I find it juxtaposed how our Editor-in-Chief assigned me to write a feature article for the upcoming May 3, World Press Freedom Day, when there are no rainbows and unicorns worthy to feature on that day. This day is a bleak narrative of desperation, a cloud of smoke and mirrors that spotlights the beauty of reviling truth and radical opinion - but it's intangible and dying.
If I am to follow my editor's prompt, then I'll feature how journalism is merely alive on its last tightrope. It's murder- a planned and stringed foul play by the higher-ups, the death of premium in attention, the rise of new norms that guillotined the very essence of this craft. I'll feature how journalism now only needs a sepulcher or shrine, and a prayer by a pastor or an imam, to confirm its death.
DEFUNDING OF HIGHERUPS
The first reason it is dying trickles down to the grassroots of journalism itself— defunding of campus journalism. This defunding comes in the form of defunding schools' press conferences— the only merit gauge of young journalists; and defunding of admin to existing campus publications in schools and universities— a struggle to push for interschool advocacy for truth and opinion.
The recent memorandum of the National Schools Press Conference (NSPC), limiting Regional Schools Press Conference (RSPC) winners to join the NSPC, is the first dig of the grave. The memorandum will now only allow 1st place winners in individual and group writing events to join the 2023 NSPC; it was 1st place to 3rd place before.
This is such a stupendous memorandum; the first time in NSPC history to delimit winners from their right to compete, showcase, and foster journalism. It is even more stupid when we contextualize that DepEd's 2023 fund allocation is worth about a billion pesos; is an allocation for the top three winners too... much?
Moreover, tertiary schools also suffer from a lack of remuneration and defunding. This looks like the lack of admin support and recognition, and public outroar that is mostly rooted in toxic pressure and disinformation. Often, the publication is delegitimized and antagonized—a flip in the narrative of fighting for truth and right.
Most publication staff of universities, including Bagwis, and intercollegiate publications, work with little to no tangible merits. The sweat and effort placed on covering, writing, editing, and doing journalism for the love of journalism are becoming more futile and tiring.
THREATS AND MISINFORMATION
We still need to account for the threats and misinformation that these campus publications received. Numerous cases of hate threats, public shame, and name-taint testify how we're nearer six feet deep.
Some publication staff of our university has received a heads-up on red-tagging and physical threats— to the extent that most of them are advised to never walk the streets alone. Bylines are removed to maintain safe anonymity on published media, and the staff keeps a low profile on campus— often removing any implied apparel, such as lanyards or press uniforms, inside the university.
THE WRONG PREMIUM
Yet even if we assume benevolence and assume that the campus publications are doing well, the popularization and mechanization of these publications tend to become tangent to the heart of how journalism should be upheld. These come in the rising premium of 'pitiks' and toxic popularity and engagement competition of publications.
Pitiks are now viewed as the heart and norms of several campus publications as if the publication's social media pages will lose relevance without them. To an extent, the word Bagwis is now revalued as a verb, "Pa-bagwis kami! Bagwisa mi diri!" This places pressure on publications to only function as the campus' photo library for intercollegiate events. But this shouldn't be the case.
Although photography is still to be revered as a form of journalism, the premium placed on it limits the publication to only serve mere facades and images of campus issues and events. Albeit some publications revamped and fixed these wrong premium, such as monthly newspapers, special issues, and in-depth news coverage, the student body gives little to no merits on these fields of journalism.
FAULTY HIERARCHY AND COMPETITION
Additionally, the sudden rise of competition in intercollegiate publications exacerbates one last final reason why journalism is dying. At intuition, one might assume that more collegiate representation might imply better news dissemination; this is not the case.
It is evident that publications are on a cutthroat battle for meritocratic validation, pressured to be better than others— a hedonic treadmill that prioritizes dominance over effective news coverage and dissemination. Oftentimes, publications compare one over the other— who publicizes a coverage faster? who edits the better publication materials? who gets more media traction? who gets higher admin approval? This results in competition instead of unity and a proper hierarchy of publication burdens.
The decentralization of power that each publication carries solidifies this problem. There is no proper trickle-down on what each publication should prioritize and what scope of issues will each publication cover. Unity is lacking.
WE ONLY NEED A HEADSTONE
Perhaps it is true; journalism is dying— or if not dying, already dead. It is time to clear the smoke and mirrors and revile where we are now in the modern age of journalism.
But I want this article to be a wake-up call to everyone. It is high time to call out the higher-ups that delimit the scope and power of journalism and fix the system that aggravates the position where we are in the new era of journalism.
We only need a headstone to confirm its death, but we will never give the tipping point and concede on graving our headstone. Slowly, we scoop the dirt off of our faces and rise from the pit where we are scrapped.
We will not, and must not, give them the headstone.
Комментарии