Opinion on Issues

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Look who’s talking…

with 8 comments

Curious lang, kasi mukhang talagang ipinipilit mo na pagdudahang astro-turfer nga ako or binabayaran lang kagaya ng pinapalabas mo, kaya mo ba ginagawa yan dahil ina-apply mo yung “crisis management technique” na sinasabi mo?

Sabi mo: associate opponents with unpopular titles (kagaya ba ng astro-turfer, bayad, o nagba-black propaganda lang?). As to your quote, this makes other shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

In the same breath you agreed to a comment that:

calling out the astro-turfer is perhaps cheap but good enough. And responsible bloggers can cut them down to size by moderating and not letting them in.

Since inakusa mo akong astro-turfer and hindi naman yun totoo at ni wala kang basis sa akusasyon mo, does this mean you are just putting a label on me?

Bakit? Anong purpose mo?

Pwede bang mai-apply yung definition ng “crisis management technique” na pinapaliwanag mo sa aktuwal na ginagawa mo ngayong pang-aakusa?

You said:

Screen Cap of Ella Comment on Crisis Management Technique, ellaganda.com

Note what you accused me of doing:

Screen Cap of Ella's Astroturfing accusation, ellaganda.com

You further added this in one of your comments :
Ella's spin doctors accusation, ellaganda.com

You bolstered the suspicion you’ve created with this insinuation:
Old PR Crisis Management Accusation, ellaganda.com

And again affirmed your astroturfer claim with this:
Ella on Crisis management Technique, ellaganda.com

Note this baseless, totally ludicruous claim, too:

Ella's Black propaganda accusation, ellaganda.com

I already told you several times that nobody’s paying me, that there was no reason for you to involve PCIJ and allude to statements I never even said, that I just posted because I’m concerned about the isssues of responsible blogging, cyber law and freedom of speech and because a good number of bloggers, some media practitioners and solons are discussing your expose, making it the flag-bearer of said issues, I studied it.

Why do you keep on pushing that I’m paid? Because I do not lavish you accolades? Because you do not approve of my post?

Why do you have to throw accusations and feed the suspicions of your readers? So that you would be able to quash the content of my post? So you can discredit me?

Why do you need to do that? What’s in the post that’s not in the thousands of posts and comments about your DSWD expose that you so badly need to overshadow with your accusatory tirade?

You seem to be so well-versed with crisis management techniques, dirty tricks in damage control, black propaganda, astroturfing and other internet trolling and mudslinging explanations. Is it because you only studied this in the advent of the “paid hack” thing or “ella bayaran ka” comment or is it because Press Release writing, public relations and online reputation management is your actual work, your bread and butter?

You are the PR person.

I already noticed the links that refer to your line of expertise even prior to drafting the post you’re so agog about, yet I didn’t include them before because they’re irrelevant to the issue, the story, your expose. I was researching on the expose and its veracity so I never felt any need to discuss your background.

Now, however, since you seem to be adamant about characterizing my post into something I haven’t done nor had any intention of doing – astroturfing, black propaganda, trolling, PR crisis management – now, your background becomes relevant.

It gives me a grasp of how you are wired, of how you think, of what you suspect or assume people are doing because your exposure defaults on the nuances of your line of work.

There are links all over the net that show that way back 2001 (or maybe even before that, you were already writing), 2004 and 2005 you were already a journalist, a correspondent for Philippine news, 2006 onwards till the present you’ve already been doing PR writing. Here is the description presented online by one company where your name appears:

[Ella’s] expertise ranges from journalism to public relations to online reputation management.

Now I understand that you are quite knowledgeable about how press release writing, public relations, reputation management – the good and the bad that comes with it – work. You know the ins and outs and you’re supposed to because, that’s your line of expertise.

The question however is, does it automatically follow that because you are wired that way, others think along the same line, too? Papano pala kung wala silang pakialam sa mga propaganda-propaganda na yan? Papano kung simpleng nagpu-post lang?

