Category: media

Truth and consequence

Luis V. Teodoro

Congressional hearings are held “in aid of legislation,” and the leading members of the Senate committee on public information and mass media, and the committee on public services, made it clear last Tuesday that they did not call the heads of the news sections of TV networks ABS-CBN, GMA7, and TV5 just to pass the time.

Sen. Joker Arroyo, who used to defend journalists from government harassment during the martial law period, warned that the Senate could pass a law to regulate the networks’ coverage of hostage-taking and similar crises if they did not restrain themselves.

The operative word was “restraint.” Despite the lame excuses and the evasions worthy of contortionists, the truth is that television news displayed the exact opposite of it — i.e., the frenzy of predators — when covering the hostage-taking crisis at Manila’s Rizal Park last August 23.

With reckless disregard for the lives of the hostages, most of the TV and radio reporters onsite violated not only some of the conditions of their stations’ franchises as well as the existing guidelines of the Kapisanan ng Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP — the broadcasters’ association), but also and more appallingly, the most basic rules of common human decency.

One network provided the hostage-takersuch information as the positions of the police snipers and the deployment of the police assault teams. RMN radio interviewed the hostage-taker, in the process enabling him to plead his case to a wider public and gain public sympathy, and ended up mediating between him and the police. All the networks and their affiliate radio stations also broadcast the arrest of the hostage-taker’s brother, and thus contributed to his being provoked into shooting the hostages.

They earlier claimed that the frenzy of their coverage did not contribute to the bloody outcome of the August 23 crisis. But the networks aren’t saying that now. Instead they’ve taken refuge in the argument that they had no choice because the police had not set the limits of media coverage. As for RMN, it is unrepentant and insists that it was “just doing [our] job.” Apparently, doing the human thing as the ethics of journalism demands — preventing further harm, and not risking the lives of people other than themselves — is beyond them, if the race for the ratings and advertising revenues are involved. By abandoning their supposed preference for self-regulation, on the other hand, that excuse also invites government regulation.

But does it really need the government and the police to tell presumably adult, mature individuals that the hostage-taker could have been listening to radio and/or watching television and therefore likely to react to what he’s hearing and seeing? Does it need a set of guidelines in black and white for broadcasters (one of the loudest of whom admitted he’s untrained even for his own job) to realize that they shouldn’t be negotiating with a hostage-taker because they’re not trained for it?

Not that the guidelines for ethical and professional coverage during hostage-taking and similar crises don’t exist. They do, and they’ve been in place for decades. The injunction against covering events live, providing information on police movements, airing interviews with the relatives of hostage-takers, as well as the warning that the media should assume that the hostage-taker has access to TV and radio broadcasts have all been in place for years. So have the internal rules of such models of competent and ethical coverage as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

(Maria Ressa of ABS-CBN earlier took exception to observing those guidelines by reason of “cultural differences” — but later told the Senate committees last Tuesday that “journalism ethics are universal.” Practically the same guidelines are also in the KBP Broadcast Code, which, among others, warns against airing reports on police and troop movements as well as media’s negotiating with hostage-takers.)

Visibly angry, and themselves hardly restrained, Arroyo, Juan Ponce Enrile, and other senators showed little of the fear of the media Arroyo claimed was inhibiting Congress from quickly passing a law to prevent a repetition of the irresponsibility the leading TV networks exhibited last August 23.

But the House of Representatives may yet beat the Senate to it. Without the benefit of any public hearing, Rep. Gabriel Luis Quisumbing has introduced a bill declaring it unlawful “for any media person to report or present publicly the positions, movements and actions…by the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) during crisis situations.” The penalty for violations is either imprisonment from six months to six years, a fine of P20,000, or both.

We can all be certain that if this bill reaches the committee and floor levels, the honorable congressmen of the 15th Congress will add to it, as well as suggest amendments to make it even more repressive.

But isn’t this what the networks have really been asking for, their half-hearted expressions of preference for self-regulation as well as their demand that the police tell them where, when, and what to cover constituting an invitation for government intervention and the imposition of that oxymoron, legislated ethics?

Their seeming confusion proceeds from a presumption no one has so far mentioned: it is that they do what they do, and did what they did last August 23, in furtherance, not of the truth they always claim to be for, but of their commercial interests. Those interests dictate a race for scoops and exclusives, or, at least, not to be the only station not to cover an incident, especially one as inherently sensational as a hostage-taking. It makes perverse sense: if government sets the rules, complete with penalties for violators, then everyone should follow, with no one having an edge over the others.

