First, let me extend a very warm welcome to the many new Filipino readers that have discovered this blog in the past 24 hours. My husband is from Australia, so I do get down to that part of the world on occasion and I hope to visit your beautiful country at some point in the future.
It is great to have you here, although the circumstances of our meeting are, to say the least, unusual.
It seems one of your esteemed Senators, Tito Sotto, plagiarized a blog post I wrote on February 23, 2011 entitled How The Pill Can Harm Your Future Child’s Health, lifting entire sections of the article basically word for word that was delivered in a speech to the Senate Floor regarding the possible passage of the highly controversial Reproductive Health Bill.
What’s worse, Senator Sotto is denying the charge of plagiarism, saying in an interview with ABS-CBN:
“Why would I quote the blogger? I was quoting Natasha McBride.”
Nice touch Senator. You almost had me convinced you were a nice guy with the tears and all.
Many of your citizens have emailed me assuring me that was a put on, and I’m starting to think they are right.
A thief is a thief, Mr. Senator. Denying it doesn’t get you off the hook; it just makes you a lying thief.
On the bright side, I am thrilled that your lapse of moral judgment has brought much-needed attention to the fact that the birth control pill can have devastating consequences to a woman’s long term health and possibly those of her children and even grandchildren. Gut dysbiosis is a serious condition that has multi-generational consequences that women need to be educated about and completely aware of before making the very personal decision to use them.
It was indeed brave of you to take this controversial position. Kudos to you for that.
By the way, I am truly sorry for the loss of your son.
As the mother of two sons myself, I can only imagine the pain and devastation you have felt from such an experience.
While this has been a highly charged and hopefully enlightening experience for all involved, it’s time now to set the drama aside and get back to fighting the good fight by continuing to educate people about how their food and pharma choices affect not only themselves but also those they dearly love.
And although my attorney will likely try to persuade me otherwise, for now I’m moving on as I’ve got work to do.
Women of the Philippines: I am terribly sorry my blog was used and twisted against you. You deserve the choice to use The Pill if you want or need to based on your particular circumstances. While I want you to know that this choice has health consequences as does the decision to use any pharmaceutical drug, I in no way would ever condone taking this choice away from you! Mabuhay!
You copied Dr. Mc-Bride’s ideas and you claim Sen. Sotto is a thief who stole your lame ideas? Gee. What class you have. You call yourself an economist, where did you get your Ph.D. in economics? The same as where Malthus got his? In the Philippines, ALL women have access to information on reproductive health, all they need to do is simply open the Internet. The issue is NOT about being educated — it is the government forcing down condoms and pills on people’s throat using taxpayers’ money. It is public provision of a private good — if you don’t understand what that means, go back to economics school. Even my undergrad economics students know more economics than you. Read what Robert Lucas and Ed Prescott, both Nobel-prize winning economists, have to say about this, IDIOT. Government has no business telling families how many kids they should or should not have.
I’ll let the rest of the commenters nitpick your terrible post, but I’ll take exception with a few of your points. First of all, what Mrs. Pope did was take McBride’s ideas, reformulated those ideas in her own words, and commented on those ideas; this is how research and discourse works. What Sotto the comedian did was copy and paste, without proper attribution, Mrs. Pope’s words, not Dr. McBride’s. This is not research; this is plagiarism, and is a serious academic offense.
Secondly, your point about how women can simply “open the internet” shows how out of touch you are. NEWSFLASH: a lot of Filipino women are living in poverty and don’t have access to the internet or proper education. How ignorant and callous of you to presume that everybody has the same luxuries that you enjoy.
Using a thesaurus to substitute verbs and adjectives is NOT research. There is no element of scholarship of whatsoever. What Ph.D. academics call as “originality” — that element is lacking. If you simply regurgitate other people’s thoughts, those ideas are not your own. You are not really saying anything new or something that is your own. How is that scholarship?
Yup. That is what you call “paraphrasing.” However, as you are being so damn narrow-minded you failed to notice that Sarah Pope did add something “new”. Oh, wait did I say narrow-minded? I mean “blind”. You did not read her article well enough.
So, then, why the bitching and the moaning?
