Way back in the Typewriter Age, when I was starting out in the newspapers, journalists prayed daily to the gods of the central desk that they would find us worthy of being awarded the byline, the coveted proof of authorship that proclaimed to the whole world that our stories were good enough to be accompanied by our own names. Our editors taught us that seeing our names in the paper was something we could expect only if we deserved it; the withholding of this unique recognition was to be our daily lot if we did a half-assed job of gathering the news, hammering out the right lede and coming up with complete and accurate details in our reports.
Times have changed, of course. Not only has the newspaper byline been much devalued, like a lot of other things, but social media—now the main medium of popular public discourse—has given rise to the anonymous author, who peddles fake news, scurrilous snark and character assassination under the cover of a bogus identity.
Of course, anonymity in public discourse is not a modern invention. In this country, the most prominent members of the Propaganda Movement in the last decade of the 19th century used aliases to protect themselves from retribution by the Spanish authorities, about whom they wrote scathingly in their “blog,” La Solidaridad.
Thus, Marcelo H. del Pilar was known by his nom de plume Plaridel, Antonio Luna was Taga-Ilog and Jose Rizal had two aliases, Laong-Laan and Dimasalang. (Rizal, however, wrote his two great novels under his own name.)
The contemporary, Internet-aided version of political propaganda is different, however, because it is not only intended to protect its authors from criminal prosecution. It also lulls them into a false sense of security given to them by their anonymity, which they seem to require in order to make all the unfounded, libelous and irresponsible statements that they feel they should make.
It is important to understand that the current fad of using fake names or anonymous groups online is not really about modesty, which no writer on any platform desires. What the anonymous blogger truly seeks is not freedom of expression but freedom from responsibility.
There is understandably no pride of authorship when one is engaged in a criminal activity, like maligning the character of another person for purely political reasons and with no real basis. That is really cowardice and a refusal to take responsibility for one’s actions.
And the people who truly understand how both the Internet and social media work should remember that this anonymity is illusory. It is, with the proper tools and knowhow, actually easier to uncover the true identity of people online than to find out the author of a mimeographed screed.
I’d be ashamed to use my real name, too, if the best I could come up with was fake news and libelous opinion. Back in the day, I would even lose my job.
I guess pride of authorship is nowhere near as important to the character assassins and fake news-mongers as getting people to believe in they lies they attempt to make us believe. But unless you’re truly, irredeemably gullible, you really shouldn’t waste your time reading something that even its author will not claim as his or her own.
* * *
Here’s another reason why the current charges leveled against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno are different from those made against her impeached and convicted predecessor, the late Renato Corona. Sereno is not getting any love in her own backyard, from everyone from her own colleagues down to ordinary judges and even to lowly court workers and employees.
According to one newspaper account, Sereno backer Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman was greeted with stony silence at the national convention of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines in Legazpi City last week when he asked the assembled judges to sign a manifesto of support for the embattled chief magistrate. None of the judges present, the report said, even made a move to even draft a pro-Sereno statement.
The same report said that the Philippine Association of Court Employees, an organization which claims over 27,000 member-employees in lower courts nationwide, has also decided not to issue a statement on Sereno’s impeachment. Even the Supreme Court Employees Association has refused to support the chief justice because Sereno “is not popular among Supreme Court employees.”
The workers said they supported the well-liked Corona during his historic impeachment trial in 2012. “She’s no CJ Corona who would go out of his way to talk to the smallest employees in the court and check on their concerns. It is also during her time when our allowances were cut significantly,” an employee said.
I recall that Corona’s only enemies within the judiciary during his impeachment were some of his own colleagues, who thought they would succeed him if he was removed. Instead, they got Sereno, who is so unpopular that even the members of her own court have reportedly expressed a willingness to testify against her, should she go to trial in the Senate.