Hard pass on ‘Pahinungod’: Why I won’t break bread a hypocrisy

THE invitation arrived with all the trappings of officialdom and intended goodwill. 

The Misamis Oriental provincial government has invited the Cagayan de Oro Press Club to "Pahinungod," a gala ostensibly dedicated to honoring the local media.

As the club’s vice president for print, I have a short, unequivocal response: Hard pass.

I will not be an accomplice to this ostentatious display, nor will I lend my presence to an event that reeks of irony.

It requires a particularly short memory to accept this invitation without flinching. 

It was, after all, only late last year when the Governor stood before a captive audience at the Capitol and undressed the local press. She didn't just call us biased; she weaponized our economic reality against us.

She painted practitioners as destitutes, condescendingly remarking on how we struggle to feed our families on “meager salaries.” It was a backhanded statement that implied our poverty makes us vulnerable, unethical, or irrelevant.

I also remember that all the big media organizations issued a statement of rebuke for that incident.

That moment stripped away the veneer of mutual respect. It revealed a mindset that views the press not as a pillar of democracy to be respected, but as a charity case to be pitied — or worse, bought.

To attend “Pahinungod” now would be to validate that condescension.

It sends a signal that while we may be insulted from the podium one day, we can be pacified with a banquet the next. It suggests our dignity is cheap — priced at the cost of a catered meal.

But beyond the personal insult to the Fourth Estate, there is a more pressing issue: the morality of the expense.

Hosting an extravagant gala on the public peso is an exercise in tone-deaf governance. 

We are living in tight economic times. To lavish funds on a party for the press — while Capitol employees reportedly wait for delayed wages — is not just insensitive; the optics are grotesque.

Public funds are finite. Every peso spent on appetizers and venue rentals for a self-serving “tribute” is a peso that should have gone to the people who actually keep the provincial government running.

Journalism is not about being feted by the powers that be. It is about holding them accountable. 

We do not need a gala to validate our existence. 

What we need — and what the public deserves — is a government that respects the role of a free press without resorting to economic shaming, and one that prioritizes its workers’ salaries over its image.

So, keep the invitation. Keep the banquet. I prefer to keep my self-respect.

On bread, butter, and the myth of the envelope

THERE is a pervasive, cynical whisper that floats around political circles — and sadly, sometimes echoes even within our own ranks.

It goes something like this: these politicians wonder if media practitioners could even eat regularly if they didn’t receive anything from them.

It’s a statement dressed up as a noble critique of corruption, but let’s be real: it serves as a lazy, blanket insult to a profession and a convenient erasure of actual hard work.

This is disconcerting. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the news media community actually is.

We are not a monolith.

We aren’t a hive mind where every worker drone operates on the same frequency of compromise.

We are a motley crew of workers with divergent beliefs, various political colors, and different economic realities.

To assume that a journalist cannot feed their family without the patronage of a politician is to assume that journalism itself has zero market value. It ignores the reality of honest-to-goodness hard work.

This editorial cartoon was created by Gemini Pro.

In my 28 years in this community — 10 of which were spent grinding as a freelance correspondent for international news wires — I have a newsflash for the cynics: Nakapakaon pud baya ko sa akong banay gikan sa akong hinaguan.

International wire work is not for the faint of heart. It is paid in sweat, strict deadlines, and blood pressure spikes. It does not pay in favors; it pays in output. And believe it or not, that output puts food on the table.

More importantly, it paid for tuition. To date, I have sent my children through school on this income alone. I have seen them graduate, one by one. Isa na lang kulang.

That is the ultimate receipt.

When you raise a family on honest money, the food tastes different. It tastes like dignity — with a side of clear conscience.

To suggest that we need a politician’s “blessing” just to survive is to discount the thousands of column inches written, the photos filed, and the deadlines met by honest workers in this industry.

We are not all the same. And for those of us who have ground it out for decades, we don’t need the handout. We have the receipt.

The news media has a social contract with the citizens of the republic. Our role is to hold the powerful to account. That is why we are called the Fourth Estate — we are the check and balance to the other three.

Here’s a wild idea for the onion-skinned politicos: How about you do your job, and we’ll stick to ours?

Regulating the fourth estate

THE Presidential Task Force for Media Security, in all its wisdom and intelligence, is pushing for a “Magna Carta” for media workers supposedly to uplift the living conditions of journalists in the country.