Do you think you can go about accusing people who write posts not to your liking of being paid, of doing astroturfing, of doing black propaganda, when it’s not even true?

Dahil di mo gusto yung naka-post me license ka na to hurl accusations at me? Binabayaran ang pagpo-post ko? Troll ako? Astro-turfer ako?

Ni wala ngang opinyon laban sa ‘yo sa post and naka-cut and paste lang yung mga statements na ikaw mismo ang nagsabi and makikita naman sa blog mo, pero talagang kelangan mong pagdiskitahan yung post na yun. Lahat yun, links and quotes lang na verifiable online, ba’t grabe yung reaction mo? Sa sanlaksang comments sa isyung to, yung iba sobrang lala pa, bakit grabeng pagdidiskita mo sa particular post na yun?

Eto ang sabi mo:
Ella's Eleven sites interpretation

Anong masama kung mag-post sa ibang blogs na nagdi-discuss sa issue na to? Nabasa mo naman siguro yung post di ba? Outline lang. Outline ng mga detalye, ng mga quotes, ng mga links.

Anong gusto mo gawin ko, baguhin ko isa-isa? Lagyan ko ng opinyon ko? i-rewrite ko ng paisa-isa and ipresent na parang article?

Para ano? para hindi mo mapansin na pare-pareho? para hindi halata?

Bakit ko gagawin yun, wala naman ako intensyong masama. Pinag-aralan ko lang isyu, then yung resulta ng pananaliksik, ipinost ko sa sites na yun yung topic na pinag-uusapan. Walang analysis na kasama, walang konklsuyon.

Your reaction goes:

“Can you imagine ELEVEN sites?”

Alam mo ba yung proseso habang nag-post ako?

Alam mo bang karamihan dun, hinde ko nakitang naka-post yung isinubmit ko dahil halos yung mga sites under moderation?

Alam mo bang yung unang post na pinag-submitan ko dumaan pa ang isang araw bago ko nakitang na-approve na yung post ko?

Alam mo bang yung sinabi sa kin sa unang site na yun baka hindi hinold for approval kung maraming links. Yung ibang site ganundin, naka-hold. Me nakita ata akong na-post pero putol, kulang.

Nung nakita kong naka-post ako ng isa na buo (o dalawa yata), ayun, tumigil na akong i-post yung outline na yun.

Saka, ano yun, dahil sa ELEVEN sites na sinasabi mo, pwede ka ng magtatalon sa konklusyon and mang-akusa ng kung anu-ano?

Do you not even notice what you’ve done to spread your own blog entry?Yung sandamukal na kopya ng posts mo?

Eh di nga ba, nagpatulong ka pa sa ibang tao na ikalat yun?

Napansin mo ba kung ilang daan o malamang higit pa yung nag-post nung blog entry na pinakalat mo?

Tingnan mo nga kung pano mong ipinakalat yun:
Ella's tulungan ikalat, ellaganda.com

Pag ikaw mag-post, pwede and walang masama dahil concerned ka lang?

Pag iba yung mag-post, kaduda-duda, pag ikaw, concerned lang, me freedom of expression.

Yung iba ba inanalisa maayos yung kwento at sinaliksik yung mga nakalagay dito, walang karapatan? Hindi concerned?

And to think na wala pang opinyon dun, ha? Nilagay lang yung mga detalyeng verifiable naman online, ewan kung bakit ayaw mong makita.

I do not know how you define concern, freedom of expression and the basics of what’s right and wrong.

Yung obvious lang, nag-iiba yung definition mo pag naga-apply sa yo. Nag-iiba pag dun sa taong hindi bow lang ng bow sa sinasabi mo.

Yung obvious, pagkatapos mo akong akusahan ng kung anu-ano, pagkatapos ding i-explain ko sa yo ng makailang beses na nagpu-post lang ako, hindi ako astro-turfer, and walang kelangang magbayad sa kin para gawin yun, eto yung last na sinabi mo:

Calling out the astro-turfer is perhaps cheap but good enough. And responsible bloggers can cut them down to size by moderating and not letting them in.

