DON'T READ, SAVE THIS

Online newspapers are a complete bollocks- if you get my drift.

I would like to think that print newspaper is more lapidary than online newspaper. Into the sea of visceral observation upon sceptical thoughts, newspapers should preserve orthodoxly the firsthand empirical accounts in a material where readers browse the content in full Monty. Dont mind whether its lackadaisical or not, mostly news are put that way. Digital revolution, for me, does suck. Though modern gadgets are fit to busy people with hectic schedules in a stiff working milieu, still rivulets of ethical flaws are queries left unanswered. Sure enough, youngsters of this generation prefer to use online newspapers. But I nonchalantly, being a youngster of my age, don't patronize this stuff. I LIKE THE OLD-SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS. More reliable, complete and easy on the eye.


Being a keen internaut (only the square PC), a term used to describe an Internet user, I seldom visit the news section because there are manifold links leading one to a rollercoater ride, same format and topic. But in doing so for quite some time, I Had gotten to know their names, in the foreign scene I remember "The Sun," which has news as almost half of the entertainment beat. Giving glimpses of America's ground-breaking news, there's the "The Washington Post" catering not just the sole window of America but the world as well. Last to rupture the ropes is "The Times," specifically "The Sunday Times UK." Obviously when I click BBC News on the web directory, there's a link of The Times which cordially taps my curiosity for a visit. Of course, this online newspaper is akin to the national beat of United Kingdom, as well as international news coverage.


On the other hand and to name a few in the local setting, of course we are proud that news had shifted into a higher gear, that is the solid online news interaction of the time. But I say it over and over again, online newspapers do suck. Its my perception. I like the traditional, old-school ones. Neither call me a stick-in-the-mud who's afraid of change, nor a stolid youngster of poetry... I dont give a damn! Back to business, some prominent online newspapers in the country are "INQ7.net," "Malaya" (online edition), and "The Manila Times." These, prior to information diffusion theory, are innovators in presenting a worldview of the reality and events equipped with videos and commentaries that print newspapers cannot give. Bone dry as the print, yet one can carry them everywhere. Unlike online newspapers, ethical motivation of readers may freeze to explore 'round the clock if their asses stuck on chairs without the 'escape valve' to do so. As media consumers, we have a call to participate and draw feedbacks from editors, who in turn feel the same way on the issue.


According to Dr. Katz, "The answer to newspapers' woes is not electronic. The structure, attitudes, and content of the printed version have not evolved in ways that would have kept the readers it used to have and attracted new audiences, the next generation. Unless papers take a close, critical look inside the newsroom, ventures out into the digital world will not guarantee their future."


I totally agree with Dr. Katz's assumption, yes the media are evolving and we become technocratic literates. But the question is, do media guarantee us with sufficient information (esp. online newspapers) that we inflict in ourselves, our behavior, and our future?


So my statement remains; online newspapers are a complete bollocks. Say you, say me- if you get my drift. Peace out, we're friends!

OUT OF TIME SPRINT

Days are numbered to aggravating the controversial turmoil between First Gentlemen Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo and editors from Newsbreak newsmagazine. The tiniest mote of misunderstanding becomes the giant political quandary in the prying eyes of the public. Manifold allegations shoot like rapid darts to besmear Mr. Arroyo's so-called good name, character and reputation as a steadfast public official. It's perturbing to play safe than belting the truth towards a psychedelic
assumptions of his blatant mistakes. Being a lawyer by profession, he must come out to the fold with a clear name and good reputation. But hapless circumstances strike like a bolt from the blue. However, casting doubts and taking strides in an unorthodox fashion might lead him face the music. And it's no wonder he is under stiff public scrutiny.


The recent class action suit against Mr. Arroyo is justified accordingly and the accused claims he was musunderstood. It's unforgivable in the code of ethics for Journalism to rebuff this indispensable principle once and for all. The plaintiffs, which are the editors, shudder in agitation that Mr. Arroyo, in the first place, should not have filed a case against them, which indeed urged them to push the issue and sue him in return. On the contrary, the media throw punches of valid evidences that would constantly oblige them to shove the class suit and settle differences in a complaisant manner. But Mr. Arroyo's arguments are consistent, telling the public that the media's testimonies are based on technicalities and a wrong interpretation of the rules, and other portents that may gradually clear his name are replete with empirical accounts. If people were to judge and rectify reality, it was Mr. Arroyo who misunderstood the role of the press. I, too, do believe him less and less.


In truth, it's not the press that bumps at every post. Take a glimpse at his grungy records... all are a plethora of corruption! Mr. Arroyo should be, more or less, putting his cards on the table before severe accusations slap him again in the face.


So out of time sprint, who do you believe?

OUT OF TIME SPRINT

Days are numbered to aggravating the controversial turmoil between First Gentlemen Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo and editors from Newsbreak newsmagazine. The tiniest mote of misunderstanding becomes the giant political quandary in the prying eyes of the public. Manifold allegations shoot like rapid darts to besmear Mr. Arroyo's so-called good name, character and reputation as a steadfast public official. It's perturbing to play safe than belting the truth towards a psychedelic
assumptions of his blatant mistakes. Being a lawyer by
profession, he must come out to the fold with a clear name and
good reputation. But hapless circumstances strike like a bolt
"It's my year, pig it boy!" from the blue. However, casting doubts and taking strides in

an unorthodox fashion might lead him face the music. And it's
no wonder he is under stiff public scrutiny.


The recent class action suit against Mr. Arroyo is justified accordingly and the accused claims he was musunderstood. It's unforgivable in the code of ethics for Journalism to rebuff this indispensable principle once and for all. The plaintiffs, which are the editors, shudder in agitation that Mr. Arroyo, in the first place, should not have filed a case against them, which indeed urged them to push the issue and sue him in return. On the contrary, the media throw punches of valid evidences that would constantly oblige them to shove the class suit and settle differences in a complaisant manner. But Mr. Arroyo's arguments are consistent, telling the public that the media's testimonies are based on technicalities and a wrong interpretation of the rules, and other portents that may gradually clear his name are replete with empirical accounts. If people were to judge and rectify reality, it was Mr. Arroyo who misunderstood the role of the press. I, too, do believe him less and less.


In truth, it's not the press that bumps at every post. Take a glimpse at his grungy records... all are a plethora of corruption! Mr. Arroyo should be, more or less, putting his cards on the table before severe accusations slap him again in the face.


So out of time sprint, who do you believe?