Its main stooge, Undersecretary Joel Egco, is set to consult “various legitimate media partners.”

Under the proposed Magna Carta, media personalities will have to take an exam every six months to calibrate their qualification of whether the practitioner belongs to a managerial position or to a corresponding salary level or grade equivalent to that of government.

“Question is, would this be automatic once passed? This would still depend on private media owners but with the qualifying exam, journalist can now be qualified as a level 1, 2 or 3 journalists and depending on the vacant position to be applied, the journalist can now, for example, apply for a reportorial position which is level 2 while obtaining a level 1 qualification,” A Baguio-based news daily quoted Egco as saying last Thursday.

The Philippine Press Institute’s executive director Ariel Sebellino is opposing Magna Carta for media workers.

“Levelling has nothing to do with the quality of journalism. We should care for the following:  Welfare and protection, ethical practice, and truth-telling,” he posted on his wall.

The supposed Magna Carta for media workers is nothing more than government meddling into the independence of the press.

I urge these former journalists and news readers who are now in government service to address the media killings rather than regulating the industry it clearly doesn’t have an inkling on.

The other night, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines has not only gave a flat no, it enjoins other media entities to join it in opposing this threat to the independence of the fourth state and freedom of expression in general.

I would like to share with you NUJP’s statement in full here. Please do read on.

NUJP rejects PTFOMS proposal to regulate press through ‘Magna Carta’ (July 22, 2018)

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines rejects outright the proposal of the Presidential Task Force on Media Security to regulate the profession in the guise of a “Magna Carta” and urge all colleagues as well as media owners to unite in opposing this clear threat to freedom of the press and of expression.

(A Baguio daily) quoted PTFOMS Executive Director Joel Egco as saying the proposed measure would seek to professionalize journalism through qualifying and classifying exams.

“If you want to become a media personality, you will have to take an exam every six months to assess your qualification which would set either a managerial position or a corresponding salary level or grade equivalent to that of government,” Egco was quoted as saying.

This is, in fact, not the first time the idea of regulating, even licensing, journalists have been proposed. And the NUJP, along with other media and free expression advocates, has consistently opposed and thwarted all such attempts.

We do not question the intent of Usec Egco, himself a former colleague.

But the proposed “Magna Carta,” which goes so far as to set salary grades depending on “competency,” is fraught with danger, not least of all allowing government to determine who can or cannot be a journalist, which is totally anathema to a profession that can thrive only in independence.

We maintain that journalism is an extension of freedom of expression and serves the people’s sacrosanct right to the information they need to make decisions about their individual and collective lives.

The Magna Carta would also infringe on the rights of media owners and managers to determine who to employ.

We cannot allow the government – this or any other – the opportunity to meddle in any way not only in the profession that serves as the people’s watchdog against official abuse but in any other matter that may endanger freedom of the press and of expression, and the people’s sacred right to know.

National Directorate, hotline: +639175155991

Opinion writing 101

“Last words are for fools who haven’t said enough,” Karl Marx (1818-1883).

IT TOOK years of coaxing and goading from people I have come to respect and revere for me to even start considering to write opinion pieces. To put it bluntly, I find punditry hilas.

I find it even ironic that I have been pursuing a journalism career since I've always been more inclined to poetry and literature when I started out writing ― unlike my father.

Yes, before Emilio dragged me into this shit storm of a career, I was perfectly comfortable thinking up of quatrains and couplets for my Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnets. I was more interested in devising twists and turns in the plot of a short story.

I blame Emilio for all of these.

Anyway, I'm here now ― working for a daily newspaper with the widest circulation in northern Mindanao. But, it took me grueling years in the trenches (read: beat reporter) before I started writing opinion pieces.

Five years ago, I remember one of my mentors, Carolyn Arguillas, asked me to write an opinion column for Mindanews. I replied with an anticlimactic no. I said I was too young to be writing what my thoughts are on current events.

To even think about writing something that bares my soul on any given subject out in the open still gives me goosebumps.

I felt that my body of work wasn't enough to build my credibility as a pundit.

When I did, finally, decided to write my column, My Wit's End, I read a butt-load of opinion pieces first. I found that punditry, although subjective in nature, must be based on real events. This is only logical because how could you arrive at a sound hypothesis if it is based on imaginary events.