And that is why, ladies and gentlemen of the supposedly free media community of the Philippines, as the demands of both government and the public for media regulation grow louder and louder, the TV networks are silently but surely supporting them — if not in speech, certainly in such deeds as the way they covered the hostage-taking crisis of August 23rd. They’re asking for it, and in the process undermining the freedom of ALL the media including print, whose coverage of the same event was, lest we forget, incomparably more responsible and restrained.

media & national interest

in the senate inquiry into media’s role in the aug. 23 hostage-taking, senate president juan ponce enrile was critical of maria ressa’s wall street journal article, Noynoy Flunks His First Test.

What prompted you to write such a critique … put on the line the quality of leadership of the newly elected president of the country? (and) At bottom issue is the collision of two interests: there’s the obligation to your audience and faithfulness to your calling, at the same time we are Filipinos with a country to serve.  What if national interests are damaged by the performance of your duties?  Where do you draw the line between serving your country’s national interest and serving your ethical and professional obligations as journalists? … need a certain amount of caution in the manner of disseminating information …  in carefully calibrated language… (or something to this effect)

ressa’s response:

Freedom of speech is universal.  There is no conflict of interest for journalists in or out of the Philippines.  We do not write with intent of bringing anything down…  hoping for better action from government…. (and) I merely laid out the facts … the way events played out … there really was failure of the chain of command… intention was to constructively criticize … facts unassailable… rescue attempt botched… levels of incompetence… political factionalism… negative light? …  the farthest thing on my mind… (and) We have to make a distinction between the job of a public relations person vs the job of a journalist… (or something to this effect)

but but but even if it were true that ressa merely laid out facts, still she was selective about the facts she laid out — she said nothing on how media flunked, too, bakit nagmamalinis.   and in fact, she went beyond laying out facts when she issued that judgment, the opinion, that the president flunked his first test, AND used it as TITLE, setting the unmistakably negative tone of the article. kasi pala, the solicited article was not for the news but for the opinion page.   mary kissel, editorial board member of the wall street journal, said in a phone interview tuesday:

… what Ressa wrote “wasn’t a news story,” but was an article for the paper’s opinion pages where “you’re expected to have an opinion.”

and even if ressa were right, that noynoy flunked his first test, why why why rub it in for all the world to read and to recall, and, of all places, in the world’s most prestigious business paper where the trustworthiness of a country is assessed, ika nga ni enrile, starting with the quality of the leadership.   why why why further shake global confidence in our country when that confidence is so badly shaken na.   like c_at commented in ressa, media, flunk test:

Wallstreet Journal, the newspaper read by investment and hedge fund managers, pension administrators, venture capitalists and mutual funds managers.

And these are the people Aquino would like to invite for investments in the Philippines during his US visit one week from now. Very timely indeed.

i’m not saying ressa shouldn’t have written an article for the wall street journal when she did.   i’m just saying she was selective and one-sided; she could have critiqued everyone involved, including the media that she’s part of.   also, she could have gone for a less judgmental and sensational title and so helped mitigate rather than exacerbate the damage.   puwede naman to give the president the benefit of the doubt muna, kahit pa grudgingly.   nothing “PR” about that.

i liked abc 5’s luchi cruz valdez‘ response to: where do you draw the line (between national interests and media interests) :

We draw the line where human lives are at stake, number 1. Number 2 we draw the line where the life of a legitimate government is at stake.

neat sideswipe, that ;))   as for the question i raised earlier, as to whether ressa’s judgment is a reflection of that of her bosses the lopezes, say ni  armida siguion-reyna in her tribune column “Honeymoon is over?”

The chismis is Ressa’s boss Gabby Lopez isn’t happy about it, but this stays scuttlebutt until confirmed.

cocktales’ vic agustin confirms:

ABS-CBN chairman Eugenio “Gabby” Lopez III is already in the United States, a de-facto advance party of the business delegation that was invited to accompany P.Noy in his first foreign trip.

His dilemma: Damage control ensuing from the Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by Maria Ressa, his own network’s news and current affairs chief.

oh well.   maybe we shouldn’t be counting on foreigners too much anyway?   instead, tap rich filipinos with secret bank accounts abroad to invest in their own country for a change?   heh.   fat chance.

at least there’s still leila de lima’s report, and the prospect of heads rolling, to look forward to.   that should help, kahit paano.

ressa, media, flunk test

wazzup, maria ressa?  nagulat, hindi, nagulumihanan, naman ako sa iyong Noynoy Flunks His First Test, published monday sept 6 sa the wall street journal online, then a couple or so days later sa abs-cbn website.   parang at this point in time, ika nga, when we are all, including the bereaved and traumatized chinese, waiting patiently for the results of the DOJ investigation, parang wrong lang yung timing.   why couldn’t it wait until you had something more to say, even if, yeah, some of it may have been new to the international community (and then again maybe not).