Your accusation -> your desired reaction.

Makes me think kung ano nga talaga purpose mo sa pagpipilit ng akusasyong hindi totoo.

Advertisements

Written by issuesopinions

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:23:24 +0000 at 4:23 pm

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Mr or Ms. I:
    Stick nga to the issues is the basic civilized rule of commenting.

    But if you commit a libel, or engage in astro-turfing, and this appears on the face of your comment, the person injured who thinks that way has a right in self-defense to call you out. That’s his/her judgment call, not yours.

    For example, I believe you when you say you’re not paid, but the way you comment is, at least something that looks very KSP (kulang sa pansin). Marocharim said it best – make your case, and don’t go on and on attacking those who defend themselves against what you say or seem to say. To them it’s obvious that you side with Dr. Cabral, even if you don’t quite say so, and that is your right.

    What you say is also entertaining in a schadenfreude sort of way. I guess Ella is right that you are a newbie blogger, but it should be easy enough even for a newbie to get the unwritten rules of fair play.

    Good luck to you.

    Orlando Roncesvalles

    Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:59:50 +0000 at 6:59 pm

    • Note the dates when I replied to Marocharim and note what I replied to. I addressed his reply to the comment made on this blog about the definition of founder and who started. The succeeding replies were but in reponse to the issues he was raising there.

      Prior to that what did I just post?

      The outline Ms. Ella was so peeved with.

      If I didn’t “state my case” at Marocharim’s site, it is because I had no intention of siding with anyone. I had no intention of discussing the case as if I know more than what was presented in the outline. Gusto mo ma-verify kung nagsasabi ako ng totoo? Tingnan mo pa sa ibang sites na nag-post ako, tingnan mo kung sumasagot ako pag pinapa-discuss na ako sa opinyon ko sa kaso mismo. Isang site lang yung nakipag-discuss ako ng tungkol sa isyu, pero defintely hindi ko tinutukan yung mismong opinyon ko sa kaso laban kay Ella. Sinabi ko pa nga dun na kung anuman yung magiging resulta dun, si Ella , Cabral at yung korte lang ang mas nakakaalam.

      If in the latter course of the discussions in this blog, it seems to you that I already am defending Cabral, it is because I now have a grasp of how it feels like to be accused and attacked by Ella and Ella’s visitors in her blog. I only posted an outline, for heaven’s sake, in sites commenting on the issue. Yet I have been addressed in her blog, maligned and thrown accusations at not only in her blog post but her comments, as well, and she even went as far as going to the site I visit to cast more of her malicious suspicions there.

      Yet, what I am addressing here is still the accusations hurled at me. Again, as to Cabral’s case against Ella, korte lang nakakaalam kung ano magiging desisyon nito. Yung alam ko lang eh kung ano nababasa ko sa net so hindi ako magpapaka-assuming para makipagdiskusyon pa kung kaninuman sa kung ano yung kahihinatnan ng kaso.

      KSP?

      I posted what? A number of posts before she went attacking me? Not even one of those posts said anything bad about her.

      Do you even notice how many posts others have on the issue? And what about her? Does she even stop even when she very well knows that her accusations have already gone overboard?

      I chose to reply to her on this blog. Unlike her, I never asked anyone to please spread my entries on facebook, on myspace or wherever else.

      I chose to reply because it’s too unthinkable how anyone can be so brazen as to hurl invented accusations at me just because I posted a research on this issue when in the very first place, this was started because she herself posted an entry that she asked everyone to spread. Yun nga eh hindi pa thorough yung research. Apparently, misrepresented pa kung sino yung talagang pumunta if we base it on what the articles say.

      Sige nga kahit sa yo lang mismo. Did I even ask for your attention? Ikaw ba in-address ko? Or did I just reply to you because ako yung in-address mo?

