not the world’s lingua franca. Back then, their economy and military could not guarantee their culture as the world’s currency. And yet, despite living in a backwater country and burdened with latino philia, he trudged on and forged a new national culture almost single handedly.
Today at the dawn of the 21st century, at a time when so-called Western civilization totters between avarice and anarchy, Islam is the fastest growing religion, and China is an unstoppable economic superpower on the rise, we are the most Westernized and Christianized Asians. Even in the postcolonial era dominated by Westernization and Christianity, we were second-class citizens at best. In a future dominated by Asia, us westernized Filipinos may not fit in. But even then, in this third-world, backwater country of ours hobbled with colonial mentality, some writer in some shabby room may be forging the defining literature of Filipino culture. Imagine that.
CULTURE VULTURE
By Rome Jorge
Cross dressers and cross cultural ponderings
"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
- Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi
ON September 2, I watched Repertory Philippine’s “Taming of the Shrew” at the On Stage Theater at Greenbelt 1. Despite my lack of sleep, their rendition of the William Shakespeare’s immortal comedy was a raucous romp of unrelenting hilarity that kept me awake and chuckling. What tickled the audience the most was its adherence to one theater convention of Shakespeare’s time; men played all the parts. Women were banished from the stage. To emphasize the point, the actors put on their dresses for the next scene at center stage.
Just as with traditional Japanese theater, Renaissance men played women’s parts because women on stage were thought to be too alluring and verging on prostitution.
Here I was, watching a play by Filipinos with English accents set in Italy. It was funny and cool. But it also got me thinking.
Shakespeare set most of his plays in Italy because it was the seat of culture of the Renaissance, the superpower of Christendom. Did he ever try to write his play in Italian or require his actors to speak with Italian accents? Did he ever feel like a phony for not ever having been to Italy? If he could, would he go, write and cast Italian? Would his play be less the epitome of English literature had he been a stickler for authenticity?
Shakespeare is regarded as the world’s foremost playwright. But had the British Empire not colonized half the world and stunted and trampled the growth of a hundred cultures, would he still be as highly regarded? Perhaps he would be what Goethe is to English speakers. Or perhaps he would still be more.
Shakespeare’s latinophilia seems anachronistic and downright ironic today, since his works are regarded as the benchmark of the English literature. As immortal and timeless as his works may be, even his morality seems outdated.
Updated versions of “Taming of the Shrew” such as the movie Ten Thing I Hate About You have turned the originals’ chauvinistic approach on relationships on its head and become lighthearted treatises on female empowerment, men’s egos and all that we do for love. They have to—because the moral conventions of Shakespeare’s time are insufferable to today’s audience.
And while the immortal lines from the “Merchant of Venice”—”If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”—are often cited to counter bigotry and anti-Semitism, his stereotypical portrayal of a Jewish moneylender is simply racist.
Shakespeare wrote his plays at a time when English was not the world’s lingua franca. Back then, their economy and military could not guarantee their culture as the world’s currency. And yet, despite living in a backwater country and burdened with latino philia, he trudged on and forged a new national culture almost single handedly.
Today at the dawn of the 21st century, at a time when so-called Western civilization totters between avarice and anarchy, Islam is the fastest growing religion, and China is an unstoppable economic superpower on the rise, we are the most Westernized and Christianized Asians. Even in the postcolonial era dominated by Westernization and Christianity, we were second-class citizens at best. In a future dominated by Asia, us westernized Filipinos may not fit in. But even then, in this third-world, backwater country of ours hobbled with colonial mentality, some writer in some shabby room may be forging the defining literature of Filipino culture. Imagine that.
The power of the media
Television networks often cite the power of the media in influencing popular culture. But when held accountable for the distracting and mindless entertainment they peddle, they contradict themselves and reason that they are only giving the audiences what they want.
Simply satisfying the wants of the market is the excuse of pornographers and drug pushers.
