The day I first read about the Pangandaman-De la Paz brawl was the same day I decided I was not going to conclude who was guilty, who was telling the truth and write about it. I was especially adamant that I would not do what many bloggers had already done?make a public call to support Bambee de la Paz simply because she was a fellow blogger. I don?t know what happened. But, if I had let my own prejudices rule over me, I would have taken Bambee?s side too, not because she was a blogger like me but because I don?t like politicians. I especially don?t like second-generation politicians whose only qualification for the job is a well-known surname.

In the blogging world, however, a call to support one party in an unresolved controversy acquires another dimension. Bloggers scour the news and blogs every day trying to find topics that generate controversy, page views, back links and, hopefully, a better page rank in the search engines. When I read the indignant entries about what happened to Bambee?s father and brothers, almost always coupled with the condemnation of the Pangandamans, my first instinct was to wonder how many of these bloggers actually witnessed the incident that they were so sure things happened the way Bambee described them in her blog. I read as many as two dozen entries and, clearly, none of the writers were present on that fateful day at Valley Golf Club. And I wondered at the swiftness and ease by which they concluded that it was the De la Paz?s side that was worth fighting for. It reeked of the fraternity mentality where one is obliged to defend a brod or a sis simply because he or she belongs to the same organization?in this case, the blogging community.

I?ll never know how much of Bambee?s blog entry is an objective recollection of what happened and how much of it was the result of post-traumatic stress. And with the blog entry peppered with phrases like ?He?s a person who, I am sure, is gonna rot in hell,? I wonder even more. I?m no psychologist but I?ve read enough to know that a person?s recollection of a traumatic event is not necessarily the most objective. In fact, when the traumatic experience puts a loved one at fault, it is not unusual for a person to interpret the event in a context that absolves the loved one of wrongdoing. It is the stuff that a battered wife goes through. The husband beats her up and she insists it was her fault because she provoked him with her incessant nagging.

I?m not saying that Bambee?s version of what happened is factually flawed. She could have been relaying the story the way it was actually played. Her recollection of details raises enough presumption that it was true. And the fact that she posted her blog entry on the same day it happened suggests there wasn?t enough time for anyone to coach her and for the family to sit down for any length of time and make sure that they all told the same story. It?s just too darn hard to concoct such a detailed story in such a short time.

But for the multitude of bloggers who were so easily willing to fight her battle, it would have been wiser and more mature and prudent to at least try to determine first whether Bambee?s version presents a whole picture or whether it was only a part of the whole before jumping the gun, so to speak.

And I thought about the allegory with the three blind men and the elephant. Wikipedia has a succinct summary: ?In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one?s perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.?

Blogging has come a long way. It has become a powerful medium?powerful enough to tilt the balance in a US presidential election. Yet, I look at the bloggers who supported Bambee and it bothers me how the immaturity (or, perhaps, the greed for back links and page views) of some can send the rest of us back to the Dark Ages when bloggers were viewed as nothing more than silly teenagers documenting their budding romances and shopping sprees.

The irony is that those teenagers were writing from their hearts and their seeming silliness was a hundred times more honest and untainted with vested interests. I look at the entries of some of the bloggers who were noisiest most about the De la Paz-Pangandaman affair and they are people in their thirties and forties (and at least one in her fifties). Is it too much to expect them to act more responsibly?

While it is also possible that their reaction merely reflects a widespread perception of the unsavory character of our government officials, and many are so willing to assume they are guilty because no one trusts them anymore, it is nevertheless a fact that some of these bloggers are publicly supporting some members of the Senate including a few running for President in 2010. So, I can?t really say that this is about distaste and distrust of all politicians in general.

The good news is that we?re talking about only one segment of the blogging community, the Dark Side, whose habitu?s know no other god but back links, page views and page rank. Sad, really, how worshipping these gods has made them lose sight of the battles truly worth fighting for.

The author blogs at http://houseonahill.net, http://pinoycook.net and http://www.sassylawyer.com