Opinion and fiction or creative writing are two distinct approaches to writing, I was taught. But unlike creative writing, in column writing, your characters are already there. You do not create the characters to fit your narrative. You do not base your accusations on events that didn't happen.

One thing I found to be true to most opinion pieces, the common denominator, if you will, is that this articles are and should be based on facts and documented events.

Opinion writing, to me, is the distillation of current events that affect society and so you offer your humble analyses of these events for your readers to come up with intelligent and informed decisions. You do not write opinion articles based on the figment of your imagination.

Column writing can also serve as a call to action. It serves as the embodiment of journalism's role in society as a check and balance. It is the practical application of the fourth estate’s “watchdog” role.

I think this is where the concept of “conflict of interest” comes in. You have to be detached to the subject you’re writing about to be able to give an honest opinion.

Now if you write a column to attack a public entity based on the imagined wrongs this entity did to further line your own pocket, then that. my friend is not punditry. It is just nothing short of a shakedown ― a con and the purveyor of this, a hack job. It is nothing but a receipt of a tigbas.

It is correct when you say that a wrongdoing can never be contained, much like air or smoke. But an imagined wrongdoing cannot get off the ground either.

I am not the least threatened by this supposed age of post-truth and fake news (read: imagined events).

You see, pundits who base their opinion on a fake news or imagined sources is not really a fake pundit. It only shows the author’s gullibility and stupidity.

This kind of people will eventually self-destruct but like the fool that the economist Karl Marx described at the start of this article, they will always jockey for the position of having the last say in the matter.

Until then, we will just have to contend with these maladjusted paid hacks and take their writings the way it should be ― as works of fiction, ergo for entertainment purposes and nothing more.

Of satires and lampoons

“Political satire is ridicule dedicated to exposing the difference between appearance and reality in public life.” -Robert Mankoff

THERE’S another kind of news circulating on social media platforms but it’s not fake. Far from it. It’s satire news.

However, you have to read it in order to appreciate it. You can’t appreciate satire if you’ll only read its “headline.”

I’m bringing this up in light of Sen. Joel Villanueva’s Senate Bill 1492 or “An Act Penalizing the Malicious Distribution of False News and Other Related Violations. It is a serious law.”

“The passage of this bill will encourage our citizens, especially public officers, to be more responsible and circumspect in creating, distributing and/or sharing news. Addressing national and global concerns should not be made more complicated by false news calculated to cause disunity, panic, chaos, and/or violence,” the bill’s explanatory note reads in part.

It carries a pretty heavy penalty for any thinking Pinoy (pun intended) found guilty–fines ranging from P100,000 to P5 million, and one to five years imprisonment.

Based on this proposed law, fake news is defined as “an information causing or tending to cause panic, division, chaos, violence, hate,” and those “exhibiting or tending to exhibit a propaganda to blacken or discredit one’s reputation.”

Therein lies the problem. The definition is vague. What about political satire? Can the law make that distinction? It’s like the “no bomb jokes” in terminals and airports. What if I tell a bomb poem, or a bomb limerick? Technically, it is not a bomb joke but can the security personnel make that distinction?

Merriam-Webster defines satire as “a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, or bad. It is humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, or society.”

Satire is like the jester speaking truth to the king and his royal court. Let me remind you we have some of the most close-minded and “pikon” people in this administration. What will happen to the likes of Professional Heckler or the Superficial Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines when Villanueva’s bill is passed into law?

The communications team of this administration, nay spinners, scares the bejeesus out of me. They have a vast mass of followers but there is no informed political discourse in their brand of punditry. They present so much information on social media and pass it off as true, and they have the money and resources behind each and every article they post. Methinks, without satire, the entire public discourse in the republic will collapse.

I can’t even understand why this administration’s supporters are not so receptive of satirical pieces when their principal is the embodiment of sarcasm–hyperbole and all.

Alison Dagnes, a political science teacher at Shippensburg University, got it spot on when she wrote: “Political (satire) is primarily the mark of the underdog. It’s essentially a complaint against oppression. It’s a complaint against the power structure.”

Satire sharpens critique.

‘Facebooking’

ABOUT a fortnight ago, a Facebook group account, Duterte Today, screen grabbed my post and shared this on its wall. For a Kagay-anon to be trolled by somebody from Metro Davao, I must say is quite flattering.