The masses do not lack taste; folksy and bold does not equate to ugly and offensive. The masses do not lack intelligence; one needs to talk a different language instead of dumbing down content and talking down to audiences.
What is artistic and thought provoking need not be boring. What is exciting and fun need not be gratuitous and empty.
Value formation and entertainment are not separate. Child protection advocacies are not atonement for entertainment that objectifies women and causes truancy among children. Rather, entertainment can be a powerful medium for value formation and an inspiration for hard work.
The public deserves to be given healthy and uplifting choices, not the excuses of pornographers and drug pushers.
Journalist ethics vs. business interests
In the age where news corporations need to consolidate with other businesses to prosper, conflicts of interest arise, calling into question media’s impartiality.
News, when it devolves into self-promotion of its network’s celebrities, public relations for its allied companies and damage control for its disasters, is not news at all.
The problem is a global one: Can Time magazine and CNN entertainment give unbiased movie reviews of Warner Brothers films? What of promotions of MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks in fellow Viacom companies? Can ABC News report incisively into allegations that Disney is subcontracting sweatshops that exploit underpaid workers in developing countries to produce its merchandise? What of stock reports of Microsoft on NBC?
The problem is also very much a local one: Can ABC-5 report fairly on Cojuangco investments such as the Philippine Long Distance Co.? Can ABS-CBN deliver unbiased news regarding Lopez-owned businesses such the Meralco, Maynilad and the North Expressway? In this case, can ABS-CBN give fair reportage and analysis of the Wowowee stampede?
What remains unsaid and unwritten speaks louder.
Why we blog
The predicament of online public journals: blogs are both very private and very public. How much do we show?
There's no point in a blog that no one reads.
Honest, insightful and revealing entries earn a reader's respect and rapport. There is both a voyeuristic and a literary pleasure in reading someone's candid thoughts and well-crafted words for the day. We smile upon wit and humor. We admire brave and reckless honesty. We appreciate humanity revealed.
On the other hand, guarded, contrived and self-serving posts turn readers away. We are already inundated by slogans and make-believe. Self-censorship is dishonesty. "No more lies," any decent reader demands.
For the writer, the blog is an instrument of clarity.
Deciding how much to reveal separates candor from insensitivity, value from vanity, courage from exhibitionism.
By writing we verbalize our thoughts. By editing we trash our noise. By publishing we dare ourselves. By blogging we connect with our friends and future friends.
But there are risks.
There are one-too-many stalkers, creeps and jerks. Those who may hound us are punished by their own wasted time and money. And judicious writing allows us intimacy without embarrassment. But even our aliases can suffer from flames, spams and hacks.
Honesty is no guarantee for understanding. Liars believe no one. Thieves trust no one. Idiots read no one.
But just as there are many good blogs, there are many more kind readers.
Understanding writers
We write because we are not rock stars:
Writing is a public performance by a shy artist for an audience of one. Singers and actors have their stage and their spotlight; they reap the applause and risk the jeers of a crowd that pays to face them. Writers speak through newsprint and 72 pixels-per-inch to people lost to themselves in trains, offices and Internet cafes. Ours is a quiet craft for distant strangers.
We write because it is a dare:
Publishing commits us to our own assertions and opinions. We dare to make a stand with what we print. Writing is premeditated. Our writing is everyone’s damning evidence; with it we can free others or hang ourselves. Writing makes us responsible and brave. Or it kills us.
We write because you read:
Never a captive audience, the reader who can dismiss us with a flip of a page or a press of a button keeps us sharp. For your reading pleasure we hone our craft. For your attention we entertain with wit, fact and insight. We avoid stumbling or boring you with one too many words. The writer, like a waiter, draws attention not to himself but to what he serves.
We write because we are more than our selves:
Words are all that we leave behind. Without writing, all that we are and all that we know last only as long as memory. With writing we live well beyond our lives. With our words we will be known.
