“If I’d written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people—including me—would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.” ( Hunter Thompson, 1937 – 2005 U.S. writer and journalist).
The Anti-Pinoy is a blog site which is critical at Filipinos in general and at times at Filipino Voices, another blog about the Philippines, her people and the politicians that bleed the country dry.
Anti-Pinoy has incisive writers with one dimensional view asserting their monopoly of patriotism and the truth. Here is a snippet of their self-righteous delusion:
So why does my post have to undergo your review? And why should I trust that your scissors are different than the scissors at FV?
I don’t do scissors – there’s a vetting process – and you know how that went.
Jcc got pwned haha!
hahahaha.. vetting process. you think you can also be mutawa policemen or fashion police only this time you want to police individual’s right to expression. you love to preach but would not want to be preached upon…hahahahahaa…
let’s put it this way. you bet on the wrong horse. the ship has left the port. next time, be on time. tough luck. deal with it.
you have Aquino your President..
and we have AP the blog..
can’t have the cake and eat it too.
its shakesperean language for “doublespeak”.
you don’t want balance.. its a pity that FV which you and Bencard have accused as one-dimensional and would make a lot of noise about it only to impose it on your own turf.. talking of revolutionaries who freed their own people only to enslave them later… so why accused other people of hypocrisy when you have your own?
@jcc: MSM already provides the balance – LOTS and LOTS of it.
We’re already providing balance too… MSM and the 3-headed monster is providing so much of the triumphalism and personalistic culture we’re so against, so we’re the voice in the wilderness screaming against the vultures. The dichotomy is rather clear here – you’re either for the truth or not. You’re for the truth, go AP. You don’t believe in AP’s truth, you find a place for your concoction of truth.
I understand that people have different views from ours — hell, you’d be surprised at the degree our views differ from each other’s within our group — but we’re not in the business of publishing “all possible views,” and I’m pretty certain (since I’m the one that wrote most of the “About” declaration) that we’ve never misled anybody into thinking that was what we’re here for.
Do you, for example, post pieces that oppose your personal views on your own blog? Of course you don’t. I don’t on mine, either. And I’d bet that neither one of us thinks there’s anything wrong with that at all, and I don’t see where the fact that AP happens to be a collaboration automatically renders that standard inoperative.
If our audience wants to find a “balance” to our point of view, they can find it elsewhere; and as a matter of fact, we encourage them to do that, and then come back and share what they’ve learned in the discussion. Not saying that we — or is more often the case, our other readers — won’t hammer the hell out of them in the comment threads, and I suppose a lot of people find that intimidating, but we welcome everyone and neither block nor modify (apart from an automatic tool that takes the edge of some of the profanity) anyone’s participation. That was the issue with FV, not the content per se — although to be accurate FV always presented itself as a “balanced” collection of voices, which eventually did become misleading, unlike us. That’s the difference; they didn’t tolerate the dissent. We say bring it on, if you think you can — if you have an alternative point of view to something that’s been written, make your best case in the comments and prepare to defend yourself.
But as far as putting up an article espousing views that significantly run counter to ours (and yours do) just for the sake of objectivity or “balance”, I see no purpose in that. We’re here to make a specific assertion, or rather a continuous series of assertions, not to serve as some neutral information portal. With all due respect, since I realize probably can’t avoid sounding arrogant but I’m otherwise trying not to be discourteous, the success of AP tends to confirm the effectiveness of how we do things around here. It’s just not for everybody, I suppose.
just dream this out guys… “what if tomorrow you find yourselves the owners of the 3-headed hydra you conveniently labelled, MSM, therefore, these fora would be one-dimensional channels for Anti-Pinoy sentiments” that would not accept any views contrary to yours, except if those contrary views appear as a footnote.
The MSM, right now, is better off, though it is not in your own deluded sense, ideal, because it is capable of tolerating dissent and opinions contrary to yours. You talk of liberation of the mind, but yours is as closed as the people you want rescued from their own ignorance. How pathetic!
you are nothing but a bunch of delusional and pathetic people who wallow in the idea that you have the monopoly of patriotism and the truth!
We will let the market decide – it’s a free market .
AP is a corporate entity with its own set of values on which it will sink or swim.
Speaking of ignorance – hey, AP didn’t vote for Aquino YOU JCC VOTED FOR AQUINO ..
There were 15 million people who voted for Aquino. He was inaugurated President and the people spoke their choice. Who was your presidential candidate? If he lost the election, you should bow to the choice of the majority already. If you have no candidate, then you must be one of those red-waiving flag on the street, which, incidentally some of them had joined the NP.
Democracy is about the rule of the majority, though they may be ignorant majority. There is no civilization yet on earth that devised a system that only the “intelligent” people like you should vote for their leaders. If they happened to choose one who, in your approximation is not deserving president, wallow in that in your private moments, for right now, the ignorant majority had spoken and you must learn to live with it rather than be cynical about their choice and impose your own deluding self-righteousness.
Adlai Stevenson, a presidential candiate put it more succinctly after making an inspiring speech and was aproached by a woman who said: “Every right-thinking” individual should vote for you”. He replied: “That’s not enough, we need the majority”.