      Sino nagpapansin? Sino naghanap ng attention, ako?

      Anyway, whatever your opinion is, I’ll answer that if I know it’s not true, but in the end, I respect that you have the right to form your own insights. Peace.

      issuesopinions

      Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:50:19 +0000 at 3:50 am

  2. You’re “case” now seems to be that others and I should shut up because we should leave it to the courts. It comes very close to curtailment of free expression. Yet, when you yourself feel accused, you want your right to react. That’s not fair play.

    Whether a blogger’s research is “thorough” or not is subjective opinion. And even if it is not “thorough,” it is not necessarily the same as “reckless disregard” of truth, hence the weakness of the libel case.

    Spreading the word is by itself not a crime – in fact on matters of public interest it is a constitutionally protected right. Yet you seem to say that when Ella spreads the word she has committed a wrong, all because you seem to claim that she is in some sense irresponsible. She’s irreverent and funny, but what she did at the time of Ondoy was very responsible and commendable. It probably saved quite a few lives.

    But I may be wrong. So perhaps we can agree to disagree.

    Orlando Roncesvalles

    Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:10:35 +0000 at 7:10 am

    • Huh?

      I never said and I will never say that you and others should shut up. The very reason why I submitted the outline in the blogs they’re posted in is because I’m interested in reading didactic discussions, arguments founded not on emotions and outbursts alone, but on facts and details discussed in the light of their legal implications.

      It is but I who’s stopping MYSELF from discussing my opinion on the merits of the case because FIRST, I know that the information I’m gonna base my analysis on, if ever, is lacking. It is but based on what I see online. I do not know Ella’s intention, I do not know Cabral’s intention, ergo I am in no position to discuss their case as if I can judge whether one of them is guilty or not.

      SECOND, I just did the research because I’m interested to read about the legal opinions of those who are qualified to analyze and weigh the merits of the case. I won’t be so presumptuous so as to do that because I have no legal background or experience whatsoever. All that I know about legal matters, I read from books, I read online, I watch on TV. I’m not the type who’ll sell my ideas or argue about something I know my information or knowledge is lacking on. Kuntento na kong maging tiga-research at tiga-basa pag ganun.

      As to blogging responsibility, yes, I can share my insights on that. Blogging responsibility has many facets and is based on ethics and as the word implies, responsibility, so all of us can and may have opinions on that.

      I did not say that Ella was wrong in spreading the word, all I said was she could have done it more responsibly, again, my opinion. As I noticed, there were indeed some comments that were a bit off-hand and some avenues towards responsible reporting haven’t been followed, and that’s where I based my contention. Note though, that I didn’t even say that she was irresponsible. You can check from my posts in other sites that I mentioned blogging responsibility in the light of the issue but I was refraining from discussing Ella, or passing judgment on her. It was actually only when she was throwing accusations at me on her blog that I addressed her and asked her why she was faulting me for doing a research when she in fact failed to do that responsibly before releasing her much-hyped expose to the public.

      I am not questioning Ella’s intention. As to the way the expose was handled though – which is what I have been focusing on – we have to admit that there were lapses on the report if we see it in the light of responsible reporting, responsible blogging and responsible journalism. It doesn’t mean that because I noticed what wasn’t done responsibly in the report, I already branded the person as irresponsible. One lapse, two lapses, or even more doesn’t define a person. I focus on the action and judge not the person.

      issuesopinions

      Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:00:19 +0000 at 8:00 am

  3. “I am not questioning Ella’s intention.” We at least agree on the absence of malice on her part.

    Orlando Roncesvalles

    Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:49:04 +0000 at 6:49 pm

    • I am not questioning her intention because my stand on such things is: the only one who knows a person’s motive is himself (or herself, for this matter.)

      I am not questioning her intention because I don’t think I’m in the position to do that.

      I will not go as far as saying there is an absence of malice on her part.

      Nor will I say that the malice is there.