Bitching and moaning? Before you accuse someone of doing them I suggest you look in a mirror first. 🙂
I think you missed my point so let me try again. Quoting other scholars is a fundamental part of research. If you look back to Mrs. Pope’s original blog entry, she actually cited McBride by name. The rest of her blog entry builds upon the thesis that the pill can be harm “one’s child,” using the findings of scholars and other sources (which she lists at the end of her blog entry). The original blog entry isn’t just one McBride quotation. The entry is original in that it is entirely Pope’s words, unless stated otherwise.
Now compare that to Senator Sotto’s unattributed/stolen remarks. Now, I must point out that Sotto’s original defence was that both he and Pope were quoting from the same source. This is a blatant lie; he was not quoting from McBride. He was ripping off Pope’s paraphrasing of McBride.
This isn’t so hard to grasp. This stuff is hammered to people in high school, which makes it all the more unsettling that a lawyer could have made such a great oversight.
*In principle*, he is responsible for his staff’s work. But based on the realities on the ground, with literally hundreds of papers coming in government desks everyday (for example, in order just to get a newspaper in the government, the paperwork goes back to officials at least 5 times – from obligation slips, to purchase requests, to vouchers, etc. etc), my take is that it’s difficult to vet all the papers that his staff gives him. But that’s no excuse. In my opinion, he should still have vetted it. But not to say there should be an excuse for all the moaning and the bitching either.
DO you understand what plagiarism is?
Plagiarism is not the act of stealing one’s ideas. It’s the act of copying one’s expression of an idea without properly attributing the source and then claiming it as your own.
For example, Sarah wanted to express the idea stated in Campbell’s research that pills have harmful effects. She then in her own words expressed that idea then properly cited Campbell as its source. In this case, there is no plagiarism.
On the other hand, when Sotto copied word for word that portion of Sarah;s blog that expressed Campbell’s idea, and remember that it was already expressed in Sarah’s words, then combined it with other portions from other blogs and articles, then he called it his speech, without citing Sarah as the source, then there is plagiarism.
Even if Campbell was the originator of the idea, plagiarism was committed against Sarah because it was her work that was copied and it was her words. her expression of Campbell’s idea, that was copy-pasted in Sotto’s speech. This is just proper since it was Sarah who read Campbell’s research, digested it, and in her own carefully chosen words expressed again said idea in her blog.
This whole scandal would have been avoided if the following would have been done:
1. Sotto’s legal reasearcher looked for Campbell’s original research that was cited from the blog, read it, then paraphrase it, or if the researcher is still too lazy, lift portions of it, in quotation marks, then cite Campbell.
2. Sotto’s legal researcher, if he is really that lazy to do number one, paraphrase or quote that portion of Sarah’s blog, then cite Sarah’s blog as the primary source then say “quoting Campbell…”, or if he thinks too highly of Sotto’s speech to cite “just” a blog, then cite it this way: “Campbell… quoted by Sarah…”.
Yes, largely research is just a regurgitation of already prevailing ideas. But that is what research is all about. Thus “re-search” or search again. It is by compiling the already prevailing ideas and condensing it in your own words and adding a little of your ten-cents worth of ideas and opinion does a researcher/writer make a living. It may not appear scholarly and honest, but it obviously entails much more work than just copy-pasting portions of other people’s written work in your or your boss’ speech. And this work, like any other work/profession must be respected and its fruits protected.
So… get Sotto and his staff a Turabian.
What a world lacking in innovation we will have if that is the definition of “research”. But I get your point, belabored with so many words — which might tell us why we might simply be making a mountain out of a molehill. The main point is, it was NOT her original idea. And it’s such a big deal.
While we’re at it — on the whole legal philosophy behind protecting intellectual property. Isn’t it the case that the public policy behind why we protect intellectual propert, is that we, as society, want to encourage innovation and invention, and that’s why we imbue the creator of the innovation with a property right protection? If in this case there is no innovation to protect in the first place, would the purpose of the law be achieved by protecting an innovation that is NOT even there to begin with in the first place? Just asking.
