i heard it first last night, from one of lynda jumilla‘s guests, either dean raul pangalangan or dean tony la vina, on anc‘s daily post-mortem: the fear or apprehension that the public might be losing interest in the impeachment case, given all the arguments over technicalities that the prosecution keeps stumbling into.  patriciomangubat too thinks it’s a problem.  read Anti-Corona losing steam:

The problem really is, the public’s waning interest about the case. The trial has been, what, on its fourth week, and since the prosecution has failed to present their most explosive witness yet, this is beginning to turn into a dragging courtroom drama which is interesting only to those who love reading John Grisham or watching mock courts.

i beg to disagree.  i think the only people who want the trial to end ASAP are the ones feeling threatened by so much information getting out about how rich people deal with the BIR and SEC, and how they manage not to declare the real value of their real estate properties, that is, the ways of the rich with their millions, in and out of government, kumbaga.

i think people are watching, listening, every chance they get, not necessarily to all of the trial itself but there are too the endless commentaries and speculation on radio and tv and in the papers and the internet.  one way or another people are keeping tabs on this double-program telenovela unfolding live! on two fronts : in the courtoom and in the public mind.

in the public mind, thanks to pro-palace media, guilty na si corona.  but in the courtroom, the prosecution is fumbling, floundering, failing to build their case (they were more prepared for a corona resignation, methinks, than to prosecute him in a real trial).  and the people are enjoying the show.  suddenly it could go any which way.  where no one would have bet on an acquittal ten days ago, today, a conviction is not in the bag at all, and people want to see every twist and turn of the story, no matter how long it takes for due process to take its course.

tama si dean la vina: the prosecution’s problem is not how to win the public — they have already been won — but how to win the senators.  presiding officer senate president enrile and most of the senator-judges have been doing such a good job, behaving in a way that has won the public’s approval, to such an extent that the public, it would seem, would accept whatever verdict the senate hands down.  which is good.

in fact, if there’s anything we should all be praying and pleading for, it is that the senators truly take the high ground and stand tall to the end against any importunings by the palace to sway their final decision.  for a change.

here’s to interesting times.

first chay hofilena, rappler‘s citizen journalism director, came out with Why media should connect the dots, where in essence she says that in this historic impeachment trial of a chief justice, media, rather than remain neutral and detached, should search for the truth and, having gained expertise, should then connect the dots, interpret and analyze events, for the public to better understand the issues and their implications.  etc. etc. etc.  obviously it is the rationale for rappler’s biased journalism which they now call citizen journalism.  okay, fine, citizen journalism is about advocacy…

next came the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (cmfr)’s tweet: How is the press faring in its Corona impeachment trial coverage?  there weren’t many replies but mostly asking media to tell it like it is, with less bias, more fairness and objectivity.  mostly directed @inquirer and @cmfr.  curiously, none @rappler.  can it be that respondents are already making a distinction between mainstream and online journalism, between traditional and citizen journalism?  hindi okay na maging biased ang inquirer, pero okay na maging biased ang rappler?  if yes, that’s unexpected, because hofilena does not bother to make any kind of distinction, as though speaking for all journalism…

then came the news that journalists raissa robles, criselda yabes, and maritess danguilan vitug were on the list of prosecution witnesses, but all three are saying they won’t testify.  robles says she has no personal knowledge of the allegations, yabes says she has never written about corona, vitug says her works speak for themselves.

i was still thinking that around when this reaction from lawyer ted te came in:

… calling media practitioners to testify on work product is indicative of a short cut approach to finding the truth; much of the work that media has done in reporting these matters is already part of the public consciousness and may already be considered subject of the collective, institutional and even personal knowledge of the Senate, acting as jury; there is really no need to call media practitioners to testify.

and this from defense spokeslady karen jimeno:

[The] prosecution has pierced the veil of confidentiality with the [income tax returns], let us not drag the media and place it on the witness stand. The Media is not on trial here. Prove your case by doing your work in research and litigation.

at first, i couldn’t understand where ted te was coming from — if what media has reported re cj corona has already become “part of the public consciousness,” would it not do the public good to see and hear the journalists validated, attesting to the reports under oath?

unless, of course, the fear is that the reports are not based on personal knowledge and might not stand up to direct and cross examination?  the “collective knowledge” is based on unfounded reports?  this would explain jimeno’s statement that to put journalists on the witness stand is to put media on trial?

media’s in a fix.  hofilena is saying that journalists are experts in their fields of study:

Because journalists have access to documents and officials elected to public office, they are in a better position to make sense of conflicting versions of the truth. Does this bestow on them the title of “expert?” Does this put them on a pedestal superior to their audience?

Admittedly, a journalist who has done extensive research, spent long hours poring over documents or interviewing insiders and people on the ground with intimate knowledge of details related to the articles of impeachment, earns a degree of expertise. After all, an academic who does the exact same thing in a particular field, is acknowledged as an expert in that field. What makes a journalist any different?

and yet the journalists who-might-be-witnesses do not seem to be confident of their so-called expertise.  because why else would they refuse to testify?  why else would they not jump at the chance to take their anti-corona advocacy to a higher level, help the prosecution prove its case not only via newspapers and news blogs but all the way to the impeachment court?

and what would that say of the quality of the “expert” reportage and analysis we are getting from these journalists?  only good enough for a lethargic … lazy … simply apathetic … and, maybe, a gullible public?

just asking.