Columns
Reinventing the Philippines
Reinventing the Filipino Psyche (Part One)
| Reinventing the Filipino Psyche (Part One) |
When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo made a stopover in Los Angeles, California, on Nov. 21, 2001, she did not rate even a single column-inch coverage in the Los Angeles Times. It has the second-biggest circulation in the United States. The L.A. Times’ failure to cover President Arroyo's visit was not the first time that a Filipino President was snubbed by the mainstream press.
Then President Fidel V. Ramos also visited Los Angeles. He spent nearly a whole day meeting with the Filipino-American media and the community at the L.A. Sports Arena on Nov. 21, 1993. Yet, President Ramos' visit did not land also even a single column inch of coverage in the L.A. Times. (Editor's Notes: The L.A. Times did cover in its Metro Section President Ramos' trip to the Los Angeles City Hall on May 7, 1997, when he visited with Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council. But many doubted if the mainstream press would have covered the Ramos' second visit to Los Angeles if he did not go to the City Hall to address the City Council.)
Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada did not also merit any coverage by the L.A. Times during his two visits to Southern California.
After the Ramos visit in 1993, I sent a letter of protest to Shelby Coffey III, the editor and executive vice-president at that time of the L.A. Times. I told Mr. Coffey that it was ridiculous for his newspaper to ignore President Ramos' visit to Southern California when there were more than half-million (now a million) English-reading Filipino Americans in his newspaper's primary market. Besides, I said that President Ramos belonged to the West Point Class of 1950. How could the mainstream American media ignore a West Point alumnus who is now president of a country, an American former colony at that? As usual he did not bother to reply to my nth letter to him. I wrote again to Mr. Coffey and said that I was compiling my letters to him and the other editors of the Los Angeles Times and I would publish them into a book. I said that I planned to have "Tea, Coffey and Me" as the book title. Why tea? In one of my letters to Mr. Coffey, I said that the Philippines was obviously not his cup of tea.
I talked later with a Caucasian friend, who was a public-relations practitioner in Los Angeles. I asked this friend why the L.A. Times usually publishes in full color in its front page the visits of the Presidents of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and/or the People's Republic of China but ignores Filipino Presidents? He said that the coverage could probably be accounted to several factors.
First, he said that the Philippines does not have even a modest public-relations budget. All the Filipino government officials in Los Angeles do was to cater to the Filipino-American press and worse, only to the Filipino-American writers who write favorable stories for the Philippine vested interests.
The second factor was that the Filipino-American community did not advertise in mainstream newspapers unlike the other Asian-American communities that count on their ethnic mid-size corporations to giant (home country-based) conglomerates producing or selling automobiles, electronic products, computer components, etc., in the United States.
Third, Filipino businesses did not usually buy many American products. An example is the Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The Philippine Airlines (PAL) operates only four 747s while Korean Airlines for instance flies nearly 20 of them. The second airline in Korea, Asiana, operates nearly a 747 fleet two or three times bigger than that being flown by the PAL. Many Asian airlines for instance operate 747 jet freighters while the PAL does not have a wide-body (or even a narrow-body) all-cargo jet.
The point according to this PR practitioner was that "American businesses reciprocate matters with buyers of American big-ticket products." The Fortune 500 companies’ PR departments exert efforts to have the heads of state of their biggest nation-buyers get favorable media attention when they do visit the United States. Superb PR work generates more foreign linkages that result into more exports of American products and technology.
The same rule applies to the so-called "Military-Industrial Complex" (MIC) that supposedly controls many facets of American life, politics, trade and commerce. President Arroyo came to the United States to ask for surplus military equipment, armaments and ammunition and she got what she asked: A used Hercules C-130 aircraft, a retrofitted Huey helicopter, a surplus patrol boat, some hand-me-downs M16s and ammunitions. Compare this to the Taiwanese leaders who come regularly to the United States on buying missions (shopping sprees). The Taiwanese wanted to buy several brand-new Aegis-class nuclear-powered destroyers worth more than $1.2 billion (spelled with a B) each. The U.S. Congress and even the Pentagon, so as not to antagonize Mainland China, refused to sell the Taiwanese the desired warships and offered only new conventional destroyers. Now in the realm of reality, even private businesses entertain more potential customers than proven beggars.
Such is the reality of life, more so in America where the bottom line is, well, the bottom-line.
The Philippines does not have economic influence because its population that now exceeds 85 million souls does not have much buying power. For many Filipino families earn an average of a measly U.S. dollar per day. There is really no change in the income of the Filipino family. Then Philippine National Security Adviser Jose Almonte reported at a Socialist Congress in Chile in 1994 the same income of one-dollar a day.
Economic power translates to political clout. And as the adage says, mendicants cannot be choosy. This is the reality that sadly very few Filipino national leaders and many Filipino-American community associations cannot understand, or refuse to understand. # # #
To view Part II of this series, please click on this link:
Restoring the Dignity of the Filipino (Part Two)
TO: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
In a message dated 5/14/2007 1:25:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MEDIABCLA writes:
Dear Sirs and Ladies of the Los Angeles Times:
It may interest you to know that I mentioned the apparent bias of your newspaper against the Philippines, her President and the huge Filipino-American community of Southern California. You will find the documentation of your newspaper's refusal to cover many Filipino events in my series of articles about "Reinventing the Filipino Psyche" in the www.mabuhayradio.com.
To read Part One of the series of articles, please make a click at, or copy and paste to your browser, this link http://www.mabuhayradio.com/content/view/156/90/
Thank you for the attention.
Very respectfully yours,
Bobby M. Reyes
Editor
www.mabuhayradio.com
(626) 825-0628
Thank you for taking up this issue... If the Los Angeles Times wasn't so biased the Historic Filipinotown would have been a lot better off a lot sooner.
Keep up the good work,
David Rockello
This is not intended to attack any individual or the Filipino communities. Rather it is directed as an attempt to identify and understand character flaws we as individual Filipinos and/or as a people have that may explain why we have failed our people.
My cyberspace experience with Filipinos (except my classmates in medical school) began a few years ago when Anita – the Fairy God Mother – organized the Arellano High School email listing. Shortly thereafter I was introduced
into the other Filipino groups she was in contact with. My initial
participation was spotty at best. After she organized the Overseas Filipino Council (OFC), a flurry of deliberations surfaced in the Filipino cyber community addressing the many problems confronting our motherland. My interest in finding out what other Filipinos are thinking kept me glued in front of the computer several hours almost everyday. I probably read
hundreds of postings on various topics since the OFC cyber group was created and came to the following observations.
There is no doubt in my mind that most if not all in the discussion group [including those passively participating as e-mail readers] are very smart, highly schooled and educated, well informed, very knowledgeable and talented in their fields of expertise as individuals; passionate, enthusiastic and
committed in debating their positions. The question then is: Is this a curse or a blessing?
It is a curse if we become too entrenched, rigid and narrow minded in our thinking we couldn’t accommodate other opinions – that we are always right; or become overly sensitive, irritable, easily frustrated and quick to anger because we take comments opposite ours as insults. It is a blessing if we
are all flexible and open minded, accepting of other explanations or appreciate other possibilities – because we know we are not always right and cannot possibly know everything (even in our own field of studies), and acknowledge that there are many other opinions and ideas [out there] that
can be right; or become humble, patient, tolerant, understanding and civil to one another.
There are many of us who talk-down [or lecture] our fellow discussants as though they are totally ignorant of the topic under discussion; projecting that air of intellectual and moral superiority over the others who may know little of the subject being debated but nevertheless contribute valid insights enriching the dialogue. These others are accomplished professionals in their own rights i.e., accountants, engineers, teachers, lawyers, administrators, doctors, businessmen, etc.; expectedly and understandably they feel intimidated, disappointed, frustrated, discouraged and/or angry enough to retaliate; completely disengaging themselves, and leaving with the bad impression of: What is the point? This is a total waste of my time!!
No wonder we as a people cannot unite. We are judgmental, arrogant, hardheaded fools, and defensive we’ll argue our positions unyielding to the end. We, as a people are smart; too intelligent perhaps and too stubborn for our own good. With all the smarts the Filipinos have, we had not resolved our
motherland’s problems and failed miserably. We have [definitely] out smarted ourselves!
We must all remember that you are maybe an expert in your line of work but you are not in every human endeavor. Your views in your field are based on what you’ve learned from textbooks and your professional experiences that make you think narrowly along accepted parameters in your vocation – a
hindrance to new advancement. You are not exceedingly as intellectual as you think you are but just as dumb as the rest of us outside our expertise and interest. The other person – not an expert in your field of studies – approaches and looks at an issue from a different perspective and may come out and present an idea that is relevant in the resolution of the issue.
I would very much like us all to be patient to one other, open minded and flexible in our thinking; humble to admit our mistakes; and strong enough to take point-of-views opposite ours or criticism. If we cannot, then the Philippines is doomed and hopelessly chained and condemned in her sufferings
for many more generations to come.
If we all accept a change in our attitudes is in order and make this as our personal challenge and goal, I believe we’ll have a chance to meet at a common ground and unite; and effectively implement the crucial reforms our homeland urgently needs.
This is my very own assessment.
Nelson
The author of the preceeding commentary is Nelson A. Paguyo.