Not that I’m defending the copying of Sen. Sotto’s staff/s — as I do agree with you that they should have at least read the original (Dr. McBride) work and used their own words.
rico,
but it was her work. and that is a big deal.
yes, intellectual property laws do encourage innovation and invention by granting property right protection. but it also seeks to continue the development of knowledge and artistic works.
that is why the law makes a distinction between the “idea” and the “expression”. It is the expression that the law protects and grants property rights over and not ideas. If ideas will be also be covered, there will be stagnation in the development of knowledge. especially in copyright, innovation in expression is the one protected.
so it is not true that there is no innovation in this case. paraphrasing an entire research into a few sentence may be an innovation in ideas, but there is a protected innovation in expression. the same line of reasoning applies to derivative works, which is also protected by copyright – the same idea is expressed in a different manner.
btw, you seem to be an advocate of the classical school. too bad im rusty with my economics. all i know is that the theory of classical economics have a lot of flaws too. that the market forces do not always work according to Smith’s formula. that the economic depressions prove that. and hence, the coming about of other schools of economic thought that show the need for government intervention.
Hi Rico I assumed you’re also a Filipino and I also assumed you’re sotto’s staff. Can you do the rest of Filipino a big favor? Can you tell your boss to resign and pleas shut up. Not all Filipino are like you and you’re boss. Please stop being stupid…. please shut the fuck up
I am NOT Sen. Sotto’s staff. But I am a Filipino. And I do real research and I think critically. NOT simply regurgitate other people’s ideas.
RICO we are both Filipino. The only difference is you are incredibly stupid
He’s not stupid. He just likes to convince others that his wrong perspective is right. 🙂
Bitching and Moaning ? Before you accuse someone of doing them, I suggest you look in a mirror first. 🙂
We all do research here. We do not “regurgitate other people’s ideas” but we have our own too. Your first comment is definitely insulting to the blogger. You dare even questioned her credibility just like what the arrogant Villacorta and Sotto did. It did not merely go around the issue of plagiarism BUT also blatantly shoved to every reader your stand on the RH Bill. You are lucky that you even received a few civil replies and explanation. BUT PLEASE, do not attack the blogger on this one. Nakakahiya na.
If you do real research then I am sure you know what “review of related literature” is and if indeed you do research then you should know how big of a deal plagiarism is… it doesn’t matter if you have primary, secondary or what ever degree of literature, you have to cite it and even if you have an original idea you still have to find related sources to support it so why would there be any lack of innovation when most recent studies are based on previous research, either proving or disproving it? This wouldn’t be a big deal if the senator and his staff after failing to cite the first time, apologized and gave due credit.
I just checked the IP address. Rico=tangenanyo same poster. 🙂
Wrong. People, let’s do real thinking and real (intellectual) discussions, otherwise we simply waste our time.
I see, so you’re not the same poster but you have the same IP. 🙂
anonymous lol
@iampinoy by the way that post above wasn’t meant for you. 🙂
I know. I just find it funny why do people have to use different username lol
I don’t know if we have the same IP or not. I don’t care. 😀
different name- different writing/typing pattern. 🙂 You can become like the bat in the Aesop’s the Birds, the Beasts and the Bats using that method. 🙂 I suggest you look at his other post under the name tanginanyo. 🙂 🙂 REALLY SENSIBLE.
Rico, you’re being an ass. Shame on you.
– Fellow Filipina
Whoa we have a bad ass here who doesn’t have good comprehension skills. FYI, Rico, the blogger clearly credited Dr. Campbell-McBride’s study regarding the hazards of long-term pill use. HOWEVER, Sarah the blogger explained Dr. McBride’s study IN HER OWN WORDS. This reworded explanation of one’s study is still under the law covered by intellectual property law. Even if she did not conduct this study, by law and APA, it is still considered intellectual property. Salita ka kasi ng salita di naman nag babasa ng mabuti. In law school, we were consistently reminded to READ AND UNDERSTAND the law before giving baseless answers and accusations just like what you did in your post.
And for the record, you dishonorable twit, the issue here is not about the passage (or non passage) of the RH Bill. This blog post is solely about the issue of PLAGIARISM – a crime sanctioned not only in Philippine laws but in International law as well.
thumbs up Allegra! 🙂
This is one instance many of us, Filipinos will not be proud of. I have written about this too and cited with links to your URL.
God bless you Sarah
Putang ina nyo! Nalilito ang mga tao sa inyo… WALANG KWENTA MGA COMMENTS NYO! Gamitin nyo talino nyo sa tama!
Well, now. Trolling are we? Well, let me translate your words into English for the sake of the non-Filipinos here that you are nothing but crap.
