How does the media affect people?

[tk421]

If the newspaper is sold here as a publication of a foreign newspaper, and it is clearly identified as a foreign newspaper, then there's no violation.

 

New York Times can send an exact facsimile of its newspaper for local printing here in the Philippines to be sold in local newsstands. Since it is clearly identified as a foreign newspaper, no violations there.

 

If a newspaper claims to be a Filipino newspaper but is in fact not 100% Filipino owned, then that's a violation.

WTF? May clause ba sa constitution for that?

[haroots2]

It's the old switcheroo. >sigh<

 

Anyways, tignan niyo nga halimbawa yun Manila Shimbun. That's a Japanese newspaper, operating in Manila. It's a mass media publication owned by a Japanese company (correct me if I'm wrong). Publishing original content in the Philippines. How come that is allowed and Rappler is not?

 

Pwede ka naman mag initiate. Kaya mo yan lahat ma inquire sa SEC, kapag may nakiita kang irregularities sa documents ikaw na ang mag file ng complaint. Our finance do that para makaiwas sa fly by night companies and critical ang long term after sales support.

[rooster69ph]

Pwede ka naman mag initiate. Kaya mo yan lahat ma inquire sa SEC, kapag may nakiita kang irregularities sa documents ikaw na ang mag file ng complaint. Our finance do that para makaiwas sa fly by night companies and critical ang long term after sales support.

hingi lang ako ng paglilinaw kasi parang kung saan napunya usapan ...

 

Sa pagkaintindi ko wala naman issue kay tk yun ibang sinasabi niya ang issue ay yun ginawa kay rappler na sa pananaw niya eh 100% filipino owned media outfit...unless kaya ninyo patunayan na galing sa SEC sinabi nitong may more than 0% foreign ownership ito

 

Btw anong industry ka ba? At anong irregularities yan sinasabi mo? Anong kinalaman ng sinasabi mong fly by nite companies at yun pagiging kritikal sa after sales support sa pinaguusapang issue. Paki link pls

Edited February 2, 2018 by rooster69ph

[haroots2]

hingi lang ako ng paglilinaw kasi parang kung saan napunya usapan ...

 

Sa pagkaintindi ko wala naman issue kay tk yun ibang sinasabi niya ang issue ay yun ginawa kay rappler na sa pananaw niya eh 100% filipino owned media outfit...unless kaya ninyo patunayan na galing sa SEC sinabi nitong may more than 0% foreign ownership ito

 

Btw anong industry ka ba? At anong irregularities yan sinasabi mo? Anong kinalaman ng sinasabi mong fly by nite companies at yun pagiging kritikal sa after sales support sa pinaguusapang issue. Paki link pls

 

Regardless sa industry, sinabi ko lang yun as basis na pwede mo talagang i check yung company/corporation sa SEC to check their documents.

Sinasabi kasi niya bakit yung iba hindi hinahabol, kaya nga sinabi kong pwede siyang mag inquire sa SEC to check.

[rooster69ph]

 

Regardless sa industry, sinabi ko lang yun as basis na pwede mo talagang i check yung company/corporation sa SEC to check their documents.

Sinasabi kasi niya bakit yung iba hindi hinahabol, kaya nga sinabi kong pwede siyang mag inquire sa SEC to check.

Ang haba kasi napunta pa sa fly by night at yun long term service viability eh wala naman palang connect.

 

 

But bottomline u know wala naman siyang issue sa mga binigay niyang example di ba ...

 

Ang punto nga niya si rappler ang pinagiinitan kahit 100% filipino owned

 

As such if the main issue here is only rappler maybe u can prove na di 100% filipino owned yun company

[camiar]

Ang haba kasi napunta pa sa fly by night at yun long term service viability eh wala naman palang connect.

 

 

But bottomline u know wala naman siyang issue sa mga binigay niyang example di ba ...

 

Ang punto nga niya si rappler ang pinagiinitan kahit 100% filipino owned

 

As such if the main issue here is only rappler maybe u can prove na di 100% filipino owned yun company

Of course you will believe Rappler's version.

 

SEC's ruling is that it violated the 100% Ownership rule.

 

To many of Rappler's supporters, OK lang yung violation, because the silent foreign investors are Americans and that Rappler focuses on the USA and Europe's main issue: Protection of Human Rights.

 

What if the foreign investors of Rappler were not Americans but Chinese, and Rappler starts posting news praising the good intentions of the Chinese in the South China Sea? Would they still cry foul on SEC's ruling?

Ang haba kasi napunta pa sa fly by night at yun long term service viability eh wala naman palang connect.

 

 

But bottomline u know wala naman siyang issue sa mga binigay niyang example di ba ...

 

Ang punto nga niya si rappler ang pinagiinitan kahit 100% filipino owned

 

As such if the main issue here is only rappler maybe u can prove na di 100% filipino owned yun company

Of course you will believe Rappler's version.

 

SEC's ruling is that it violated the 100% Ownership rule.

