if on mobile device: Pls click “Listen in browser” on the soundcloud pod below to play …
a John Lennon original, live,
what else
Breaking Rappler
(News peg: The Securities and Exchange Commission today revoked the corporate certificate of Rappler on the ground that it violated the constitutional ban on foreign ownership of media organizations for getting investments from Omidyar of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, to boost its capital, and issuing “Philippine Depository Receipts” (PDRs, or certificates evidencing that money was provided) as instruments of investment of said company.)
The best of lawyers will tell Rappler to file an MR (motion for reconsideration) with the SEC, to get an injunction from the Supreme Court (on grounds of prior restraint: “any form of prior restraint comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption AGAINST its constitutional validity.” (New York Times vs. United States, etc.); failing which: To continue publishing Rappler and make sure the PDRs (investment instruments) are held by Filipino corporations or Filipino nationals, or if worse comes to worst: To publish Rappler using another personality – either another corporate personality or individual natural persons.
In other words, the best of lawyers can make Rappler continue publishing.
But how much are you willing to bend?
And how far are you willing to go to accommodate the whims of this regime?
If you let the new media overlords get away with this – who will be next in the chopping block?
ABS-CBN? — with any number PDRs it has issued or with its legislative franchise?
GMA News 7? — with its NTC permit to operate?
If all of us are willing to bend and willing to twist our torso to please the new media overseers – who else will be hauled over?
Twitter is foreign-owned, WordPress is foreign-owned, Google is foreign-owned — hell, any number of mediocre lawyers can argue that all Facebook users are operating on a foreign-owned platform.
How far are we willing to bend and when do we know we are already breaking?
if on mobile device, pls click “Listen in browser” on the soundcloud below for a song dedicated to Rappler …
Presidential Communications Assistant Secretary “Mocha” Uson wrote Communications Secretary Martin Andanar to ask that Rappler be categorized as social media, and its accreditation as member of the Malacañang Press Corps (MPC) be revoked, until such time as she, being the assistant secretary for social media, could determine whether Rappler is qualified to be accredited to the MPC. Here is a jpeg of her letter, rightclicked from the Inquirer:
In my humble opinion, and my considerable estimation of the problem at hand, afoot, and akimbo, but correct me if i’m right, Mocha is correct: Rappler is a kind of social media site :
The undisputed, undeniable, irrefutable proof of this is visible to anyone, to everyone, and to one and all (a merry christmas) — Here it is: digital evidence, admissible under the electronic rules of evidence : LOOK: Here is digital proof that Rappler is a social media site: When you hover the cursor above the url of Rappler on your browser, it unmistakably pops out, in white text, on aqua-blue background: rappler.com | News | Multimedia | Social Media | -RAPPLER
Here is a screenshot of it, as uncontroverted digital proof:
See the tags there? The tag there that is closest to the name RAPPLER in all caps in the right-hand corner says: Social Media. That is irrefutable proof that Rappler is a social media site. It is clear. As clear as my hair is pink.
It is a blog.
Blog siya.
from inquirer.net (inquirer text set in itals and green font)
Uson wants Rappler out of Malacañang Press Corps and under social media by: Nestor Corrales Presidential Communications Assistant Secretary Margaux “Mocha” Uson on Tuesday asked Communications Secretary Martin Andanar to remove Rappler as a member of the Malacañang Press Corps (MPC). Rappler, an online news organization, is an accredited member of the MPC. “I respectfully request that Rappler be reclassified and moved from Malacañang Press Corps to Social Media,” Uson said in a one-page letter to Andanar. A copy of her letter was published on his Facebook page. Uson, an assistant secretary for social media, wanted Rappler to be under her office and be removed from MPC because it has no print or broadcast arm. “This should fall under the rules of accreditation administered by my office,” she said. Those who want to apply members of the MPC undergo a process of accreditation through the MPC. Rappler replies In a statement released to the media, Rappler said Uson’s request was misplaced based on three points: 1) Rappler is an independent private media company. Because the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press (Art. III, Section 4), government does not have the power to regulate independent media. 2) The Malacañang Press Corps (MPC) is an independent group unattached to any government agency and is not under government control nor the supervision of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO). MPC by-laws are explicit on accreditation and cover online news organizations like Rappler. Section 2 under “Qualifications for MPC Membership” states: “For internet-based media, the reporter must represent a website affiliated with a duly-recognized print/radio/TV agency, or established online news organization with regular deployment of personnel in major beats.” 3) The PCOO’s Interim Social Media Practitioner Accreditation covers only individuals and not news organizations. Section 5 of the PCOO’s Department Order 15 is categorical: “Social Media accreditation shall be issued to a Filipino Citizen who is at least eighteen (18) years of age, with not less than five thousand (5,000) followers in any social media platform.” “This clearly does not cover Rappler, Inc., which is a registered media corporation,” Rappler said. /atm
On the article: rappler.com/dutch-activist-visa-violations
“This article is reported on Rappler.com and is about the deportation of the Dutch protestor, Thomas van Beersum, that was involved in the protest of the SONA back in late July. For starters, throughout the article, Thomas van Beersum was referred to as just ‘Beersum’. This shows unprofessionalism because ‘van’ is part of the last name – just like ‘van Persie’, ‘van Nistelrooy’, ‘van Gough’. Just like Filipino last names, ‘de los Santos’ or ‘de Padua’, you cannot leave out the ‘de los’ or ‘de’, it becomes a completely different last name/person/identity.
“Furthermore, the title of the article states, “Dutch who made SONA cop cry to be deported Aug 7”. Wow. The writer of this article blamed and condemned the Dutch protestor as the sole reason why the police, Joselio Sevilla cried. He completely forgot, or completely disregarded or completely ignored doing research on this topic. In the article that ABS-CBN reported (which I assume is first hand information), Sevilla did NOT state that the van Beersum was the reason why he cried, in fact, he did NOT mention the Dutch protestor at all. His reply to the question from the journalist that took the iconic picture was, “sa gutom at pagod. Walang tulog. Walang pahinga. Dalawang araw na kami naka-deploy dito. Tapos ganito, nagkakagulo.” All he said was that he was hungry and tired (and probably stress), that have caused him to break down.
“The journalist of this article exaggerated the situation that can potentially mislead readers (who do not know the real reason) and cause a backlash against van Beersum, or even the Dutch. What’s more is the fundamental mistake of leaving out ‘van’ in the last name is unacceptable for a professional.” Posted by Richard Juan.