I had posted my usual mundane satirical post after aggressively hunting fake news articles and photos, which has been this administration’s hallmark by the way.

Anyway, I posted: “There has been a deluge of friend and message requests ever since I amped up my fake news hunting. Good luck with that. I don’t ****ing know you. Pfft.”

Duterte Today captioned its screen grab of my post with: “Char. Swerte mo nga umabot 15 likes post mo this time.”

It’s fine because I set the post to public, anyway. Also, the Duterte Today page has a username of @indaysara. If that is not flattering I don’t know what is.

Of course, I don’t think Davao City’s mayor and presidential daughter has got something to do about the troll-like screen grabbing but you have to appreciate the “down time” the people of Davao are paying for this kind of sophomoric social media attack.

I chided a friend in Davao for their city information office for having too much time on its hands while on the people’s employ. The asswipe must be reeling with its/his/her newfound power.

Sorry for the digression. What I really wanted to say is that the incident made me think of the past (cue in: harp)–when I joined Facebook, what I expected to get out of it and what it has become.

Have I, indeed, turned into a “like whore?” Have I let my Facebook account define the person I am supposed to be in real-time? Did I let my inert psychological need to belong rule over what I really am?

All these questions pushed me to look back into my Facebook history, hoping to find some answers or at least clues to the person I really am.

I first joined the Facebook social networking site in 2008. Yes. When Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes, and Eduardo Saverin launched Facebook in 2004, it wasn’t called a social media platform yet. They meant Facebook to be about connecting people across the globe.

My circle of real-time friends then were still agog over Friendster. They thought it weird for me then to invite them to Facebook. Before that, I used Mirabilis’ ICQ social network.

It was really fun connecting with friends and relatives abroad or from across the country. We exchanged photos of how we look like at the moment.

However, all of that changed when Facebook became a weaponized voyeur’s instrument. It started with “lurker” accounts. People made a different account and followed the same people in their original account just so they could “lurk” on their friends. And when the 2010 elections came, lurker accounts became troll accounts. The rest, as the old cliche goes, is history.

But I will continue my presence in Facebook. I have been using it to vent my frustrations on–not for likes, mind you. It has become a sort of real-time, online, journal for me.

So, do I feel slighted with the Duterte Today screen grab? No, because I think we have different perspectives and agenda when it comes to going online.

To my dear readers (yes, all 243 of you), if you are also a Facebook friend, following, or even lurking me online please understand that you are in no way obliged to like, comment, or do anything. What I post on my wall is an expression.

It’s really nothing personal. It’s not about you.

It’s just me.

Hunting fake news (2)

“You furnish the pictures, I’ll provide the war.” – William Randolph Hearst, New York World owner

HERE’S the second and last installment of my series on hunting fake news. Purveyors of fake news almost usually also post accompanying fake photos to further bolster the “legitimacy” of their stories.

Fake photos?! It’s hard to imagine, right? It’s because you would think photographs are precise representations of events. Well, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock in the last decade, photographs can be manipulated.

However, in this age of photoshop and other digital photo manipulation applications, you might find it surprising that photo manipulation is not actually new.

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. It means photographs evoke emotions faster than an article can because it is, after all, visual. You don’t need to read anything. You just look at it and wham–emotions start to flow.

The quote above is an actual reply of Hearst to a cable message of his illustrator assigned in Cuba in 1897, Frederic Remington.

Hearst, for reasons only known to him, had wanted to ignite a war between the US and Spain. Cuba at that time had an insurrection against its Spanish colonizers. However, Remington cabled Hearst: “Everything quiet. There is no trouble here (Cuba). There will be no war. Wish to return.”

So when USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor less than three weeks since the cable message exchange, Remington illustrated the boat as it sank. Hearst wasted no time in using the illustration to foment war between the US and Spain. This was reflected in a phrase he popularized in his newspaper, New York World, “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!”

Spain had nothing to do with the sinking of USS Maine but Hearst made it appear in his articles that it was result of a direct attack of Spain against American forces.

Within three months, the Spanish-American war was raging hard. The Philippines, being a Spanish colony that time, had to be “conquered” by the US as spoils of that war. After that war, the US became a global power to contend with and ended Spain’s old-brand of imperialism.

