As the title suggests unequivocally, this piece or any its part is not to level criticisms to either or both of the Philippine Senators as they take positions in the current China question. The academic perspective always seek if not lead to further illumine the issue.
Senator Enrile cries treason. While Senator Trillanes claims to be only a “back channel.” The heated exchange started in the floor of the Senate where debate and deliberations essentially involved the science and practice of communications. The public as audience to the debate are familiar with clichés like shooting the messenger because of the message, or the singer not the song. Oftentimes their messages might be ignored, or lost in interpretation or translation because of the public image of the two senators.
But the “medium is the message so says Canadian Professor Herbert Marshall McCluhan.” From the internet piece of Mark Federman quoting the Professor: “In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. T his is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves – result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.” http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm
McCluhan’s theory or postulates on Communications digs deep into heretofore uncharted obvious giving rise even to mediocre questions. Are the two senators mediums and therefore they are their real message amplifying or modifying what they are saying? Newspapers, radio, TV, the internet are media; each a medium for transfer and spread of communications. TV unlike all the others–as a medium of the visual and communication arts is often referred to as an idiot box. While some mediums (are not the message) if they deal with messages from the dead they deliver to the living. Spiritual mediums are believed or just dismissed as charlatans.
McCluhan’s theory needs to back track to 1949 in order to trace the broadening thoughts on how a person or a senator can be conjectured from thingy technology cell phones, TV or IPADS, etc., communication channel into a living breathing person or senator. The communication channel or medium becomes figuratively an organism.
“In 1960, David Berlo expanded on Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) linear model of communication and created the SMCR Model of Communication.. . ] The Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of communication separated the model into clear parts and has been expanded upon by other scholars.” [Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart,& Winston.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
From the basics of the S-M-C-R model the source or sender (S) and the receiver (R) are the human components. While the message (M) and the channel (C) are the non-human elements. Whereas the message is supposed to be cut and dry and less ambiguous, the sender or receiver being human is characterized by communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, social system and culture. The channel (C) employs the human senses of hearing, seeing, etc to transmit or receive messages. A person talking, delivering a speech, as the sender of the message becomes the channel or the medium of the message as he is seen and heard by an audience. When later the speech is shown on TV, considered an idiot box, the TV set become communication channel and medium. McCluhan seems to suggest that regardless of the channel, the sender as medium is also the message. “This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves -result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.” [ibid, Mark Federman quoting Professor McCluhan]
Be that as it may, here are some food for thought which assumes a message but which is merely an opinion.
Choice or acceptance per se of a senator as negotiation diplomatic “back channel” by a contending country is not a sufficient indication or symptom of treason.
Ambassadors need acceptance or are being chosen by a host country and they are not accused of treason for mere reason of choice.
“Back Channels” may have originated with the use of King’s emissaries despite the presence in other kingdoms of their resident ambassadors.
“Back Channels” temporary and specialized nature of the job are less susceptible or vulnerable to committing treason than ambassadors or spies accredited as foreign affairs personnel.
Emissaries or “back channels” as per communication theory transmit or uses more verbal communications than written or technology-based means.
Spies usually are assigned technical positions in embassies while human channels usually come and go and may never visit embassies.
The direction of accusation is one way from Senator Enrile to Senator Trillanes. The burden of proof should be on the accuser. Until a case is brought before a proper court, the accused may choose to remain silent. When no charges are filed in court, the accused might be in a position to file appropriate charges against his accuser The piece is about communications science perspective not a legal one. In the S-M-C-R model discussions were confined as much as possible to the sender and receiver, with emphasis that sender or receiver can be invoke as Channels or medium of communications. Discussion touching on the MESSAGE or its content and its legal aspect were avoided.
Iconic One Pro Theme | Powered by Wordpress