 

To many of Rappler's supporters, OK lang yung violation, because the silent foreign investors are Americans and that Rappler focuses on the USA and Europe's main issue: Protection of Human Rights.

 

What if the foreign investors of Rappler were not Americans but Chinese, and Rappler starts posting news praising the good intentions of the Chinese in the South China Sea? Would they (the current supporters) still cry foul on SEC's ruling?

Edited February 2, 2018 by camiar

[rooster69ph]

 

SEC's ruling is that it violated the 100% Ownership rule.

 

pwede mo ba ipakita kung saan nakasaad sa ruling mismo ni SEC yan.

 

what SEC is saying sa ruling/decision is that rappler violated the more than 0% foreign control not the more than 0% foreign ownership.

 

sabi ni TK 100% filipino owned ang rappler and i agree with her but i will not disagree with SEC that rappler ceded control to a foreigner.

[camiar]

pwede mo ba ipakita kung saan nakasaad sa ruling mismo ni SEC yan.

 

what SEC is saying sa ruling/decision is that rappler violated the more than 0% foreign control not the more than 0% foreign ownership.

 

sabi ni TK 100% filipino owned ang rappler and i agree with her but i will not disagree with SEC that rappler ceded control to a foreigner.

You're caught up in semantics.

 

The constitution is interpreted in its context, not legal semantics.

 

Whether it the term used is foreign investor control or foreign investor ownership, the intent and context of the constitution is the same. Foreigners are not allowed ownership and/or control of Filipino news media as a preventive measure against foreign influence on Filipino public opinion.

 

Key phrase: "foreign influence on Filipino public opinion" -- that's what our constitution is trying to prevent.

 

Interpreting the constitution is different from interpreting the laws. The constitution "...should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning — that is, the meaning it had at the time of its enactment..."

 

Today's PDRs are legal loopholes circumventing our current laws on the issue of foreign ownership. SEC is wise to make its ruling based on the constitutionality issue rather than on legal ownership basis.

[rooster69ph]

camiar not really about semantics ...

 

i agree when you said the constitution should be interpreted in its context. but you also need to lay your legal basis to pin rappler down. and the SEC cannot pin down rappler by claiming the company have foreign ownership per se. sinabi na mismo yan ng SEC na tecnically lahat ng owners nila pinoy. at paulit ulit kong sinasabi ang pdr hindi proof of ownership. what SEC said is that rappler ceded control via the pdr which is illegal that is why the pdr was voided. at alam naman natin parepareho na ang owners ang may right to control major decisions of a company. kaya yan ang naging legal basis nila.

 

 

as to the key phrase you highlighted ... sa totoo lang it is easy to circumvent everything had they just put that “concent clause” in a side agreement. that makes the pdr agreement in order. the SEC won’t be able to find out unless a legal battle ensues between rappler and its foreign pdr investor. rappler can be influenced by a foreigner, wala naman magagawa kasi walang proof. poor lawyering kung sino man nag isisp at nag draft nung agreement.

 

anyway lets agree to disagree as far as insisting rappler has foreign ownership ... but i think we’ll both agree na may punto ang SEC sa kaso nito kay rappler.

[camiar]

Fake news from Mocha Uson blog are terrible. It sows a lot of hate.

 

I advise you not to read --- not even open -- Mocha Uson's blog, if you are offended by it.

 

I see from your posts in this forum that you're already full of hate.

 

It would be good for your soul to avoid her blogs.

[haroots2]

 

I advise you not to read --- not even open -- Mocha Uson's blog, if you are offended by it.

 

I see from your posts in this forum that you're already full of hate.

 

It would be good for your soul to avoid her blogs.

 

Can't believe a hater follows her blog just to post a hate comment about Mocha here. Ilan kaya sa 5M followers ni Mocha ang nagaabang na magkamali siya para maka bash lang.

I don't even read any of her blogs even once.

[punter_magic]

Much of the media is the ministry of propaganda. Turn on, tune in, drop out...

[rodneymorris]

very much

[haroots2]

The bottomline is the authenticity of her blogs. Pag nagpost ng fake news towards trillanes or de lima, sakay naman kayo agad. Mga uto utong Dutertards. Lol

 

Ikaw lang naman ang sumasakay kay Mocha kasi mukhang ikaw lang ang nagbabasa ng blogs niya dito.

[tk421]

 

Pwede ka naman mag initiate. Kaya mo yan lahat ma inquire sa SEC, kapag may nakiita kang irregularities sa documents ikaw na ang mag file ng complaint. Our finance do that para makaiwas sa fly by night companies and critical ang long term after sales support.

 

Ok. But I'm not keen on shutting them down naman. Kayo dyan yun gusto mag shut down ng mga newspapers with "foreign" influences eh. Kayo mag file. Kaya ako, ok lang sa akin ang Rappler kasi it's 100% Filipino owned.

Edited February 6, 2018 by tk421