nakakapagpaisip tuloy kung bakit mo binanatan si noynoy nang gayon just then, in such a conclusive manner, when really palpak din naman, and even more conclusively, ang media.   sabi nga ni doy santos aka the cusp sa propinoy.net:

“He who is without sin should cast the first stone.” What is conveniently left out here is how the media contributed to the bungled operation. Are they now trying to deflect attention on to the administration because of their own mistakes. A little introspection and reticence would do them some good. –  9 September 2010 at 9:23 am

Maria Ressa’s assessment of PNoy is unwarranted given her own involvement as news director of a station. She has gone from merely reporting to editorializing. You don’t trip someone and then turn around and tell that person that he’s not well-coordinated. Or that it was his fault for not restraining you in the first place. It is a little disingenuous. – 9 September 2010 at 6:25 pm

we all know that ressa’s bosses the lopezes campaigned big time for noynoy, as well as her anchor ricky carandang, now one of the three-headed six-legged communications group.   so i wonder, what’s the subtext of the article?   that the lopezes, the network, are distancing themselves from the president and don’t care if he goes down?   there’s always binay?   ano kayang say ni kris diyan?   or is this just ressa, declaring her editorial independence via a lame last-ditch attempt to “deflect attention” from media?   she wrote it days before tuesday sept 7 when we first heard the damning RMN tapes at the DOJ hearing, so maybe she knew about those tapes, so maybe she was on defensive mode, blame the president na lang, una-unahan na lang?

it’s a pity that ressa couldn’t wouldn’t take the higher ground when she was is in the perfect position to do so.   at least dzmm wasn’t caught interviewing the hostage-taker at any time, even if anthony taberna and gerry baja interviewed, and delayed, isko moreno on his way back from the ombudsman.   at least no abscbn anchor/reporter was seen making gapang, stooping down to the level of, the struggling brother a la gma’s susan enriquez.

seeing now how badly media affected the proceedings and the outcome, i can’t believe that ressa refuses to promise a blackout next time unless all the other networks promise the same.   here’s manuel buencamino (in a comment to an earlier post) on ressa and media:

Maria Ressa’s tweet shows the kind of mentality prevalent in media: “If only one network does it, you would just switch to another. Needed gov’t to ask for blackout from all. We would’ve cooperated.”

Sinisi pa ang gobyerno. Has she ever heard of the term “self-restraint”?

And this is what she said during a forum at the College of Mass Communication of the University of the Philippines last August 28, Friday : “We would have been criticized by the viewers or what viewers would have done is switch stations.”

Ayun mas mahalaga ang ratings kaysa sa buhay ng tao.

Iisa ang takbo ng utak ni Maria Ressa, Erwin Tulfo, at RMN. Ratings is the end all and be all of modern journalists so news is whatever is sensational. Today’s editors use Nielsen ratings rather than substance to evaluate what can be aired or published.

talaga naman, ano?   it certainly doesn’t speak well of the media that they can’t come together like mature adults and speak as one on self-regulation without government sitting in.   i’m surprised that for someone so high-profile, ressa doesn’t have the chutzpah to dare lead the way, promise to not cover or air anything live in a hostage situation without the go-signal of authorities.    i would expect that other networks would at the very least be shamed into following suit.   if not, well, we know who to charge for criminal broadcasting next time around (god forbid).

no-holds-barred?

flunk na flunk din ang media in that panel discussion with the president.   can’t find a complete transcript yet, only a partial one from ellen tordesillas but i’ve watched/listened to the entire thing at least twice and i’m sure not tiangco not failon not bediones asked about the failed attempts to resolve the situation without bloodshed, i.e., by giving the hostage-taker what he was asking for.  the president did volunteer this early on:

Buong araw, mataas ang kumpiyansa na mare-resolba iyong isyung ito na walang pagdadanak ng dugo dahil kakaiba sa normal na—iyong hostage taking situation. Nagkaroon ng pagre-release ng mga hostages bago pa nag-umpisa iyong negotiation.

i would have asked if such optimism — that mendoza would just continue to release hostages even if his demands were not taken seriously — was shared by psychologists familiar with hostage-taker personalities.   were any psychologists consulted?   any psychologist worth his salt would have cautioned against taking anything for granted, especially where so many lives were still on the line.

