Celebrity Ella Cruz’s statement equating history to gossip caused many, including me, to raise an eyebrow. Ella was quoted as saying, “History is like chismis. It is filtered and dagdag na rin, so, hindi natin alam what is the real history. Andoon na iyong idea, pero may mga bias talaga. As long as we’re here, alive at may kanya-kanyang opinion, I respect everyone’s opinion”.
The 25-year-old actress issued the controversial statement that went viral on social media, when she was interviewed about an upcoming film where she is set to portray Irene Marcos-Araneta, former President Ferdinand Marcos’ third child.
Well, I respect her opinion, but any educator and journalist like me, will find her statement unacceptable and appalling. Teachers integrate history into their lessons to make students understand and appreciate various aspects of their past so that they will be active and informed citizens.
Journalists chronicle stories that form part of history. As both, I believe I cannot keep mum as it is every academic’s responsibility to educate and re-educate people, especially the young, about what history is and what it is not, and make no room for what they call an inaccurate “alternative definition,“ misinformation or disinformation.
I have two points to stress:
First, history can never be likened to chismis or gossip.
The method historians diligently follow is the same discipline that is strongly emphasized in the practice of journalism. It is called verification.
A journalist may kick off from a tip that may be chismis. But a journalist will not immediately write and spread a story based solely on a tip or chismis. It is incumbent upon every journalist to look for the primary source of the information. It is only when the primary source has confirmed that such data is factual and when the journalist has gathered corroborating statements from other sources and experts who can corroborate the primary source’s info that a story will be written and published. Again, sources are triangulated. Historians do the same. They verify. They triangulate sources. When data and opinions are verified, they no longer are chismis.
Meanwhile, such methodology is absent in gossiping or spreading rumors. Gossip spreads like wildfire because it is very convenient for the rumor monger or the Marites to make up stories and spread it. In the advent of social media, it is easiest and fastest for gossip and disinformation to spread in seconds.
That is why History experts, professors and even her fellow celebrities immediately reacted to Ella’s “alternative definition” of history which also resulted in her being bashed by netizens who strongly disagreed with her remark. But the actress remains unperturbed and stands firm on her ‘history is like chismis’ remark.
Widely cited historian Ambeth Ocampo was quick to point out in an interview that history may have bias but it is based on fact, not opinion. “Real history is about truth, not lies, not fiction,” stressed Ocampo.
Moreover, professor and public historian Xiao Chua emphasized in a social media post that “what makes Ella’s statement false is the omission of the methodology which is verification”.
History and Political Science Professor Eprol Espinosa was emphatic when she called the actress’ definition unacceptable, stressing that Ella intentionally made the remark in order to promote the film that obviously aims to revise a part of Philippine history – the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.
“History gives us the tools to analyze and explain problems in the past. It positions us to see the patterns that might otherwise be invisible in the present, thus, providing a crucial perspective for understanding and solving current and future problems”, explained Espinosa.
“I get so stressed out with all the disinformation. I wanna send Ella all 17 volumes of Philippine History books we have in our family library, including the Noli Me Tangere book we have that is a replica of the original manuscript just to disabuse her mind,” she added.
While some call the actress’ statement preposterous. I find it reckless, offensive and dangerous. Offensive because it undermines the work of historians and academics. A historian is not a mere chronicler. He or she makes a critical analysis of information and evidence at hand, checks for what is lacking in the story and will only make a conclusion based on evidence.
The statement is also reckless and dangerous because celebrities’ popularity enables them to influence their followers and fans. They are considered highly influential people whose actions and decisions are watched and often emulated by audiences. Studies reveal that celebrity behavior and messaging can have both positive and negative implications. Was Ella not aware of this? I doubt.
The scenario of having highly influential personalities caring less about what they say or release through social media and its impact on a highly vulnerable and gullible audience, and insisting that nothing is wrong with what they are doing because they have the right to such an opinion, gives me goosebumps. It’s deplorable.
My point: public figures who serve as role models who can strongly influence people, must be mindful of what they are saying and spreading on social media.
Being a media practitioner and a Media and Communication Professor, I understand that the controversial statement may have been intentionally released as an advertising and marketing strategy by sparking controversy to pique people’s interest in the film that is being promoted. But that’s a cheap shot. Why? Because what she said could pollute people’s minds, mislead people and alter their understanding of what history is and should be, which eventually could lead to the creation of a false historical consciousness.
Tragic.*
