THE American Pulitzer Prize for this year has just been awarded to deserving journalists. That is the gold standard of journalism. But like any awarding body, it also has its share of controversies.
Think, for example, of President Obama’s Nobel Prize, or that of Al Gore for his film, “The Inconvenient Truth,” on global warming. These provoked a howl of protests in many places, leaving the name of the award badly battered.
I won’t go into these disputes. Instead, I prefer to discuss some aspects of journalism that I feel need to be addressed as the world enters into more exciting, complicated, if not confusing times.
The crucial issue confronting journalism now, as in all other fields, is the challenge of direction it should be taking given present developments. Will it just be contented with covering news events, dishing out some interesting facts and data, and offering opinions, comments and views on our multiplying affairs?
For sure, these efforts are already a great service to society. They are already quite defined as proper to journalism, and should not be abandoned. But there’s also a crying need for it to grow more somehow, to be more mature, more engaging in the increasing nuances of people’s interests.
Journalism has to flow with the times. While it has to continue to cater to the traditional needs of the people for basic information, it should also quickly capture and identify the daily changes taking place in people’s minds and taste, and seize the chance to satisfy their need for more processed information.
This challenge is made more rousing because of the progressive surge of high-technology-driven information now available. The media market is soaked with data and opinions and it’s now asking what next can be done out of them.
I think that just as in other fields, journalism should not get stuck in the raw and tender stage of its work. It needs to bud and flower. Of course, given the infinite possibilities of the materials it handles, journalism has to continually metamorphose. It has to keep on reengineering itself.
Given this situation, journalism has no other alternative but to go into greater interdisciplinary approaches. It has to put more range and depth into its work. At the same time, it has to know how to calibrate its reporting according to the different levels of needs and interests of its audience.
As we can see, the challenge indeed is awful. This is not to mention that, in the end, what journalism has to work on is to ground itself on the ultimate basis and purpose of truth. God has to come in. One’s bedrock of faith and morals has to be clearly defined and solidly established.
Otherwise, it can’t help but become a free-floating, open-ended enterprise where we can feel lost at sea. Its claims for veracity, justice and freedom would just be inflated words and empty slogans.
Without the guidance of core beliefs, and ultimately of God, any effort to transmit news and information, and any aspect of truth, will tend to spiral out of its proper orbit. Exaggerations, abuses and distortions can abound.
When belief in the absolute truth or in a living God is missing, and instead there’s just a fascination for relativism, or for an anything-goes, free-for-all outlook, then we can only expect endless quarrelling and bickering.
Yes, in journalism there will always be grey areas where tentative ideas can be made and dialogue should be fostered. This is typical of our human and earthly condition. Everyone just has to learn how to dance with this beat, and try to be as respectful as possible of everybody else.
Journalism now needs to go deeper in its grounding, to aim at higher, more nuanced aims and objectives, and to be more consistent in its behavior in spite of the ups and downs of news developments.
It has to avoid being solitary in any step of its work. It has to keep a vital link with God and with everybody else. Otherwise, one is bound to create a pseudo-reality, prone to miss the increasingly finer points involved in handling data and information.
We should never forget that whatever we do with any aspect of truth necessarily brings us in direct contact with God. We need to find a way to feel at home with this basic truth.
I think this is the direction journalism should take today. I know many still consider this attitude abstract, impracticable, if not preposterous. But we cannot remain there. We have to move forward.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Born again
WE have to know not only the expression but also and most importantly the reality of being born again. We all need it. We all are actually meant for it. We have to build up, first, a strong, abiding awareness of it and then our skill for achieving it together with God’s grace and mercy.
Yes, this time, unlike in our first birth, we have a part to play. Remember St. Augustine’s : “God created us without us. But he cannot save us without us.” That’s because our life is a life with God. It’s not only ours entirely. It’s ours and God’s.
And like God in his own life, we need to have full responsibility for our life. So we have a big part to play in it. We cannot play the spoiled brat who simply receives things from the parents and thinks he can do with them however he pleases. We always have to refer things to God, no matter how exciting and absorbing these things can be.