We write because we are writers:
Writing is our honesty. With words we label thoughts lurking at the back of our heads, tame problems entangling our hearts and frame memories that cloud our sight. With our writing we make sense of our lives and of our world. Like honesty, writing can sunder friendships and shatter dreams. Yet we write because our truth demands it.
We write because words lead to actions:
All good writing is ultimately motivational. With words we question, reveal, provoke and move you. Reading is not the end of writing. Writing is the part we play. You the reader need to find and act upon yours.
Writing is a public performance by a shy artist for an audience of one. Singers and actors have their stage and their spotlight; they reap the applause and risk the jeers of a crowd that pays to face them. Writers speak through newsprint and 72 pixels-per-inch to people lost to themselves in trains, offices and Internet cafes. Ours is a quiet craft for distant strangers.
We write because it is a dare:
Publishing commits us to our own assertions and opinions. We dare to make a stand with what we print. Writing is premeditated. Our writing is everyone’s damning evidence; with it we can free others or hang ourselves. Writing makes us responsible and brave. Or it kills us.
We write because you read:
Never a captive audience, the reader who can dismiss us with a flip of a page or a press of a button keeps us sharp. For your reading pleasure we hone our craft. For your attention we entertain with wit, fact and insight. We avoid stumbling or boring you with one too many words. The writer, like a waiter, draws attention not to himself but to what he serves.
We write because we are more than our selves:
Words are all that we leave behind. Without writing, all that we are and all that we know last only as long as memory. With writing we live well beyond our lives. With our words we will be known.
We write because we are writers:
Writing is our honesty. With words we label thoughts lurking at the back of our heads, tame problems entangling our hearts and frame memories that cloud our sight. With our writing we make sense of our lives and of our world. Like honesty, writing can sunder friendships and shatter dreams. Yet we write because our truth demands it.
We write because words lead to actions:
All good writing is ultimately motivational. With words we question, reveal, provoke and move you. Reading is not the end of writing. Writing is the part we play. You the reader need to find and act upon yours.
To feature writers
A homonym pair distinguishes feature writing from news writing and personal journals: “insight” and “incite.” In a manner of speaking, feature writing always ought to be sensuous and arousing, revelatory and epiphanic. May libog.
So what?
“So what?”— If a reader must ask, then you, the writer, are not doing your job. Your work should explain itself. Get to the point. And make it worth getting there.
You are always selling the idea why they should even bother reading you. Entertain, beguile, thrill, tickle and inform constantly. You have a fickle and rude audience ready to leave your performance at the slightest annoyance or confusion with a turn of page or a click of a button.
Hook them with your lead paragraph. If you must take readers through the long scenic route, grab them by the lapels and give them a hell of a ride with the most vigorous and vivid writing.
Show; don’t tell. Writing is a visual and experiential medium. Make them see it, smell it and feel it.
There are several ways to hook your readers with your lead paragraph: take them there and put them in the middle of the action, fascinate them with an intriguing proposition—the very rationale of your article, or start off with an arresting quote.
Confess what the fuss is all about on the secondary paragraphs by plainly answering what, where, when, why and how or your readers will desert you. Continue to build up on the basic facts with context and anecdotes.
Maintain the same theme, tense, metaphors, point-of-view and cadence to maintain one’s spell over the reader. Onomatopoeia, alliteration and other literary devices allow for a smooth and harmonious flow of words. Structure your article to provide the reader a seamless literary experience.
Don’t try to say too much in one go. Break up compound sentences and trim awkward multiple adjectives.
If you must, say out loud what you write to expose clumsy, overwrought and vague sentences. This is why bilingual writers should speak and think in the language they write. At its best, writing is conversational—conversation that is eloquent. Avoid speaking in slang unless that is the way you intend to write. Ascertain the meaning and usage of idiomatic expressions. Don’t write what you wouldn’t dare say out loud.
Always prefer active sentences—such as "The crazed editor murdered every single one his unrepentant contributors,"—over passive sentences—such as "The unrepentant contributors were murdered by the crazed editor,"—to craft vigorous writing. The only time passive sentences are preferred is when one wants to emphasize the passivity and victimhood of those receiving the action.
