PhilStar's Class over Crass

[basti08]

Class vs. Crass
BACKSEAT DRIVER BY Dong Magsajo
The Philippine STAR 06/28/2006

Peers and readers alike have been lauding the very concept of this column since we launched it first some two years back. Apparently, this column has changed the way a number of people view not just columns, but newspapers and their roles in general. It is quite the interactive column that five writers and the rest of The STAR readers share. Indeed, one of the most fulfilling and exciting activities this writer goes through week in and week out is sifting through the muck that is the Backseat Driver inbox and deciding which messages make it to the next week’s reaction part of the column.

The fulfillment and the excitement stem from the fact that we get all kinds of messages that allow us to get a feel for what concerns our readers. Often we are bombarded with questions about cars and the peripheral products that surround them. A lot of times we get sensible if not entirely intelligent comments about motoring in the Philippines. From time to time Backseat Drivers use this column to vent out their frustrations. And, rarely, we get stuff that we just cannot understand.

Early last month, after writing a particularly scathing column on second hand vehicle importation, this writer got several reactions expressing support for (and a few condemning) our stand. There was one, however, that puzzled us completely for both its construction and its content. I sent the reaction to my peers in the hopes of getting a better understanding of where our reader was coming from. It spawned a discussion on whether it was proper to actually hear this reader out or to simply brush the entire episode away as some flimsy exercise in futility and frustration. The reader somehow connected the content of the column and used it to poke a little fun at motoring journalists all over the archipelago. We’ve decided to print the text message — verbatim — for the sake of further discussion. We will not, however, print the contact number that went along with the message to protect our reader from others who might want to push the issue further. (Remember, this is our space. Let’s keep it all in this column, shall we?) Here’s the message…

AUTOMOBILES HAVE SECOND HAND BUSES THAT ARE DANGEROUS, ON THE OTHER HAND, MOTORING JOURNALIST HAVE SECOND RATE WRITING SKILLS, MODERN TIMES NA, MOTORING JOURNALIST HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD WRITE LIKE JOURNALISTS IN EUROPE AND STATES, PUT SOME CLASS NAMAN.

I actually intentionally added a period at the end of the message to at least put a merciful end to the almost unintelligible, uh, thought. See, here’s where editors and writers from other publications that I consulted got lost — the first line in the conjoined, uh, thought. What our reader actually means when he (we’re not sure of the reader’s gender) says, "automobiles have second hand buses that are dangerous" is something we have yet to figure out. Following it up with discombobulated noun-verb/plural-singular continuity only compounds our woes. At first some of my peers tried to wash their hands clean by saying that the reader could only be referring to me as the "motoring journalist". However, towards the end of his thought, he somehow quantifies it and implicates them all by saying "motoring journalist here in the Philippines".

From there, the issue became not whether we should try to find out what this reader wants from us (so that we might collectively improve) but whether we ought to even take this jab about improving our writing skills from someone who obviously has trouble writing himself. So what I did was argue in behalf of our reader. What this guy wants, I told them, is for us to improve. Will it not do us well to at least try to find out how this one person thinks we can improve? I mean, what exactly does he mean by "motoring journalist here in the Philippines should write like journalists in Europe and States"? Must we bash cars and car manufacturers ala-Jeremy Clarkson before we’re considered classy? Must we write kilometric articles and not go straight to the point the way newspaper writers ought to before we’re considered classy? Must we write about GPS and other automotive related developments that American and European writers and their audiences can relate to and forget about the region-relevant issues like Andy Leuterio’s take on diesel fuels and vehicles last week? So what if this guy can’t get his message through? The issue here is whether or not we, motoring journalists, are able to get our message through. Because here is at least one reader who thinks not (I think…).

Of course our discussions did not end with any kind of resolution whatsoever. We don’t know what it takes for us to become at par with writers from "Europe and States" because no one has actually told us what it is about those predominantly Caucasian dominated continents that will make us Asians want to emulate them. And so here, once again, is where you, the other Backseat Drivers of the world can help us. We (and I mean we from the tri-media motoring journalist lot in the Philippines) would honestly, seriously want to know how you think we can improve to the level where we don’t walk the line between class and crass. We honestly, seriously want to improve for your benefit. We honestly, seriously want to have more than just "second rate writing skills" compared to our illustrious counterparts from "Europe and States". We honestly, seriously want to be classy in your eyes. How do you think we can do that? Do text in to let us know. And please make your thoughts clear. We do have faith in your writing skills, you know.
*************

^^^the said article.

pinakanakakawindang sa sinabi ng text responder...

AUTOMOBILES HAVE SECOND HAND BUSES THAT ARE DANGEROUS, ON THE OTHER HAND, MOTORING JOURNALIST HAVE SECOND RATE WRITING SKILLS, MODERN TIMES NA, MOTORING JOURNALIST HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD WRITE LIKE JOURNALISTS IN EUROPE AND STATES, PUT SOME CLASS NAMAN. .....

....*ahem* practice what you preach naman...