In the Gospel of St. John, Christ talked about being born again with Nicodemus, one of the leading Jews at Christ’s time. (3,1-12) “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
The words are crystal clear. Being born again is what enables us to enter the kingdom of God. We cannot remain here on earth, stuck in our natural and material dimensions. We are meant for the God, to partake in his very life, and not just a political understanding of God’s kingdom.
Expanding on this point, Christ clarifies: “Flesh begets flesh. Spirit begets spirit.” What is presumed here is that we are meant for a spiritual, supernatural life, not just a purely earthly life.
The Church brings it to our attention right after the Easter octave as if to tell us that the new life we are supposed to have with Christ after his resurrection, the new man we are supposed to be, starts with our being born again.
The meeting and conversation between Christ and Nicodemus are worth noting because they reflects the very way we discover about this need, and the reaction we are likely to have.
Like Nicodemus, we can be very knowledgeable not only in worldly things but also in religion, and yet we can still miss a very crucial point.
This has led our Lord to tell Nicodemus: “If I have spoken of earthly things to you, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you of heavenly things.” Let’s hope we can avoid hearing these words from our Lord. But that means we really have to be consistent with our faith, possible only if we are born again.
Also, like Nicodemus we should do our part by going to our Lord and somehow confessing our conversion and faith in Christ. We need to echo the words: “We know that you have come a teacher from God, for no one can work these signs that you work unless God be with him.”
For sure, given the temper of the times, we need to some extra effort to discern the hands of God not only in the natural wonders we see around, but also and especially in the man-made marvels that are producing.
Our problem is that we often fail to realize that our human genius, however it is shown, actually comes from God. It’s not just of our own making, filling us with a blinding sense of self-importance and losing our sense of God.
Again, we have to make adjustments, sometimes big and major adjustments, in the way we think, judge, reason, desire, feel. In all of these operations of our mind and heart, God should be at the middle. In fact, God should be the beginning, end and center, as well. This is a clear sign we are truly born again.
That’s always possible. God is never a hindrance to our human activities. On the contrary, God enhances these activities and makes sure that even our littlest, most insignificant activity, humanly speaking, acquires an eternal value with cosmic effects.
In the beginning, just like in any human endeavor, we can be clumsy in doing things with God. But with perseverance, driven by humility and trust in God’s power, living, thinking, judging, working and speaking with God can become second nature to us.
Let’s be born again, through the water and the Spirit, which I’ll explain in another occasion.
Yes, this time, unlike in our first birth, we have a part to play. Remember St. Augustine’s : “God created us without us. But he cannot save us without us.” That’s because our life is a life with God. It’s not only ours entirely. It’s ours and God’s.
And like God in his own life, we need to have full responsibility for our life. So we have a big part to play in it. We cannot play the spoiled brat who simply receives things from the parents and thinks he can do with them however he pleases. We always have to refer things to God, no matter how exciting and absorbing these things can be.
In the Gospel of St. John, Christ talked about being born again with Nicodemus, one of the leading Jews at Christ’s time. (3,1-12) “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
The words are crystal clear. Being born again is what enables us to enter the kingdom of God. We cannot remain here on earth, stuck in our natural and material dimensions. We are meant for the God, to partake in his very life, and not just a political understanding of God’s kingdom.
Expanding on this point, Christ clarifies: “Flesh begets flesh. Spirit begets spirit.” What is presumed here is that we are meant for a spiritual, supernatural life, not just a purely earthly life.
The Church brings it to our attention right after the Easter octave as if to tell us that the new life we are supposed to have with Christ after his resurrection, the new man we are supposed to be, starts with our being born again.
The meeting and conversation between Christ and Nicodemus are worth noting because they reflects the very way we discover about this need, and the reaction we are likely to have.
Like Nicodemus, we can be very knowledgeable not only in worldly things but also in religion, and yet we can still miss a very crucial point.