“Putang ina nyo! Nalilito ang mga tao sa inyo… WALANG KWENTA MGA COMMENTS NYO! Gamitin nyo talino nyo sa tama!” (tangena nyo)
Translation:
“Your mothers are whores. People are getting confused by you people. YOUR COMMENTS ARE WORTHLESS! Use your intelligence to do something right!” (tangena nyo)
You’re one to talk, buddy.
Works Cited
tangena nyo, (a worthless post), 16 Aug. 2012, Web, 17 Aug 2012
I see what you did there. Epic. Thanks!
Sarah,
I’m a Filipino and a blogger, too. The news brought me here. What caught my attention is his answer “Why should I quote a blogger, she’s just a blogger” (correct me if I’m wrong this is what I read in Rappler). This made me dismay. If that’s true, for me, this is one of the most arrogant quotes I’ve heard from a public servant. There are lots of Filipino bloggers, I know, got hurt, too. And about plagiarism, how could he got amnesia on quoting. It won’t demote him as a senator to give attribution, even from a blogger.
Apologies for my ramblings because I have experienced something like this. One of my blog posts got copy-pasted (but included my byline), too few months ago. But that blogger didn’t ask permission to me so I ask to remove it. Fortunately, he did.
I know how you feel right now. Weird.
Just Let Go and Let God!
Mabuhay, Sarah!
I’m glad you have taken to task unrelentingly Sen. Tito Sotto for plagiarizing your work. Sotto is actually a comedian trying to sound intellectual.
Thank you for your support of Filipino women. Please visit our country. You won’t regret it.
All the best.
I am not sure if this has been said before, but I really admire you, Sarah for being such an insightful and intelligent blogger. What we need here in the Philippines is more people like you, who despite having their own reservations about something, are still open-minded and smart enough to let others decide for themselves. I was disgusted by the act of plagiarism that was done, and I am even more disgusted by the fact that Sotto denied having plagiarized at first.
In the news article on ABS-CBN News Online, one of the most influential news outlets in the Philippines (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/08/16/12/sottos-office-admits-copying-us-blog), it even appears to me that the Villacorta fellow who apparently apologized on behalf of the Senator’s office was not even sincerely apologetic. It is such a shame that these are the types of people we elect into office.
I’m from a catholic high school in the Philippines, and that is where is first heard about birth control. They informed us about different forms for birth control, including artificial means and even abortion. The only thing they add is that they made it clear which ones are acceptable by the Church, and which ones are not. And this was more than 10 years ago.
I don’t know why other schools are still in the dark. If they are still not doing reproduction education yet, it could be because of incompetence, not due to lack of policy, I think.
ps. i work with urban poor communities and they are aware of the contraceptives available. some use them, others don’t. my children learned sex education in school and even my 15 yr old does not think it is appropriate to teach at gr. 3. i believe it is the responsibility of parents to teach sex education to their children. unfortunately, there are many irresponsible parents. does this make it the responsibility of the state then? i am a taxpayer and i believe we should spend the 14billion to build schools and improve the quality of education in our country.
Sarah, firstly, if you want credit where credit is due, then take full responsibility for the consequences of your words.
I appreciate that technically, you concluded with the statement that you do not condone taking this choice away from women, but you know and I know that your article is so full of bias, it was nothing more than a disclaimer for the sake of avoiding backlash as your entire article up to this point is about pushing your agenda.
I read the article in question, and I checked your sources. The first source has had the linked page removed, but does have a disclaimer that the information on their website is not intended to serve as or replace medical advice. The second source, WAPF, is where you get your reference for zinc deficiency, however you’ve omitted the part where they recommend sources such as red meat, oysters, fish, nuts, seeds and ginger. More on this to come. Your third source is none other than an AFFILIATE link to a book on Amazon, where you will get a commission on each purchase! Some transparency for your trusting audience here, please.
For the record, I agree that big pharma is the enemy. I live a clean lifestyle, eliminate processed foods, and I think that Thomas Edison showed incredible insight with his quote that “The doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition”. My only conflict here is the contraceptive pill, of which I am ever so grateful for, as I am a realist, of sound moral compass, and simply could not bring an unplanned child into the world when I am unable to give them the absolute best care at this time of my life. I do however, make responsible nutritional choices and balance out the negative effects or risks of the Pill with prebiotic foods, probiotic supplements, foods rich in Zinc, and I will make this a priority when, at the right time of my life, I am ready to raise children of my own. Drug induced gut imbalances (IF they occur) may be difficult to treat but certainly not impossible.