In a way, bad journalism–in this instance, a fake photo–was the reason why the Philippines was colonized by the US. By the way, a small digression if you will. Hearst was caricatured best in Orson Welles’ magnum opus “Citizen Kane.”

It would have been dramatic that the “new world” conquered the “old world” except that because the war was fueled by a fake photo, it was nothing short of tragic.

Talking of tragic, here in the Philippines now, no less than the government’s communication team has joined in purveying fake news and photos.

The Philippine News Agency posted a story on how the military is having difficulty with close quarter battle in flushing out the Maute Group from Marawi City. I knew the correspondent who wrote the article, so I believed the article. However, the editors, in their incomprehensible wisdom, posted an accompanying photo of an American G.I. patrolling the hinterlands of Vietnam.

Not to be left behind, newly appointed Presidential Communications Operations Office Assistant Secretary Margaux “Mocha” Uson posted a photo of the Honduran police on their knees praying in the hopes of rallying support for government troops who are currently fighting the Maute Group in Marawi City.

When the fake photo was pointed out, Uson brushed off criticisms by saying the photo was mere symbolism of the point she was making or a “representative photo.” Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if her succeeding blogs will not carry any titles–she is already entitled.

They have since taken down the photo and issued an erratum of sorts.

As for my colleagues in media, either they be in private or government employ, I have this to say: If we keep on repeating the same mistakes in a chosen field for a considerable length of time then maybe it’s time to seriously consider another craft or trade. You’re not contributing to the well-being of the planet and your species.

Now that we have the history of fake photos out of the way, let’s discuss how to hunt for fake photos on social media platforms.

But before we discuss knowing what to look for in fake photos, I’d like first to discuss how photos are being faked.

1. Drawing or staging. Unlike studio or glam photography, photojournalists are not supposed to be “directing” a crime scene. The photo should be an accurate depiction of what happened. I have witnessed this once. A photojournalist, at he was back then, asked one of the protesters in a rally to move closer to where he was standing so he could capture a more “provocative” frame. This practice, by the way, is frowned upon by professional photojournalists.
2. Post production alterations. This is where photoshop or other photo editing apps comes in. Sometimes photojournalists would think a column of smoke from a burning building isn’t quite fluffy or big enough they’d clone that column of smoke and paste it on the same frame. There have been times also when photojournalists introduce another subject from an old photo and pass it off as one frame.
3. Inaccurate captioning. It’s quite unfortunate that people in this administration’s communication team have been fooling us with foreign photos with inaccurate captioning, as what we have been witnessing lately. We have also seen our “friends” on Facebook posting photos of bomb victims in the past and captioned it as happening (read: ATM) currently in Marawi City. As in news articles, the captioning the real date of when the photo was captured is also of the same import.

You can also always use Google’s “image search” feature if there’s something suspicious about a photo. I used this in the Vietnam war photo PNA used to pass off as happening in Marawi City. I felt the photo was so familiar but could not put my finger on it. So, I downloaded the photo, fed that photo in Google’s image search, and voila–it was a photo of an American G.I. patrolling the hinterlands of Vietnam.

If the photo is sent to you via email, you can check the details of the photo by accessing its metafile data. You access this by right-clicking the photo’s thumbnail in your file browser. A dialogue box will pop out. Left click on properties.

So, in spotting a fake photo you need to inspect the following:

1. Shadows. I summarize photography as the art of taming shadows and light. Look for inconsistencies in the subjects’ shadow in the photo. For example, if the shadow of a man in the photo is leaning at a 45 degree angle, every thing else in the frame should have the same 45 degree angle-leaning shadows.
2. Light source. Inversely from shadows, the light source of the whole frame should be global. The bounce of the light source on the subjects in the frame should be consistent with the shadows these set. This means the light source should be at the opposite end of the subject’s shadow.
3. Discoloration. This usually happens when a subject introduced to a photo is a clone of a subject from a different photo. If you can see discoloration on the edges of a subject in a photo (read: inconsistent color from the main frame), chances are the photo has been manipulated with a photo editing software.
4. Pixilation. This is akin to the presence of discoloration in a photo, except that instead of color inconsistency there’s inconsistency in pixels of the photo. This happens when the photo editor clones a subject from a different photo and placing it on a new photo without considering the image size (read: dots per inch or pixels per inch) of the photo the photo editor cloned it from.