At some point in the day, I talked to Sec. Soliman, vice chair of the NDCC, kasi I noticed there was only one ambulance. She said that there were several ambulances ready. I asked if doctors familiar with treating gunshot and blast wounds were also available; blood supplies, etc. She told me that it would be Sec. Ona who would be in a better position. She called him up, and they called me back afterwards na these had already been taken care of.

i would have asked why he was already thinking ambulances and doctors, gunshot and blast wounds, even before thinking how to resolve the situation without bloodshed.   i would have asked what he was doing all afternoon after the swearing in of gina lopez and others.   did he ever ask how the negotiations were going?   was he happy enough to hear that isko had a letter from the ombudsman without him having to intervene?    did he regret at all not intervening when the ombudsman’s letter did not do the job?

the promise of a complete transcript on the palace’s website is still that, a promise.   but i’ve listened to that harapan twice and much later into the hour-and-a-half the president vaguely referred to thinking of ordering the ombudsman… i suppose to come up with a document, no matter if bogus… and pinag-isipan daw kung paano bolahin si mendoza … pero paano kung hindi maniwala … and anong epekto later on … it would complicate negotiations in future hostage-taking situations, the credibility of negotiators would be put at risk….

i would have asked: but why should future hostage-takings be more important than saving lives in THIS hostage-taking???   besides, negotiations did not have to be made public.   the public would not have protested being kept out of the loop as long as the hostages were rescued unharmed.   the irony is, all that concern and alalay for future hostage-taking situations brought about exactly what they were afraid of, and more: the loss of credibility all around, not to speak of the loss of precious lives.

plagiarism, manny pangilinan, karen davila

no wonder manny pangilinan a.k.a. MVP needs a ghostwriter for his speeches.  if his apology to fr. ben nebres is any indication — i’m supposing he wrote it himself — his english isn’t all that great pala:

I have been told last night that portions of my graduation remarks – in particular my address to the Schools of Humanities and Social Sciences – had been borrowed from certain other graduation speeches.

“i have been told last night”…??? eeeww.  this from an ateneo cum laude alumnus?

anyway, like i’ve said in twitter and facebook, at least pangilinan had the grace to be embarrassed and to apologize and take responsibility for the plagiarism instead of excusing himself and blaming only his writers a la ANC’s karen davila.  better yet he has the delicadeza (so rare!) to “wish to retire” from his official duties at the ateneo.

I am truly regretful for it. I already have too many battles to fight, and some of them I wish not to have to fight. In this instance, I do not want to, and would seek only the honourable and principled way out. The matter at hand may rest after this public apology, but it gives me a lot of personal discomfort to continue to be closely involved with Ateneo affairs after this incident. I am afraid the damage has been done – wala talaga akong mukhang ihaharap pagkatapos.

With much regret, Fr Ben, I would wish to retire from my official duties at the Ateneo.

in his place though i not only “would wish to retire,” i would simply resign and not give the ateneo any option but to accept it.  unless of course he is willing to be persuaded to stay, which would be not only masochistic of him, now that his rockstar status in campus has been degraded by a clear lack of “smarts” at least when it comes to PR ghostwriters, it would also send the message to / set the pattern for students and teachers alike that one only has to immediately apologize when found out, and ayos na ang buto-buto.

as for karen davila, she (along with maria ressa) must be thanking her lucky stars na hindi siya kasing bigtime ni manny pangilinan at hindi ako celebrity like oprah & jk rowling.  but if they think na nakalimutan na ang aking plagiarism charge re the laban ni cory tv docu that had davila mouthing spiels re EDSA that were clearly lifted from my book without attribution, they have another think coming.

even before MVP messed up, i would get intermittent queries from family and friends, online and off, asking kung ano nang nangyari, lalo na when davila was given her own show on ANC.   my answer always was, i’ll blog about it one of these days.   and mula nang pumutok itong kay MVP, ang daming nagtatanong uli kung kailan ba ako magkukuwento, what am i waiting for.  so, okay, now na.

timeline

august 2.  laban ni cory started airing on ABS-CBN 2, replayed again and again over the next ten days or so.

august 8.  emailed butch h., executive director of the people power foundation that published my book, about the plagiarism, and that i intended to blog it.  he said, go ahead:  “you are the author, after all is said and done.”

august 11.  plagiarism and, uh, karen davila, is that you?

august 12.  heard davila on dzmm teleradyo say that she knew nothing about it, she didn’t write her spiels for that docu.

august 13.  received this email from maria ressa:

From: <Maria_Ressa@abs-cbn.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Plagiarism Charge

Dear Ms. Stuart-Santiago,

Common friends told me about your blog post. I read both your post and the spirited debate in the responses.