Less is more. Mean more by using less words.
Precise verbs are more descriptive than a carbuncle of superfluous adjectives. “The corpulent statesman, despite all his famed oratory power, wheezed, whimpered and muttered his dying words” is a much more vigorous sentence than “The politician who was a bit on the round side said his last words feebly and with much difficulty.”
Vague adjectives do not say anything. Be specific. In what way was she beautiful—voluptuous or waiflike, virginal or femme fetale?
When asked to lengthen stories, do not use more words. Instead, use more information. Historical context, cultural significance, dos and don’ts, explanations in layman’s terms of technical aspects, expert testimonials, and eyewitness anecdotes all add value to your writing, be it as part of your feature or as an accompanying sidebar.
A first person perspective is not an excuse for apologetic and lame writing (“in my humble opinion,” “perhaps,” or “I think”). You cannot expect readers to believe you if you’re not sure of yourself.
On the other hand, a first person account is not a license for one-sided or unsubstantiated assertions. Expert testimonials, attributed factual sources and balanced viewpoints both arm and armor the journalist with credibility, especially with high-stakes, libel-prone topics.
End the same way you began—with a return to the same imagery and metaphor that compelled your reader to venture into your writing. If you cast Pops Fernandez as Eve, Mary Magdalene and Virgin Mary, then end with a return to biblical metaphors.
What can I tell that readers can’t find out by themselves?
There is a reason why reporters are privy to rehearsals, interviews and previews. Give the reader something only you can provide. That is your insight.
Writing about the ballerinas of Ballet Philippines, reveal the hardships that never show in their seemingly effortless performances. Writing about a sensuous celebrity such a Chinggay Andrada, Sheree or Iya Villania for a men’s magazine such as Manual, divulge and detail the rapport and intimacy between you and the interviewee —something most men will never experience—instead of instinctively eschewing such color in the name of objectivity and professionalism.
Journalism is a matter of trust. You must believe your assignment is worth writing. You must trust the wisdom of your editor. If you cannot see it his way, take a fresh perspective.
Asked to interview a feng-shui geomancer, a non-believer would do well to entertain his readers with humorous skepticism. Asked to cover a bikini fashion show, a male reporter would do well to advice readers on what appropriate Speedo swimsuit a man should buy his girlfriend. Never feign expertise you do not possess or beliefs you do not share. Honesty is intriguing and candor fresh. It is your angle.
Be it tech gadget reviews, makeup tips or relationship advice, what you write can and should be bona fide journalism. All the responsibilities and principles of the craft still apply.
Journalism hinges on opportunity. And opportunity is everywhere. Never belittle an assignment. A narrative art that shares many of the same devices and structures as fiction, feature writing draws all its content from real life—a source of stories stranger than fiction.
A good journalist never wastes his chances. He researches his subjects before an interview or press conference. He knows what to ask and what to look for. Foregoing well-trodden topics, he explores further with probing questions or forges a startling new direction.
By showing an interest in his subject, a reporter gains his subject’s confidence. People want to talk. It is in anyone’s nature to confess to those who understand and share their likes.
Who am I talking to?
One’s target audience determines one’s language, tone and approach. Writing is not about showing off your mastery of the language or expressing your own individuality; these occur while providing the reader the information he needs and wants. A writer ought to be like a waiter, drawing attention not to himself but to what he serves. You are not writing to brag about all the fancy words you know, who you’ve been with and where you’ve gone. You are there to explain in plain English to those who don’t know enough. That’s why they read—to learn from you.
Use sward-speak consistently for a feature on the gay musicale Zsazsa Zathurnah or rap lingo for an article on Nike’s hip-hop aerobics video. Beyond mere language, one’s approach and angle must cater to your audience. Writing about a famous celebrity such as Ruffa Gutierrez for a women’s magazine as Mega, do not waste words retelling her long history – these are things the magazine’s readers know well enough.