This has led our Lord to tell Nicodemus: “If I have spoken of earthly things to you, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you of heavenly things.” Let’s hope we can avoid hearing these words from our Lord. But that means we really have to be consistent with our faith, possible only if we are born again.
Also, like Nicodemus we should do our part by going to our Lord and somehow confessing our conversion and faith in Christ. We need to echo the words: “We know that you have come a teacher from God, for no one can work these signs that you work unless God be with him.”
For sure, given the temper of the times, we need to some extra effort to discern the hands of God not only in the natural wonders we see around, but also and especially in the man-made marvels that are producing.
Our problem is that we often fail to realize that our human genius, however it is shown, actually comes from God. It’s not just of our own making, filling us with a blinding sense of self-importance and losing our sense of God.
Again, we have to make adjustments, sometimes big and major adjustments, in the way we think, judge, reason, desire, feel. In all of these operations of our mind and heart, God should be at the middle. In fact, God should be the beginning, end and center, as well. This is a clear sign we are truly born again.
That’s always possible. God is never a hindrance to our human activities. On the contrary, God enhances these activities and makes sure that even our littlest, most insignificant activity, humanly speaking, acquires an eternal value with cosmic effects.
In the beginning, just like in any human endeavor, we can be clumsy in doing things with God. But with perseverance, driven by humility and trust in God’s power, living, thinking, judging, working and speaking with God can become second nature to us.
Let’s be born again, through the water and the Spirit, which I’ll explain in another occasion.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Condoms a dead man walking
Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral continues to distribute condoms and to amend her justifications for doing so, depending on her audience. I have already lost track of how many layers of rationalizations she had cleverly done.
She’s a smart lady. I wish to congratulate her, not for what she is doing in this particular case, but for being shrewd. Remember that our Lord also praised the unjust steward not for his misdeed but for his imaginative effort to secure his future once he is dismissed for wasting his master’s goods. (Lk 16,1-8)
This is, of course, a most tricky situation, since we can easily go overboard. But we just have to learn to handle this circumstance, since it’s part of what our Lord said about being “wise as serpents and simple as doves.” (Mt 10,16)
Still, we have to be clear and prompt in distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil. Everything, for sure, will have to be done with utmost charity, delicacy and refinement, especially in the grey areas. But the distinction has to be made.
In the episode of the woman caught in adultery, our Lord showed mercy, but told her to “sin no more.” There is mercy, but that mercy is not supposed to overturn the moral law.
This is the law that governs us all, since it is universal and immutable. I hate to say this, since I feel it’s so basic it should be presumed at all times. But as we all know, the world is now so flung in confusion that even the moral and ethical one-plus-one needs to be explained.
In this issue of the condoms, a ridiculously simple question that does not deserve a front-page treatment, the crux is first of all, as it should be in everything else, whether it is morally right to use it, let alone, to distribute it indiscriminately.
The moral test is basic and indispensable. When something fails that test, it cannot go first base, much less, expect a home run. It is disqualified right at the start. It’s dead in the water. No practical advantage can displace this requirement.
That it is still being foisted as a means to combat the dreaded HIV-AIDS, hyped now to become an epidemic, giving the impression the condom is the last resort, the ultimate redeemer, etc., is converting that piece of latex into a dead man walking, taking a longer route, past its due execution and interment.
This is stretching things beyond the limits. The condom is an ant made to posture as an elephant. It’s a blind, long shot and dangerous measure. Even its practical effectivity is seriously, that is, scientifically, put to doubt.
You don’t solve a serious moral problem with a mere prophylactic. And we cannot appeal to the argument that Cabral, being a public official, need not bother too much about morals, since she is limited to the practical aspects of the problem. She is just doing her job. Leave her alone. That’s a flat no.
That’s why I feel uneasy when some Church officials gave the impression they were playing footsie with Cabral in this issue. I was disturbed to read in the papers recently that some personnel of the social action group of the Bishops’ Conference were doing just that.
Cabral went to town telling everyone she was happy the Church finally gave some approval to the condom project. Or that in this issue, there is an area of shared interest between her and the Church.
Of course, we may have to take that news with a grain of salt. The media cannot be fully trusted to reflect the objective reality on the ground. Still, it can cause a degree of apprehension.
It’s not a question of whether the Church should cooperate with the government in a particular project. That cooperation should always be presumed, but always in the way that’s in keeping with our faith and morals.
In the agora of public opinion, the Church’s distinctive contribution is precisely the moral and ethical aspect of a given issue. Once that test is passed, the Church not only respects but also fosters the variety of views and options everyone is free to take.
We may have to look more closely into the qualifications of these Church officials. Clearly, good intentions and past heroic acts are not enough. Competence, doctrinal fidelity and tested prudence should be upheld.
With all the sex scandals hounding the Church now, we have more than enough problems without getting enmeshed in this condom ruse.
She’s a smart lady. I wish to congratulate her, not for what she is doing in this particular case, but for being shrewd. Remember that our Lord also praised the unjust steward not for his misdeed but for his imaginative effort to secure his future once he is dismissed for wasting his master’s goods. (Lk 16,1-8)
This is, of course, a most tricky situation, since we can easily go overboard. But we just have to learn to handle this circumstance, since it’s part of what our Lord said about being “wise as serpents and simple as doves.” (Mt 10,16)
Still, we have to be clear and prompt in distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil. Everything, for sure, will have to be done with utmost charity, delicacy and refinement, especially in the grey areas. But the distinction has to be made.
In the episode of the woman caught in adultery, our Lord showed mercy, but told her to “sin no more.” There is mercy, but that mercy is not supposed to overturn the moral law.
This is the law that governs us all, since it is universal and immutable. I hate to say this, since I feel it’s so basic it should be presumed at all times. But as we all know, the world is now so flung in confusion that even the moral and ethical one-plus-one needs to be explained.
In this issue of the condoms, a ridiculously simple question that does not deserve a front-page treatment, the crux is first of all, as it should be in everything else, whether it is morally right to use it, let alone, to distribute it indiscriminately.
The moral test is basic and indispensable. When something fails that test, it cannot go first base, much less, expect a home run. It is disqualified right at the start. It’s dead in the water. No practical advantage can displace this requirement.
That it is still being foisted as a means to combat the dreaded HIV-AIDS, hyped now to become an epidemic, giving the impression the condom is the last resort, the ultimate redeemer, etc., is converting that piece of latex into a dead man walking, taking a longer route, past its due execution and interment.
This is stretching things beyond the limits. The condom is an ant made to posture as an elephant. It’s a blind, long shot and dangerous measure. Even its practical effectivity is seriously, that is, scientifically, put to doubt.
You don’t solve a serious moral problem with a mere prophylactic. And we cannot appeal to the argument that Cabral, being a public official, need not bother too much about morals, since she is limited to the practical aspects of the problem. She is just doing her job. Leave her alone. That’s a flat no.
That’s why I feel uneasy when some Church officials gave the impression they were playing footsie with Cabral in this issue. I was disturbed to read in the papers recently that some personnel of the social action group of the Bishops’ Conference were doing just that.
Cabral went to town telling everyone she was happy the Church finally gave some approval to the condom project. Or that in this issue, there is an area of shared interest between her and the Church.
Of course, we may have to take that news with a grain of salt. The media cannot be fully trusted to reflect the objective reality on the ground. Still, it can cause a degree of apprehension.
It’s not a question of whether the Church should cooperate with the government in a particular project. That cooperation should always be presumed, but always in the way that’s in keeping with our faith and morals.
In the agora of public opinion, the Church’s distinctive contribution is precisely the moral and ethical aspect of a given issue. Once that test is passed, the Church not only respects but also fosters the variety of views and options everyone is free to take.
We may have to look more closely into the qualifications of these Church officials. Clearly, good intentions and past heroic acts are not enough. Competence, doctrinal fidelity and tested prudence should be upheld.
With all the sex scandals hounding the Church now, we have more than enough problems without getting enmeshed in this condom ruse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)