Now that you know how to distinguish fake news and photos from the real ones, you might ask what am I to do with this new skill. You need to call fake news and photos out. As for those who are share-a-holics: Always check and verify what you share on your wall.

Like the fair warning I posted on my wall weeks ago, I warned friends, relatives, acquaintances, and colleagues that I will be more aggressive in pointing out shared fake news and photos on my Facebook account. I will screen-capture any friend’s post sharing a fake news, and post it with a stamp “Fake News.” Plus, I blocked their accounts from mine.

It’s all worth it, I promise you. Ever since I amped up my hunting for fake news and photos on my Facebook account and called these out for the garbage that they are, the news feeds on my wall have starkly improved.

There are no more fake news except for sporadic trolling on the threads of my posts and a deluge of friends and message requests. But, hey, don’t forget you have full control of your social media account. Like I said in my post: Good luck with that. I don’t [expletive] know you.

Now, I’m enjoying Facebook again.

Read, understand, react

“You can fool some people sometimes. But you can’t fool all the people, all the time.” -Bob Marley, Get up Stand up

I AM not a member of the national directorate of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines anymore. However, as a member of the union in the province, I am moved to reply to the responses of the Duterte siblings to the union’s statement.

In the statement, the union merely admonished Davao Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio and Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte on their personal attacks and veiled threats against a member of media, who in turn, only reminded colleagues of how to handle news of the death of the lone casualty of the attacks of Maoist rebels against facilities of Lapanday Foods Corp last week.

It would do well for the siblings to be reminded they’re not just spoiled brats of a kingpin mayor anymore. They are no ordinary persons for they are not only persons of power in their fiefdom, nay city, they are also presidential children.

“As a public official, she is subject to commentaries and criticisms especially from the press and should not respond with personal attacks and threats,” reads part of NUJP’s statement.

Hours after the release of the statement, Duterte-Carpio took to her social media again and responded: “National Union of Journalists in the Philippines. I too have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression. The NUJP, my husband (Manases ‘Mans’ Carpio, Lapanday legal counsel), or even the President (Rodrigo Duterte) cannot shut me down. I will speak when I want to. Hahaha. Mamatay na kayo sa inis, sasagot pa rin ako.”

That response puzzled me since nowhere in the union’s statement did it state nor try to “shut down” the Davao mayor. I don’t know where the mayor got confused in the message considering most parts of the statement consisted of a direct quotation of the sibling’s tirade against a broadcaster.

As for her hot-headed macho brother, the vice mayor also took to his social media account and unfurled a string of off-tangent barely comprehensive tirade that sounded like a kid stripped of his favorite toy in the park by a bully.

“And again, let me reiterate ? Imo pakauwawan akoang pamilya, imong hilabtan nga wa man intawoy sala ninyo o sa publiko, bukbukon taka? Media man ka o bisan unsa ka pa. And dili tungod media ka, hawod na ka ug di na ka pwede hilabtan. Ayaw kabalaka kay di ko pareha anang uban nga momasaker,” the vice mayor response to the union’s statement.

Again, I am appalled at the response. I assume these public officials, elected servants at that, would know how to react to dissent or a public rebuke. Again, nowhere in the statement of the union did it try to shame the presidential family.

It called on their public statements which were uncalled for.

At first, I was tempted to chalk their off-tangent responses to poor comprehension skills. But, I realized there is something more sinister at play here.

It is something deliberate, something conscious, and something you develop through one’s years growing up–attitude.

It’s the attitude of entitlement which betrayed the siblings’ petulance and insolence veiled under the supposedly “masa” language. What is being displayed here is the attitude of the nouveau royalty. The impertinence of a fief lord against a serf.

It’s the attitude that bore such unfortunately popular lines: Do not bite the hand that feeds you and how dare you question the boss.

It’s a manipulative attitude. Goading their serfs to attack their fellow serfs by using the language of the serfs. It’s introspective victimization.

Filipinos are known to be melodramatic. The reason why teleseryes, where a muchacha is being ganged upon by the alta sociedad, thrive. This has worked so many times in our history. Erap used it but we all know how his administration ended, right?

So here’s an unsolicited advice: You can manipulate the people with your brand of rhetoric but you certainly cannot do that to all, all the time. Review history, ma’am and sir, and you’ll see it never ends well with despotic tyrants.