      I’ll let the courts decide.

      issuesopinions

      Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:22:06 +0000 at 7:22 pm

      • I see your point. So, in the beginning and in the end, nakikisawsaw ka lang, and of course that’s okay because it is covered by free expression. And like all, including Ella, you’re also covered by presumption of innocence. The two different “styles” – one takes a stand, and the other just wants to make sawsaw – could make for a spirited discussion in a first-year law school class on the Constitution.

        Orlando Roncesvalles

        Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:51:33 +0000 at 7:51 pm

  4. You see my point?

    Nope.

    You definitely do not.

    You make me laugh with the condescending statement:

    The two different “styles” – one takes a stand, and the other just wants to make sawsaw – could make for a spirited discussion in a first-year law school class on the Constitution.

    Nakikisawsaw, huh?

    Why? What’s so special about Ella that you think this issue is all about her? (And you?… Kasi di ka nakikisawsaw, di ba?)

    Do you not notice that the issues she ineadvertently opened – freedom of expression, freedom of speech, responsible blogging, cyber laws, justice and yes the trustworthiness of Filipinos affects everyone of us?

    Ganyan ba ka-myopic ang tingin mo o talagang gusto mo lang ipagpilitan na anyone who doesn’t side with Ella (and yes, you), eh nakikisawsaw.

    When Ella jumped to this conlusion without due basis and said:

    – Relief goods na ayaw yata ibigay sa mga nasalanta. Halatang-halata.

    – Susulpot din siguro ang laman ng mga mahiwagang kahon at mapapasakamay din ng mga tao…sa ARAW NG ELEKSYON.

    What implication did that tell those who painstakingly and out of their good hearts donated in aid of the Filipino people? Ganyan ba dapat na pag me duda ka, kahit di mo naman sigurado you’ll enjoin others and feed their suspicion? In the bigger spectrum of things, where’s your real concern for the Filipino people if by jumping to conclusions you’ll bolster the claim that we’re a nation of crooks?

    Alin ba pakikisawsaw? Yung mag-research ka and i-hold mo yung opinions mo on an issue that would inadvertently have an effect on a large number of people? O yung i-claim mong me first-hand knowledge ka sa isang isyung hearsay lang at i-claim mo na alam na alam mo yun and ipaako mo yung views mo sa iba hook, line and sinker?

    You want another example? Let’s not go far and focus on what aspersions you cast based on my post. Or better yet let me share with you why I just chose to make that outline – which made YOU ASSUME I am not making a stand and nakikisawsaw lang.

    Here’s the thing.

    I have observed and read what was written about the issue. I am not blind and I too have a mind and of course, I made an assessment of the situation based on what I know. What I ONLY know.

    If I CHOSE not to share my opinion, it is because I am not so presumptuous as to think that I know the motive behind Ella’s actions. Yes, I observed that she did things she wasn’t supposed to do, and did not do things she was supposed to, but then again rules of fairness dictate that I do not base my views of her actions without considering other factors, including her intention. Mas importante for me not to stoke the fire and not to put a person in a bad light, than to sell my opinions about her to anyone. If I hold my opinions, it’s because I respect the person’s right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

    Same rule that should have been applied to Cabral: before she should have been accused of anything, before the whole nation and the global arena should have been called on to take hits on her, she deserved some modicum of respect and fairness, too.

    No matter who you are, no matter what you do, you deserve to be treated fairly.

    That’s why I didn’t believe it right that I take any of these sides that you or Marocharim are too keen on making me take: “Are you for Ella” or “Are you for Cabral”?
    Ano ‘to, suntukan? pustahan? Child’s play? Kelangan ba talaga me kampihan?

    It’s funny that you do not see the point that when you stand for what is fair, you do not focus on siding with people. You focus on making a stand for what they fight for, what they believe in.