For the record, I spent 9 months last year in a very provincial town on the island of Negros Oriental, Philippines. I wanted to experience the culture, and worked hard to befriend our local neighbours, so shy and so ashamed of their poverty and their lack of education. Ashamedly, this beautiful country is becoming more and more Americanised by the day. Their admiration of white skin, their growing addiction to fast food and sugar, their rising statistics of diabetes… The health consequences of taking the contraceptive pill, versus the benefits to a poverty stricken, over-populated country such as the Philippines, are miniscule compared to the health risks they are facing through their poor nutrition, poor sanitation, over-population and lack of education. Do you think a family of 10 living solely on rice and Tanduay Rum would have MORE problems if they had access to the contraceptive pill?
Perhaps you may have written differently if your article was directed at the 100million strong population of the Philippines struggling to feed their children than your majority American audience, or perhaps not. Regardless, you are publishing your opinion on the world wide web, your words are part of an issue that is so much bigger than you and carries huge consequences that you fail to address. You have the opportunity to make a difference in the world, and you choose to use it to push your own agenda. You are no better than big pharma!
Your moral cowardice is evident. You want to be attributed for what you believe is an informative blog post, but are you happy to accept the consequences of your words? A simple closing paragraph does not suggest that you are, it simply suggests that you are weak. If you truly supported the education of women on contraception, you would do just that, pose all sides of the contraception argument, the positive and negative effects of each, outline the ways in which women can make better nutritional choices to minimise the negative effects of the Pill in a realistic world, in order to truly educate women on how to make the best possible choices for their circumstance. That would be an article you should be proud to defend, not this one.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you can’t hide behind it. If you are open and honest about your opinions on the Pill you’d be able to present all sides to the argument and have it stand on its own two legs, without using fear tactics to side with your agenda. I expect a backlash to my comments, I can’t expect you to see my logic here on a subject filled with such misguided emotion.
p.s. to the Filipinas on this thread who have stood up for their contraceptive rights, I am extremely proud, you are smart, you are unique and you are strong, and I can only hope that the smart young kids that were our neighbours in the Philippines grow up to follow in your footsteps and experience life as they choose to.
I can see what you are trying to do here. You do have a point. I did check out those sources you mentioned above and it’s quite accurate. Your arguments are quite plausible. Still, with respect to the issue being discussed in this section, please post your damn sentiments elsewhere. The main issue here is the fact that her work was plagiarized, regardless of whether the information, text, etc, where true or false, fact or opinion, or the mix. For sure, she definitely put a lot of effort into thinking things through, and presenting her side. After all, who would want their work to be plagiarized. Not only that, the side of the ones who plagiarized her work is trying to make it appear that she was the one at fault. I’ve read the message sent to her and that’s how it appeared to me.
Let go of the minutiae and accept the bigger picture here. Bloggers need to accept responsibility for what they publish, which has the power to influence millions of people. Simply put, if Sarah had considered the consequences beyond her own nose, and truly believed in the right to choice, she would have presented a more plausible, all-encompassing argument and impartial views. Sarah’s message to the women of the Philippines that any possible harm is no reason to have this choice taken away from her is nothing more than an afterthought in response to this fluke of events, and is simply a result of reckless and irresponsible writing. If that is her position it should have been voiced throughout her article. It’s a shame for the greater good of what Sarah is advocating here that her article is so full of bias and therefore lacking credibility. While the world needs critical thinkers, this level of ignorance of the wider world can have catastrophic results and this case should be made an example of. I am obviously not in support of plagiarism, but a government that resorts to plagiarism to support an argument clearly has bigger issues to deal with than Sarah’s pride. In the end, do the majority of Sarah’s supporters here understand her stance on the Pill due to its possible effect on gut dysbiosis? No, they are just happy to have another anti-contraception supporter, another voice. Is it really worth it? Plagiarism is the minutiae here, let go of the minutiae and you will see the bigger picture. Again, if you want credit where credit is due, then take full responsibility for the consequences of your words.
oh please. the reckless and irresponsible writer here is YOU! so self-righteous…why don’t your take full responsibility of the consequences of your words? you’re spewing blame and hate – to everyone except yourself. and ugh! it’s icky! take responsibility for the psychic goo you’re spewing!
