The paid hacks issue has been a reply of last resort lately. The knee-jerk description apparently is being used when a noynoyista or any politician’s supporter cannot answer valid questions on performance, credentials, and platform.
It’s time to set the record straight.
Getting to the Bottom of the Paid Hack Issue
Hoy kabayan, any person who disagrees with your choice of candidate, and who articulates why he does not agree does not automatically become a paid hack. It does not follow – non sequitur! Ihampas mo yan sa kukote mo.
Here are some typical nonsequitur rebuttals reeking of brainlessness!
“i wonder who masterminded this site – a political rival perhaps who’s in to rake more kurakot if and when he succeeds as the next Phil President? Or maybe this is a pro Moronic Erap site?” – comment at the UtakNgTilapia.com site
*** From what I read here and the Anti-Pinoy blog, I think both site owners are under the payola VILLAR or Erap… – http://www.thepoc.net/commentaries/3574-media-corruption-and-payola.html
interesting that all the anti-pinoy posts r about Noynoy — u guys must be pretty threatened! Nothing to say about Gibo or Erap or anyone else? Really…? Hardly my idea of balanced writing with integrity. Insiders have confirmed that u aren’t for Perlas at all but for Villar, just as I had suspected… Well, I guess you’re just following instructions (your Aussie address notwithstanding), so I can understand…
note: Filipinovoices.com like Barriosiete.com has a consistent habit of deleting comments that it deems “unworthy”. For short, these blogs only listen to what they have to hear. In contrast, ANTIPINOY.COM says, bring it on – let’s discuss the issues point blank, no holds barred. But that’s another matter.
I am not discounting that there are paid hacks – but to say that the site owner of the ANTIPINOY.COM is a paid hack of Villar or Erap because they are against Noynoy and nothing against the other contenders is hilarious and downright hysterical! IT DOES NOT FOLLOW! NON-SEQUITUR!
Let’s be on the same page with this nonsequitur thingie and later on, this paid hack thingie.
Logical Fallacy: Nonsequitur
Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.
The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.” However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Who or What are “Paid Hacks”
A “paid hack” or a “hack writer” is generally defined as “a writer who is paid to write low-quality, quickly put-together articles or books”.
Hack writer is a colloquial and usually pejorative term used to refer to a writer who is paid to write low-quality, rushed articles or books “to order”, often with a short deadline. In a fiction-writing context, the term is used to describe writers who are paid to churn out sensational, lower-quality “pulp” fiction such as “true crime” novels or “bodice ripping” paperbacks. In journalism, the term is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a “mercenary” or “pen for hire”, expressing their client’s political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles. So-called “hack writers” are usually paid by the number of words in their book or article; as a result, hack writing has a reputation for quantity taking precedence over quality.
The term “hack writer” was first used in the 1700s, “when publishing was establishing itself as a business employing writers who could produce to order.”  The derivation of the term “hack” was a “shortening of hackney, which described a horse that was easy to ride and available for hire.” In 1728, Alexander Pope wrote The Dunciad, which was a satire of “the Grub-street Race” of commercial writers who worked in Grub Street, a London district that was home to a bohemian counterculture of impoverished writers and poets. In the late 1800s, Anthony Trollope’s novel The Way We Live Now (1875) depicts a female hack writer whose career was built on social connections rather than writing skill.
A number of writers who subsequently became famous authors had to work as low-paid hack writers early in their careers, or during a downturn in their fortunes. As a young man, Anton Chekhov had to support his family by writing short newspaper articles; Arthur Koestler penned a dubious Dictionary of Sexuality for the popular press; Samuel Beckett translated for the French Reader’s Digest; and William Faulkner churned out Hollywood scripts. A number of films have depicted hack writers, perhaps because the way these authors are “prostituting” their creative talents makes them an interesting character study. In the film adaptation of Carol Reed’s The Third Man (1949), author Graham Greene added a hard-drinking hack writer named Holly Martins. In Jean-Luc Godard’s film Contempt (1964), a hack screenwriter is paid to doctor a script. In the 2000s film Adaptation., Nicolas Cage depicts an ill-educated character named Donald Kaufman who finds he has a knack for churning out cliché-filled movie scripts.
The term “hack” has been adopted by UK journalists as a form of humorous, self-deprecating self-description. The term was popularized in the UK by Private Eye, which refers to male journalists as “hacks” and female journalists as “hackettes”.
In Douglas Adams’ The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox refers to the Guide as “That hack-rag” in reference to Ford Prefect’s job as a researcher/writer for the book.
The “Paid Hack” Myth Debunked
Actually, I took Esposo’s advise to heart. In his article “Truth and Honesty Assasinated” he wrote:
It is, indeed, hunting season. During this campaign period, the worst of Filipinos will again rise to the surface. At a time when a candidates’s credentials and vision for the country ought to be the focus of the campaign, it is the opposite that happens.
Many political operators and their image doctors are naturally hampered by the baggage of their own candidates and must find ways and means to win nevertheless. The most common option, therefore, is to try to bring down all rivals who are ahead of their candidate clients by highlighting the negatives of these rivals – whether true or not.
Anti-Noynoy stance does not necessarily equate to a pro-Villar stance.
Issues-wise, all the candidates have a common stance – to improve the life of the Filipino and move the Philippines forward.
So how can an anti-Noynoy stance be a pro-villar stance when they have both the same central stance? Isn’t that absurd?
The difference lies in how exactly are they going to achieve it? Platitudes are easy to mouth – you can have the vision, any one can – but how exactly are you going to achieve it?
Between Aquino, Teodoro, Gordon, Perlas, and Villar – only Nick Perlas has laid down how exactly he is going to transform the Philippines.
The thing is when I evaluated for credentials and vision (to use Esposo’s words) – Noynoy was last on the list – and Gordon and Perlas were top on my list.