    I definitely will not make a stand for irresponsible blogging. If Ella just so happens to be in the side who stands for that then sorry, it’s not because I do not side with her, it’s just because I just do not believe in what she is fighting for. Not accepting that you’ve made a mistake and not owning up to it means you’re making a stand for that mistake. We all make mistakes, that’s a given, that’s something I can ignore. But if you’re so adamant to prove you’re right when you’re not, then if I don’t agree with you, allow me that right. Do not attack me because I just do not believe in what you make a stand for.

    Had you done your research, you’ll see that I never took pot shots at Ella. Kasi it’s the issue I was making a stand for. Not her. Not Cabral.

    But what did she do? Attack me. Accuse me. All baseless. All solely because of a post she didn’t like. A post she didn’t like because it noticed things which are right there on her blog and details verifiable all over the net. She faults me for noticing these things? That gives her a license to attack me then and discredit me so the post that she didn’t like would be quashed and wouldn’t be paid attention to?

    In your words and in hers:

    calling out the astro-turfer is perhaps cheap but good enough. And responsible bloggers can cut them down to size by moderating and not letting them in.

    associate opponents with unpopular title… this makes other shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    Kagaya ba ng nakikisawsaw, astro-turfer, bayad, o nagba-black propaganda lang? Remember I was accused of being all those things.

    Na mali naman.

    Note that when I reply, I debunk the accusations. I focus on presenting facts and details that debunk the malicious imputations.

    You and Ella on the other hand, place labels. You brand the person. You jump to conclusions.

    And that style, that style is the very reason why this issue triggered my interest, in the first place.

    I am for responsible blogging.

    I want more stringent cyber laws framed on ethics and responsibility.

    I am against using freedom of speech as an excuse to throw careless accusations that will trample on the rights of a person.

    I am against using power in any form to incite and encourage people to gang up and cast aspersions on others.

    Which makes me ponder on this issue and ruminate.

    Based on what I’ve seen so far now including the attacks on me after I posted my outline, I believe Ella’s cyber know-how and the way it affects people who read her blog and the blogs of people who support her gives her a leverage that the other side doesn’t.

    It’s a given and it’s ok, if it’s not being used to further one’s cause, but it’s an unfair advantage and an abuse of power if used as a platform to malign people and encourage others to do the same without due cause.

    In web parlance, we call that cyberbullying.

    And my stance is, I am definitely against it.

    I have put much thought to this and I am seriously, seriously considering volunteering to help Sec. Cabral just to balance the scales in matters of cyber research .

    I do not know if there’s still any need for any web research volunteers because NBI is definitely doing its work, but in case there need be, I’m signifying my willingness to help.

    As Ella said, in matters related to the net, the non-web habitues may need some help, and frankly I am willing to offer that if Sec. Cabral needs it.

    Seing someone being attacked on the web is like seeing a blind person tied to a chair raised on a platform who’s being mauled, being kicked, while the audience cheers on.

    It just isn’t fair, it just isn’t right.

    I do not know Cabral to have any sort of personal opinion of her but with the way things are shaping up, I see her as the blind person on the platform being mauled, being attacked, being taunted, being jeered at. She’s being attacked on the net from different fronts, and she’s even being prevented from saying stop.

    All she has, like the blind man, are her rights. That’s the only thing she can defend.

    I know even if I volunteer to do web research, i can’t do much, I am but an ordinary person.

    I know though that ordinary as I am, I was able to read the views of the rare few who cared enough to analyze the issue and presented a balanced view of the situation. These views enlightened me. These views helped me put things in perspective.

    I was able to notice people who may have every reason to side with one person but who have thoughtfully bit their tongue so as not to encourage more stones being thrown.

    These simple acts of fairness from a few people inspired me to think that a simple act from somebody concerned does count .

    I laud those who make their stand responsibly even if it means going against the grain. They inspire me. They give me courage. They make me think I wanna be like them, that it’s not impossible to be like them – people who prefer what is fair, what is right, what is just.

    If volunteering to research will help balance the netscape, I will.

    issuesopinions

    Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:21:41 +0000 at 1:21 pm


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: