Updated: judge in Lozada’s case about 2 say he might issue subpoena 2 produce d President in court when he was cut off (ANC remote live interview)

Updated:      

Pietro Peruqino.”Lunette with Power and Justice ‘. Right-clicked from www.allposters.com, used here for non- commercial  purposes, under the terms of  free service by blog-use of image provided by said site.
Pietro Peruqino.”Lunette with Power and Justice ‘. Right-clicked from http://www.allposters.com, used here for non- commercial purposes, under the terms of free service by blog-use of image provided by said site.

 

Breaking news:

The judge presiding over Jun Lozada’s case (“P vs. Lozada” for perjury) was about to say he might or he could issue subpoena to produce the President in court when he was cut off (ANC remote live interview) to give way to a studio guest waiting on cam.

         Updated: The judge was giving an exclusive live remote interview ( just chanced upon it, not familiar with the perjury case filed against Jun Lozada by Mike Defensor, and have not read the order of the judge asking the parties to settle) to an ANC reporter, where he said that Malacañang had put pressure on him to recuse himself from the case but refused to give details (the “who”, “when”, “where”, “how”, etc.), saying that the emissary would  just deny it. He then talked about the demolition job going on against him. Into 20 minutes of airtime he meandered into the following (i’m paraphrasing from memory): “masyado tayong naaaliw ng mga pangyayari, may kasal nila Mar Roxas at Korina, mga kandidato, etc (“we’re being entertained too much by events, the coming wedding of Mar Roxas and Korina, and the candidates, etc.”) hindi natin napapansin, baka mag-martial law na… (“it is escaping our attention that martial law could be declared…”) kasi baka dito sa kasong ito, bagamat….may mga nabasa naman akong pwede… baka ipatawag ang Presidente sa korte, may mga nabasa ako…. (because in this case…..i’ve read some materials that it can be done… the President might be summoned to court, i’ve read…..), then he was cut off by the news anchor at the studio because there was a studio guest waiting on cam.

        The judge did not use the word “subpoena” and “arrest warrant”, but he was meandering towards that: subpoenaing the President or FG and, upon their refusal, issuing arrest warrants.

       As we all know, there is no trial yet; preliminary motions have been filed.

       You usually issue subpoenas on motion. At pre-trial you provide a tentative list of witnesses (among other things). In the course of the trial, you can add witnesses,  or not use those in the list. When you have the trial dates, you ask the court, if required (like —  if the witness requires it or the witness will not go with the lawyer, he/ she has to be subpoenaed), to issue a subpoena for the witness. Subpoenaing the President? Let’s see.

        But hey, the judge is talking, we’ll just let him. If he cannot cite in contempt the public official who pressured him, maybe he should…subpoena the President? Cite her in contempt upon refusal? Have her arrested? If you couldn’t cite the President’s  alleged emissary- influence peddler, sure you could cite her. 

 

& that’s why i tell my students: “Anyone who uses Wikipedia in my class will get a 5.0 (failing grade).”

                My notes on the Yahoo News  article:Although Wikipedia removed the article, it stayed online long enough, twice, to be read and taken by viewers (even as Wikipedia has a disclaimer disavowing reliability of the articles, :  when you publish material in your name, it has your stamp of approval unless you say in your disclaimer: “the editors don’t know how to read; we did not read this material, we’re pre- pre-schoolers”…. if you have a disclaimer that reads that way, then you’re off the hook, we don’t hold minors and legally incapacitated people responsible.  In this Yahoo News article (by an AP writer) though, the student said “Wikipedia passed, journalism flunked”, in my book, both failed for publishing fabricated material or  false “information”, even as  the former removed  it but not catching it when it was first published and again published it then removed it. You can’t play that way when you’re publishing materials passed as facts or “information” to the public unless, as i said, you have a disclaimer that says “the editors are still in kindergarten, they did not read this material”

Alternative title of photo: “Learning Process”  (ipinilit!). and.gettingthere

 

From Yahoo News by Associated Press writer Shawn Pogatchnik at

Student fools world media

            “Irish student hoaxes world’s media with fake quote

          “Irish student hoaxes world’s media with florid but phony quote from dead French composer

         “by Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer

        “On Monday May 11, 2009, 12:07 pm EDT

        “Buzz up! Print DUBLIN (AP) — When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

 

         “His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

 

        “The sociology major’s obituary-friendly quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer’s death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India. They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia twice caught the quote’s lack of attribution and removed it.

 

          “A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets they’d swallowed his baloney whole.

 

“I was really shocked at the results from the experiment,” Fitzgerald, 22, said Monday in an interview a week after one newspaper at fault, The Guardian of Britain, became the first to admit its obituarist lifted material straight from Wikipedia.

 

“ “I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn’t come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up,” he said. “It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact.”

 

“So far, The Guardian is the only publication to make a public mea culpa, while others have eliminated or amended their online obituaries without any reference to the original version — or in a few cases, still are citing Fitzgerald’s florid prose weeks after he pointed out its true origin.

 

“ “One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack,” Fitzgerald’s fake Jarre quote read. “Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear.”

 

“Fitzgerald said one of his University College Dublin classes was exploring how quickly information was transmitted around the globe. His private concern was that, under pressure to produce news instantly, media outlets were increasingly relying on Internet sources — none more ubiquitous than the publicly edited Wikipedia.

 

“When he saw British 24-hour news channels reporting the death of the triple Oscar-winning composer, Fitzgerald sensed what he called “a golden opportunity” for an experiment on media use of Wikipedia.

 

“He said it took him less than 15 minutes to fabricate and place a quote calculated to appeal to obituary writers without distorting Jarre’s actual life experiences. He noted that the Wikipedia listing on Jarre did not have any other strong quotes.

 

“If anything, Fitzgerald said, he expected newspapers to avoid his quote because it had no link to a source — and even might trigger alarms as “too good to be true.” But many blogs and several newspapers used the quotes at the start or finish of their obituaries.

 

“He said the Guardian was the only publication to respond to him in detail and with remorse at its own editorial failing. Others, he said, treated him as a vandal who was solely to blame for their cut-and-paste content.

 

“ “The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn’t use information they find there if it can’t be traced back to a reliable primary source,” said the readers’ editor at the Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, in the May 4 column that revealed Fitzgerald as the quote author.

 

“It’s worrying that the misinformation only came to light because the perpetrator of the deception emailed publishers to let them know what he’d done, and it’s regrettable that he took nearly a month to do so,” she wrote.

 

“ Fitzgerald said he had waited in part to test whether news organizations or the public would smoke out the quote’s lack of provenance. He said he was troubled that none did.

 

“And he warned that a truly malicious hoaxer could have evaded Wikipedia’s own informal policing by getting a newspaper to pick up a false piece of information — as happened when his quote made its first of three appearances — and then use those newspaper reports as a credible footnote for the bogus quote.

 

“ “I didn’t want to be devious,” he said. “I just wanted to show how the 24-hour, minute-by-minute media were now taking material straight from Wikipedia because of the deadline pressure they’re under.”

 

“Guardian article on controversy, http://tinyurl.com/djqd8w

 

“Soundtrack Geek blog on Jarre, http://tinyurl.com/d527zh

 

“Wikipedia site criticizing itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism–of–Wikipedia

 

My awkward poses, getting stats…. strange

 

downdog.bluebackground
Original photo by Chona Sebastian published in flowyogaqc, teacher Joji Balcita, workshop by Jon Cagas. Photoshopped by marichu (cropped. Lighting and eraser.)

 

That previous pose in yesterday’s post  (see box for previous posts right margin) received even more numbers that day, a stats spike of 2,500% (two thousand five hundred percent increase from the old stats) in my anonymous blog; so my anonymous blog now has twice more views than my main blog ; the traffic was brought in by a strange site called awkward family photos. It’s really strange. But they’re not visiting my main blog, this one, even after i’ve provided a link, twice. And i didn’t even write anything there, so i just copied and pasted what i wrote here, in there (i “updated” there that photo by copying what i wrote here). My anonymous blog is famous!

     This is good! i don’t have to write anything in here and in there!

      (The pose above is called the “downdog”, it’s a warm-up pose, it really makes your body get warm even if you’re just stationary in that pose;  ten of these at five long breaths each, in the sun salutes. this is still from the file photos, no time to shoot myself have to rely on spontaneous shots by others . thanks thanks.)