Susmaryosep. You don’t get it, do you? Sarah’s audience was never the Filipino women. It was Sotto who, in failing to take into consideration that the RH Bill was situated in the Philippine context, took Sarah’s words without asking her and made it seem like his own ideas.
Sarah was never involved in the RH Bill. Maybe if Sotto actually took the time to study what was handed to him; if he had taken the time to formulate his own opinions; if he had actually studied Sarah’s sources as well; then he perhaps he wouldn’t be in this mess he himself created.
Sarah’s “pride” is an appropriate reaction when someone steals your work and uses it IRRESPONSIBLY, which is what Sotto did. FYI, what did Sarah have to do with the RH Bill in the Philippines in the first place? You make it sound as if she wrote specifically for that purpose when she did not. Of course she has bias, you moron. Everybody has. It’s a fact of life. But she’s free to write about it and people are free to think for themselves.
Think of it this way. If we never found out that Sotto plagiarized this article, then we would have all gone on believing that he gathered and organized those ideas himself. And so who would you be directing your accusations of irresponsibility and being biased to right now?
God, you are so self-righteous when in fact your estimation of the situation is so highly inaccurate, incorrect and so out of context.
Bottomline: This piece was not a message of Sarah to Filipino women. It was one of many blogs on the net that netizens and people were free to think about it until Sotto took the ideas, made us believe they were his own and attempted to use them to forward his advocacy.
I hope that’s clear enough.
For a moment, let go of the plagiarism issue, let go of the RH bill and let go of her intended American audience. I know full well it wasn’t intended for the women of the Philippines, or a position on the RH Bill, and that is my point. What you’re left with is an article published on an international platform for all the world to discover. When you look at the contents of a good article, it will present both the upside and the downside, and sure, some writers may conclude with their bias if it so fits their circumstances after their research, but so long as the article is objective, freethinkers have at least some base from which to assess the upside / downside of their personal circumstances or do further research in order to make an informed decision. Her words may have been used irresponsibly by the Senator, but prior to these events, her unintended and impressionable audience were never presented with any data that didn’t fit with her agenda in her original article, on a subject that so, so critically relies on an upside / downside approach to making a very personal decision. For many, this is the first time the subject has been so front of mind, at least from this perspective, and it warrants an objective, considered approach. Though on the surface it may seem out of context I am harping on this as in the end it does’t matter exactly how an article has reached its new audience, when you publish on a global platform you leave yourself open to repercussions far greater than plagiarism. Lets not be naive, let it be an example to others and a lesson learned as to how how widespread your audience can be, and how consequential the impact on others. Of course you are free to write about your personal opinions, but can you accept the consequences of your failures to address such a critical subject with an objective approach, ESPECIALLY if you supposedly believe in the right of choice? It’s just poor form, from someone that ought to know better. Something to think about.
Ok, Realist. Let me adress some of your more “salient” points.
Number one, good that you know the context of the article.
Number two, international platform? Are you kidding me? But of course it’s the world wide web! Which brings me to my third point.
Number three, “freethinkers” also know enough not to let just one blog, one article, one research, one whatever to influence their whole thinking. In my opinion, anyone who does not practice critical thinking will come across any piece of information on the internet and either treat it as an authority or get mired in confusion.
Number four, when you write you do have an intended audience. You cannot, repeat, cannot take into account every. little. piece. of. thing. Oh sure, why not write about reproductive health and the pill for all women of the world, regardless of culture, nationality, religious beliefs, upbringing, sexual orientation, etc. That’s so possible, right? NOT.
Let this be a lesson to you in independent thinking and responsible use of information. You expect every writer, it seems, to spoon feed you AND it seems you have little understanding of the nature of research. Even the greatest thinkers and scholars from different periods and era did not agree upon the same ideas and many had their ideas misused or represented as well. Oh sure, they weren’t on the web back then but their ideas also reached shores outside of their own. Think about the ideas that spawned the French Revolution, Evolution, Big Bang, Communism, etc.
