Before there is social media, there are already newspapers. Before we become netizens, we are readers.

As a journalism student, I have always been challenged as to why I chose this course—to waste my four years studying a profession that is about to end, as others would often say.

With the boom of social media, many believe that the print industry is about to face its doom. The print industry may be waning its limelight, yet it surely will not be threatened. It will continue to live the legacy it beholds.

We must remember that before everything else—before the radio, television, the social media was born—the print industry was already giving us available information. Before the Janet Napoles scheme appeared on our TV screens and heard it on air, we first read it on a broadsheet. Before the rage of hundred thousands of netizens, the ten-billion peso pork scam had been first published in the Inquirer. Prior to the so-called million people march on Luneta against pork misuse, the controversial issue was once written on print.

As for the TV, while it has any right to deliver the people the significant information they need, it tends to feed its viewers tidbits of gossip primarily-based on commercial interest. With the ongoing investigation of pork barrel scam still contained in the newspapers’ reports, the most powerful medium in the traditional tri-media seems to have somewhat diverted away to the onset of the current faction Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)’s siege in Zamboanga. While the latter can be weighed as important as the former, it looks like media blackout has come along the way.

Almost the same goes with its radio counterpart. Talking about being handy, compact-made transistor radios can catch up as an alternative to the hassles of much bigger broadsheets. But strictly speaking of signal-dependence and quality-wise, the fast flow of reportage in a radio can never beat the well-presented facts in a newspaper.

We can always freely blabber our ideas on a certain issue in social media but when it comes to its in-depth analysis, admit it, there are some of us who would still go on to reading newspapers. And with the advancements in the today’s technology, the print media has paved its way online, thus, providing the citizens easier access to information. Instead of saying that the print is on the verge of extinction, rather we can imply that it is evolving.

Definitely, the print industry will not die.


Back to Home
Headlines/News
Opinion
Sports
Features

 
With Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates “Soc” Villegas as the newly-elected president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, surely the hurdling conflict regarding the controversial Republic Act No. 10354, better known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act, does not stop here.

Villegas was announced the new CBCP leader to take over Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma after the latter declared giving up his post which will end on the first of December. He may be new in the position, but the 52 year-old Villegas has been a veteran in waging a long-time fight against contraception.

An avid supporter of the late President Corazon Aquino, Villegas ironically is one of the greatest critics of the former’s son incumbent Chief Executive Noynoy Aquino. The clash was made even deeper as the younger Aquino signed and approved the enactment of RH into law. Once asked in an interview last February, he said that the relationship between the Church and the current administration was “far from ideal.”

Known to be Sin’s protégé, Villegas said to the youth amid the debate on RH bill last year that “contraception is corruption,” citing it as a possible way to legalize abortion in the country. While the name of the act itself provides responsible parenthood, the clergy mistook it for being pro-abortion and called contraceptive pills and devices abortifacients.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly indicts that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable yet the prelates vaguely recognized it. The ecclesiastical members attended the opening hearing in the Supreme Court as “conscience troublemakers” to rule out the RH law’s constitutionality last Tuesday. They even held a Mass and prayer vigil to support anti-RH advocates on the same date.

Meanwhile, it may be a good idea for the Church to be more open-minded on giving the poor access to contraceptives as a measure to control the state’s population growth. With the ongoing friction between these two entities, it is merely our personal choice whether which side to take or if we should take side at all.

On the other hand, oral arguments were conducted in the SC main session hall which lasted for about five hours hearing mainly the voices of those challenging the now suspended legislation. The proceedings will resume this coming July 23.

And so the battle continues.



Back to Home
Headlines/News
Opinion
Sports
Features