But as I have previously maintained – on top of credentials and vision – to have a wholistic evaluation – you also need track record and a substantiated platform, and of course, integrity ought to be a given.
No Coverage of Villar, Teodoro, and Erap does not make one Pro-Villar, Pro-Teodoro, or Pro-Erap
Villar’s apparent recklessness with public money is already under scrutiny and frankly disturbing – and he is not even in my radar screen. Am not voting for him, too.
Erap? Dang, he’s not even in my vocabulary. Why the eff should I write about Erap? Are you freaking kidding me? If you don’t get the fact you shouldn’t vote for Estrada, WTF?
Teodoro? Seems to be a good guy, but too close to Danding Cojuangco for comfort.
Three down – and that leaves three contenders- Noynoy, Perlas, and Gordon. Those are the three that need attention.
Experience-wise, Gordon/Fernando wins hands-down. Uhhh… Between Tarlac and Subic. You can’t argue with success! Noynoyistas will raise the apples and oranges argument. However, the deeper argument is that Gordon has the better sense to realize that choosing the executive path allowed him more opportunities for delivering transformation (and not just talking about it in a speech, like the starbucks masa’s darling). After being an executive, he became a legislator at the local and national levels while maintaining operational leadership of a national advocacy like the Red Cross. His VP,Fernando is no mean feat just the same, having actually transformed Marikina. That’s definitely a lot better than a Hacienda Luisita-centric development strategy which leaves dead farmers in its wake.
Vision-wise, they can’t top Nick Perlas who has reaped accolades from the international community. Anyone remember the adage – “a prophet is never respected in his hometown”? If you haven’t, then you just have! Anyone who is dead serious on New Politics will gravitate towards Nick Perlas. The question is, are the Pinoys ready for New Politics?
Apparently, a large swath of the Philippine electorate are using evaluation criteria skewed towards an emotional response – winnability, pedigree. Even the concept of integrity has been perverted not to mention the frequent calculated equivocation to solicit sympathy.
The call for New Politics is not connecting those who need it most – the marginalized immature electorate. The message needs to be delivered and delivered hard. We have the chance to arrest, stop, block the continued lopsided rule of the oligarchs and their stooges.
All the tricks in the book which use emotional buttons can be addressed by facts and logic. We raise the level of debate by separating the goat from the sheep.
The Best Things in Life are Free
Now bear with my sophomoric deduction that involves “paid hacks”. All bloggers write, otherwise blogs wouldn’t exist.
Since all bloggers write, therefore, all bloggers, are in a sense writers.
Now, the colloquial reference to a writer is a hack. Therefore, all writers are “hacks”.
Since all writers are “hacks”, and all bloggers are writers, then all bloggers are hacks!
So, yes, I am a hack, I am a writer! Of poor quality if I may so – I like run on sentences and I don’t spell check, oftentimes my grammar would suck – in my blog (my technical writing is another matter though – that’s when all the bells and whistles of proofreading are deployed). Does that break my heart? Hell no.
So what? As long as I am true to myself and express MY OWN VIEWS AND OTHER VIEWS THAT I FIND TO BE LOGICAL AND FACTUALLY SOUND – I am comfortable with my skin. If you can’t handle my views, it’s not my freaking problem.
As a systems builder and integrator, I integrate chunks and modules of the best information and methods available and tie it into a coherent and innovative solution subject of course to the unique characteristics of each undertaking.
Am I getting paid to write what I write? The answer is a categorical NO. I write for FREE!
As a supply chain management professional involved in analytics, writing is just the last part in a process. I write only after I have done the following:
- Define the parameters
- Extract and clean the data and facts
- Review the numbers and validate the trends
- Query the data to spot the trends
- Based on the trends, develop options
- model/simulate good-better-best the solutions for cost-effectiveness of solutions.
But a writer, a hack, just the same – and so are the Margallos, Buencaminos, Tordesillas, and Esposo.
The difference is – when it comes to politics – the Margallos, Buencaminos, Tordesillas, and Esposos of the world are already making a living, writing about the various candidates AND they get paid, too. Does that make them more of a paid hack than I? The thought barely crossed my mind, now that they mentioned it, hmmmm, I wonder.
As for me, I write because I love to write, because I have something to say, because I have MY TRUTH, which I can blend with OTHER TRUTHs. PERIOD. I love to seek the truth, because it sets me free – free from ignorance, free from flawed choices, free from the consequences of flawed choices!
I pay for this site using my hard earned paycheck because I put a value in the principles I believe in – among them to exercise my constitutional right to express myself. And because, I can afford it! $4.95/month hosting? Are you kidding me? That’s just two gallons of regular gas. I don’t need anyone to pay me to be able to afford hosting a site. I don’t need to pay anyone to maintain the site either – because I do it myself! It’s a hobby (better than ballroom dancing and karaoke as far as am concerned) and the site is a showcase of technical capabilities – good for my resume, too!
For short, no one else is paying me to write – nor is anyone else paying for the site’s hosting. So, this is my site – and I write as I damn well please. I write because I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO WRITE.
As to the writers who have been quick to talk about paid hacks – I’d say it takes one to know one.
Hack? yes? Paid? No!
Anti-Noynoy? Whaddya think.. DUH!
Pro-Villar? No! Pro-Erap? No!
Pro-Prosperity? Pro-Performance? Pro-Integrity? Pro-Credentials? Pro-Vision? Pro-Charter Change? Pro-Legalization of Divorce? YES!
Any candidate who steps up to the plate, has a substantiated platform that shares my values and view of the future AND meets ALL the above, has my vote.
Is it a tough set of criteria? You bet it is!
Should I compromise, hell no! I want the best candidate who has walked his talk.