Now, it is up to people like you to do your own research. These are ideas and information put together and no one can do what you want them to do – which is to basically lay out for you the information and knowledge you should be critical and responsible (and industrial) enough to do yourself, with the knowledge that human society is so diverse and that people’s perceptions vary.
And, as a final point, anyone who bases their decision on one article/author/findings alone is someone who is simply lazy or easily dictated upon. Imagine – even patients get a second opinion because no one doctor gets it right all the time. You, as the seeker of information, should know better. Don’t blame others for poor decisions you might make because of shoddy research. Eh, why would you believe in only one source, in the first place? And for the others who may not have had the chance, this is precisely the reason why we need the type of education that the RH bill brings. Okies? I rest my case.
Nads, I am sure you are smart enough to realise that I am certainly not the one in need of being spoon fed here, and I won’t waste my time pointing out where this is obvious. Nor did I ask for an entire thesis in every blog post, this subject comprises of such a huge number of conflicts and variables. Health, unplanned pregnancy, religion, poverty, education, legislation… But all the knowledge and research in the world is beside the point when the only way you should make a sound decision is to weigh up the upside vs the downside of your own circumstances, and this ‘choice’, a single sentence would do, was not once advocated by the writer.
The majority of these readers, intended audience or otherwise, are emotional and impressionable, it’s a part of what makes us human. It’s unfortunate that most ‘research’ is conducted selectively in support of their theory and not to disprove it as they should. What passes for science today is disgusting.
THIS writer claims to support a woman’s right to choice. THIS writer presented an article which was 100% downside to the pill, a fear-driven article designed to inflate potential risks that may occur. There are good points to be made here, and we should indeed be made aware, but this is sensationalist journalism at its best. THIS writer is spineless, as if she truly did support a women’s right to choice, she would not have so strongly pushed her agenda and omitted her stance on choice from her original article. So which is it then? Agenda or choice?
A word of advice, I think this may help you. When someone becomes an ‘expert’ on any particular matter, alarm bells should ring, they are considering only what they DO know, and not addressing what they DON’T know.
In my opinion, Realist, you are trying to impose too much of your own standards on other writers. What would you have people do? Police their own blogs? It is a blog – you do realize that, do you? People are always free to sift through information on the world wide web and there is no guarantee that the information you get will always be correct.
Of course, she can present all the cons of the pills but in the end she can always state that it’s your choice. No, I’m actually smart enough to know that you don’t seem to understand the nature of the internet either. Sarah’s blog wouldn’t have even come to the forefront where it not for Sotto’s plagiarism. I mean, last I checked, she wasn’t sticking her nose in Philippine affairs, no?
Eto na lang. If you don’t like the way she writes, find another source and create your own blog. The net is a platform for a free exchange of ideas, some you won’t like, some you will. But nobody will care that much unless you can actually present your own arguments in the same way Sarah did. You want to refute her claims and have a stronger stance? YOU do it. Don’t try to impose your own sense of standard and ethics on other writers. Sarah did her research, organized it and presented it, integrating it with her own beliefs and opinions. THAT’s her work.
Impressionable and emotional? Are you kidding me? And what would you have researchers do, walk on eggshells? We’re not kids anymore, those of us who search for this type of info. Movies function the same way. Sotto tried to do the same thing with his weepy speech. Advertisements do it all the time. Even biographies are not exempt. But in the end, it’s still up to you, my dear realist, to distinguish fact from fiction; emotion from logic. People can present information in whatever way appeals to you. But YOU drive the car and think. Don’t think you’re such a vanguard for other people’s critical thinking. People can and do think for themselves. What we need is more information for these people and education in order for them to be able to know how to weigh information because, whether you like it or not, there will be other articles on the pill, the RH and whatever whose style you will regard as irresponsible and “spineless” – according to you, of course. But it’s still up to people to make up their minds. What they need is training to be able to do that.
Why, if there are people you consider to be bad, you want them to change, become “good” or you want to know how to deal with them effectively instead? Your proposal is a waste of time, methinks. Oh, and of course, the main thing will always be that had Sotto not plagiarized Sarah’s article and integrated it into his anti-RH speech (thereby dragging the whole thing into the Phil RH controversy when it wasn’t before) makes the whole thing, really, when you think about it, Sotto’s doing. Salamat sa kanya (Thanks to him), this information is now more highlighted in a way.