Every genre of journalism has its own language. The music critics of Rolling Stone Magazine have their own manner of writing and so too do the fashion police at E! But speaking the established language of your genre is not an excuse for horrid grammar or conversational blather. Whatever voice you choose to write in, in should be still be intelligible to everyone. Expand your readership. Educate and elevate them. Do not exclude anyone by indulging in the usage of unexplained terminology of a particular subculture.
Journalism is timely, hence the name. For a feature to be relevant to its readers, writers must meet deadlines.
If the only time you give thought to how you are to write an article is when your fingers are upon the keyboard, then you are screwed. Think about it while in traffic, in the shower or before going to bed. Learn to write on demand, without any ceremony, lucky charms or special settings.
“Writer’s block” is nothing more than the lack of information. Often, one feels overwhelmed by the volume of information simply because one has yet to sort relevant facts. We write not what we already know but what we want to know.
Content determines organization. One’s approach becomes apparent as you discern your materials, much the same way a sculptor envisions his creation by looking at the stone at hand, seeing potential from its limitations, allowing the shape and grain of his raw material to determine his method of attack. For example, an article on health can be divided into body parts or one on history by epochs.
The creative process is nothing more than recognizing a doable yet worthy objective, then tackling technical challenges, one after another, to achieve that goal.
What do I want to happen?
The end of all writing is not to be read, but to provoke action. Having armed readers with the pertinent information to change their lives, incite them. Make them salivate for foie gras, thirst for pinot noir or make them reconsider eating dead animal carcasses and instead switch to a vegan lifestyle. All good writing is motivational. However, sermons are boring and offensive. The readers’ choices and opinions are for them to make for themselves. You must presume intelligence, free will and wisdom on their part. You must believe in your readers as well.
Believe in your profession. Enjoy your livelihood; you will spend more time at work than you ever will on vacations or at home. Your loyalty is to your craft. Your portfolio, your resume and your reputation are what you take with you. The rigors, ethics, science and craft of journalism stem not from any job title or convention; they are intrinsic to any publication of fact, regardless of medium or technology. We owe the strangers we write for feature stories that are truthful, concise and compelling.
Syllabus
Journ-111 Feature Writing Class Tuesdays 9am-12nn
Manila Times School of Journalism
- The principles of concise and vigorous feature writing
- Required reading: “The Elements of Style” by Strunk and White
- Finding samples of excellent features and deconstructing why they work
- Reading as a writer: differentiating between excellent and terrible writing and noting what works
- Breaking down the feature article into its parts
a. Hooking the reader with the lead paragraph
b. Following through with detail and consistency
c. Ending where you began
- On-the-spot writing assignments
- Writing a minimum number of words under time pressure
- Filling a feature with more information instead of just more words
- Finding your story, your angle and your voice
- Why there is no such thing as writer’s block
- Feature writing assignments that include interviews and research
- Balancing viewpoints
- Attributing sources
- Firsthand information
- Mastering the art of the interview
- Blogsite writing
- Accountability and readership response
- Against indulgent and self-promotional writing
- Writing for an interactive medium
- Class workshops
- Constructive criticism of each other’s work
- Editing one’s own work: good writing is rewriting
- Weekly Q&A
- Real world experiences and anecdotes
- Ideals vs. reality: how budgetary constraints, the reliance on public relations materials and advertising considerations affect journalistic integrity
- Attendance
On assignments and workshop materials:
Always print enough copies for all your fellow students, yourself and the professor.
Always email a soft copy in word document.
Post all assignments on your feature writing class blog.
Email format:
Subject: student_(full name)_(assignment)
Attach word file
Word file format:
student_(full name)_(assignment).doc
12 pts, Times New Roman
Single space
No paragraph indentions
Line space between paragraphs
Black text no highlights
No all caps
No images
Normal view
100 percent zoom
Blog format:
Distinct from personal blog
No background music, animation or videos
Commentable and viewable to the public
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
