james.soriano

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 18 March 2009 Issue

Lately, open parties have been the object of much criticism and disapproval. After some heightened coverage by certain media and news establishments, the issue has reached controversial, even scandalous proportions. I’m not sure the issue deserves this much publicity, and given the power of the media to set the agenda for society by defining what we will consider as important issues, I’m not sure I approve of it.

Still, I understand the fear that parents and other interested onlookers collectively feel about open parties, given the way it has been portrayed. The fact that the barkadas who organize them responded in a reckless manner has not helped. Instead, it seems to affirm the notion that parties are a den for the mass corruption of today’s youth, and a lair for a range of activities that are, in short, bad.

These fears do have some basis in fact. Alcohol is a staple in many open parties, like it seems to be anywhere else. Brawls are not. Sex and drugs occasionally happen in a few, though far from the extent that everyone has been led to believe. You could also make the argument that the groups put on the spotlight are not exactly paragons of virtue. But is the single incident being talked about representative of the whole so-called phenomenon?

Yes, these fears do have some basis in fact; unfortunately, there is more than a fair mix of fiction. Hence, there is a need to step back from the initial shock value that this sensational issue creates.

In other words, we should be a bit more level-headed before passing judgment, since it is always easier for us to damn something that we have not witnessed.

In the first place, there is a problem with the distinction that has been made between “open parties” and other parties in general. In reality, these parties are virtually no different from college parties, house parties, and even birthday parties featuring dancing and mobile bars, where people have just as much of a propensity to go out of control. It feels like people just arbitrarily lumped together the negative qualities present in different kinds of partying, added that this is now “the rage amongst private school teens,” and christened it “open party.”

What is perhaps alarming is the fact that teenagers are organizing this, and are succeeding. If considered entirely from the now-popular perspective, this points to a problem with the way kids are being allowed to run amok: either parents give their consent (parties are often held in village clubhouses), or some rules are not being followed. This does not speak well of establishments who may be skirting some laws for profit.

On the other hand, we have based our portrayal of these parties on a single incident, and they are hardly representative of what goes on inside them.

Here is another thing that is problematic: the treatment of the entire incident. I feel that the situation has been handled irresponsibly. Our perception of this issue is based almost entirely on a version of facts which cannot be corroborated. Besides this, too many words have been exchanged by the parties involved. In the end, the incident has become mangled beyond recognition.

Trying to distill this in terms of black and white has, I fear, only enlarged the problem and exaggerated our notion of what our youth has become.

And if we are to talk about the youth, are we to view them in light of those barkadas who have been featured? Are they representative of what our youth has become? If “open parties” have generally been without incident for the last decade despite the temptations that are sometimes present, I think that says something about how we, the youth, really are.

But say for the sake of argument that they are the face of today’s youth: Do they need to grow a spine and a sense of responsibility? Definitely. Do they have a distorted sense of values? Perhaps. But are they deserving of such unregulated public exposure and pressure at that age? I’m not sure. It is easy to get angry at them, but I’m afraid this is the sort of situation that strongly reaffirms their need for rebellion.

The more I think about it, the more I begin to feel that open parties are less of an issue than people believe they are.

Still, I won’t ask for parents to go back to when they were young and did stupid things.

They were probably told off by their parents, too.

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 11 March 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

What if we lived in a society where no one is allowed to tell anyone else that he is wrong?

Suppose, for example, that in this sort of a society, we study in a particular school. In this school, we are classmates. I am your bully. I take your food, drink from your jug, and copy your homework. I am the vampire of your school life, sucking your blood, and you are sick of it.

Suppose that you decide to speak up and complain. While you know that this is against the law, you are fed up. You tell me anyway, in direct violation of this law.

Suppose further that by violating this law, you incur a penalty. By telling me that I am wrong, your penalty is that I get—by the power of the state and the school—a free shot at your face, at that same instant.

By way of analogy, this is the situation our journalists would be in if the right of reply bill were passed. In this scenario, the journalist is the student. The public official is the bully. And the painful punch delivered to the face of the poor student is the equivalent of the painful repercussions that would result from trying to expose social wrongs.

While the right of reply is an accepted and necessary principle in any democratic society, as it is an extension of freedom of speech, it is not the principle that is put to question here. A person who is subjected to criticism may, of course, respond to accusations directed towards him. Celebrity talk shows do this all the time.

What is in question here is how the right of reply is to be implemented.

Under Senate Bill No. 2150, the reply of the person accused or criticized must be published or broadcast in the same publication, radio/television show, or website. For each failure of the said establishments to broadcast these replies, free of charge, in a period of three days after the slanderous comments were printed or aired, they shall be fined amounts ranging from P10 000 to P50 000. What motivation would any journalist have to write about what’s wrong, or who’s wrong?

It isn’t even the reply itself that is being criticized: public officials may say anything they want to defend their reputations, as far as media is concerned. What they do fear, however, is the impingement on their medium of communication. Every reply published comes at the expense of the publishers. Guilty individuals who are now provided with a cost-free weapon: legally-hijacked space or airtime.

But more fundamentally, it is important to remember that like any one of us, the media are entitled to what they are saying. They may not be forced into saying what they do not want to. In the words of Fr. Bernas, SJ, they have a “freedom not to speak.” Yet the bill comandeers the vehicles of the media for the thoughts of others, with or without their consent.

On the other hand, however, proponents of the bill validly argue that the media should perhaps exercise more control. Their advantage, after all, is the prerogative to shoot first, and this advantage should not be absolute. In effect, the bill strikes a balance between the media’s right to publish critical comments and the right of the accused to defend his or her honor.

But if we are to speak about balance, then the bill simply tips things in favor of the powerful. We cannot continue to ignore the fact that in this country, even the elite can put the law in their hands. As things stand, society’s only weapon against the oppressive elite are our words: the expositions that media publishes. All we really have is the knowledge of their wrongs, and for this journalists pay a heavy price, from death threats to actual deaths. We can expect that those with ill intent will use this leverage to exact a heavier tax from those who point out they are wrong.

It is sad to think that we now live in a society where no good deed goes unpunished. And even more so when lawmakers have the audacity to suggest that journalists get killed because they don’t have a right of reply.

But if no one else will tell anyone else that they’re wrong, who will?