As a journalism student, I was taught through all four years to develop a hatred for the word sensationalism. We were taught that many journalists do it, but we should hold on to what we know is right, when it’s us out there.

Sensationalism - noun. 1. Subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.

But even before graduating, we attended a seminar with some highly respected journalists as speakers. When asked about something that related to sensationalism, they just said that it could not be helped. After all, they needed viewers.

And at that moment, I and some other aspiring journalists in my batch, came crashing to that sad realization, one that made even more sense after we had graduated.

The media delivers news to people. In order to deliver news, they need to stay on the air. In order to stay on the air, they need sponsors. In order to get sponsors, they need viewers. In order to get viewers, they need to catch their attention. And to do that, they need to sensationalize.

And it doesn’t even stop there. Sensationalizing does more damage than from an ethical standpoint. The more that corruption (albeit truly existent) is highlighted, the more people will believe that there is no hope for their country, and this mindset will affect everything they do. From the way people work, to the crime rate, to the way they vote, and their willingness to cooperate with even the “good guys” in the government.

And that gives the media more stories to cover. Rinse, repeat.

It’s been years, yet my diploma is still rolled up, unclaimed.

Technorati tags: media, corruption, vicious cycle, sensationalism, bad news, news, journalism, journalist

There’s been news on Mother Theresa, the “Saint of the Gutters”, and how her secret letters apparently revealed 50 years of doubt, a period of not feeling the presence of God in her life.

Well, I don’t know the whole story and I haven’t read any details, but I did catch this one part from one of her letters to a certain Rev. Michael Van Der Peet:

“Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured Van der Peet. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,–Listen and do not hear–the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me–that I let Him have [a] free hand.“

I think that’s a perfect example of what I think faith should be like. Or how we should be like regarding many things.

Many times people get caught up in emotions, like things are only real when they feel them. I beg to differ, feelings are highly subjective and situational, not to mention they are very fleeting. If we only love those who are nice or good to us, then that is not real love. If we only have faith when things are going our way, or if we have reason to say we feel God’s presence, then that is not faith. Those are just human reactions, the way I see it.

Like in her letter, she started and ended with how she believed in Jesus and what He can do, despite not feeling any reason for that faith. That is true love, not an emotion but a commitment — that even if she could not feel it, she held on to her certainty of it, she gave it away, she gave it back. That is true faith, the light we find, and the one we make, that shines when it’s darkest.

Technorati tags: mother theresa, faith, God, Jesus, love, emotion, commitment, light, darkness

[Click to see full-size. From http://www.zanetti.net.au]

I remember a canned tuna commercial I saw a few times on TV, they showed pictures of an abandoned console, an empty mall, and other abandoned stuff. Basically they were what we commonly perceive as things that kill society. They showed the people instead having fun at a huge park. While that’s not exactly what I have in mind with this post, I guess it’s a good illustration for my real point. But let me start with a question. By whose standards is going to the mall and playing games a bad thing, as opposed to running and having picnics in the park?

Before you react, please read on.

I actually really want to talk about the Internet. My work right now is very focused on the internet, and the moment I get home and into my room, I turn my laptop on and check my mail, my blog, my other emails, my friends’ blogs, some social networks, and when I’m done with that I start chatting with some people who are on Yahoo Messenger. Basically, I live a pretty internet-based life. And maybe you, reading this, are in the same situation.

Does that make me antisocial?

Social networks. As of now I’m in 4, but I’m only semi-active in one, because I’m usually lazy to do what the others are doing. It seems more like a highschool/college thing to do anyway. But it’s there, and when I check, I do sometimes find something worth noting — a friend’s birthday which otherwise I wouldn’t have remembered, a relevant announcement. Blogs. Only a handful of my friends actually tell me what’s going on in their lives anymore. They usually just post in their blogs, and expect me to read, and whenever I do catch them and ask how they’re doing, they usually say something like “Oh that? Well, it’s in my blog.”

Personally, I find no offense in that. I myself, evidently, am a blogger. Just when I thought that there couldn’t be anything more basic than the blog, Twitter came along. And the common sentiment from those in line with certain canned tuna commercial makers is simply, “What ever happened to human contact?”

On one hand, I agree. I grew up in a small town where you didn’t have to “set” playdates for kids, kids were the ones always itching to go out and play with the neighbors. There and then, we loved sitting on the rooftop, watching the stars, singing to tunes on the guitar (I sound so old), and yeah you get what I mean. Where I grew up everyone knew everyone, from the baker, the barber, the old lady around the corner. But since we moved from that place, things changed. I noticed it. I used to think that it was the place, but I realized it was the time. It just so happened that that particular place hadn’t caught up.

Information age, that’s what they call it. Everyone is using the internet, almost anything can be found on the internet, and the internet has replaced some basic social functions — there’s online dating, email, online games, chatrooms. There’s almost nothing left that can’t be “replaced” by something online. It’s inevitable that technology will continue to improve at an accelerating pace, and along with it, transactions and communications.

So in this highly automated world, there’s another way to look at these things that have replaced our normal interaction. The information age can’t be stopped, and everyone’s subconsciously aware of it. While some people view Twitter as suicide of the social being, in a way I see it sort of like the opposite. If Twitter had not come, I wouldn’t normally call or text other people what I’m doing at any point. So if anyone cares, if anyone wants to get this small semblance of a connection with me, they can check my Twitter. And what I don’t normally get to say in person, I get to express through my blog.

So I guess that image up there isn’t too appropriate, so consider it pure satire. Point is, with everything that’s going on in terms of technology, it seems like although physical human contact and presence is ideal, these things aren’t actually what kill the social web we so humans need so badly. To me, they actually seem like desperate attempts to hold on to it.

Technorati tags: blog, internet, network, antisocial, society, life, twitter