I want to assure you that, as head of ABS-CBN News & Current Affairs, I take your charges seriously.

We do not condone plagiarism in any way.

I’ve started an investigation and will personally let you know the results.

Best,

Maria

august 14.  sat down with a lawyer whom i’d consulted on a property matter some years ago, whoagreed that i had a case, even if the copyright belonged to the publisher that paid me a lump sum for that print edition.  but he advised that we give ressa time (a couple of weeks) to investigate and get back to me, hopefully with at least an apology.  (yes, a quick apology would have sufficed.)

august 25.  having received no more word from ressa, lawyer sent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. a registered complaint and demand letter.  failure to comply would force us to bring the matter to court and take appropriate action, etc.  (received my copy in the mail august 28)

september 7.  katrina attended poet larry ypil’s book launch where she was informed by a high-profile writer that he and another high-profile writer had received calls from ABS-CBNpersonalities saying that davila was looking to hook up with me in private, but neither presumed to know me well enough to help out; however the high-profile writer’s advice via my daughter was, better to “negotiate” with davila directly rather than go the lawyer-complaint route, or something to that effect.  but i was not interested in under-the-table deals.  i was more interested in seeing where “due process” would take me (or not).  besides if davila really wanted to find me, she could have tried harder.

september 11.   got an email from butch h., informing me that maria ressa was asking for a copy of my book.

also around this time i heard from a familyfriend who knows people high up in ABS-CBN that a serious investigation was going on and that the writer who wrote davila’s spiels was going to get fired if s/he hadn’t been yet, or something to that effect.  texted all this hearsay info to lawyer.

october 7.  texted lawyer: “anong balita?”   he texted back: “no communic8n, feelers from abs cbn?”  i said no, not on my end.  he texted back: “ok, will draft complaint na.”  that was the last i heard from him.

fast forward to feb 15, 2010.  a group of u.p. journalism students requested an interview re my plagiarism charge for a paper they were writing for their journalism ethics class.  of course i said yes, sabay text and email sa lawyer hoping for an update.  no response.

i went ahead with the interview anyway, which forced me to deal with and make sense of the fact that my lawyer seems to have bailed out on me — i had / have seen him on ANC (or maybe it was on Channel 2, or both) being interviewed as a 2010 bet, which should tell me what, that maybe he didn’t go to court with my complaint, as he had promised?  or maybe he did but “due process” is just supersloww?  or maybe he has been prevailed upon to drop the case?  either or, maybe he’s just too busy campaigning to text or email, let me know what’s going on?  maybe he doesn’t need my vote, lol.

bottom line?

i hoped / continue to hope, of course, that my publishers would support my plagiarism charge but maybe they don’t care to pala, in aid perhaps of information dissemination?  in that event, would it mean that anyone can now lift passages from my work?  a pattern, a precedent, has been set?  (please tell me it isn’t so.)

for ABS-CBN the bottom line may be:  she doesn’t own the copyright, she has no case.  hmm.  what did ressa say again?  “We do not condone plagiarism in any way.”   yeah, right.  after all, it is as much a sacred rule of journalism as respecting the confidentiality of one’s sources.

katrina’s take:

This is my issue with the way there has just been silence about this plagiarism case (and now Davila has a new show pa on ANC, que horror!).  The manner in which Mama’s original words were used, while possibly for information dissemination, etc., BECAUSE it was done by ABS-CBN, was really also about PROFIT.  Linawin natin: in the academe, sige, a teacher might read 3 books and do a lecture for a class, even using the authors’ words without attribution, okay lang, walang kumita doon.   But on nationwide commercial and cable television?  Paulit-ulit pa nila ni-replay!  Where is the justice in not even mentioning the author?  Where is the justice in just meeting a plagiarism accusation with silence?

ABS-CBN should be ashamed and embarassed.  Nakakahiya sila.

sabi rin ni alex magno sa philippine star on MVP’s speech::

In the academe and among the literati, plagiarism is a cardinal offense. For professional writers, an instance of plagiarism is a career-ender.

Never mind libel cases. Among opinion writers, that is an occupational hazard — and sometimes a measure of valor. But plagiarism, that kills. It washes away the respect of peers and readers. One opinion writer, many years ago, drifted into purgatory after a hawk-eyed reader spotted plagiarized text in his column.

ah, but davila & ressa, ABS-CBN & ANC, are something else, playing by the rules only when it suits them, in effect lowering the bar for broadcast journalism hereabouts,  what a shame.

they should take the cue from MVP who cares about honor and principle, and doing the right thing, kahit gaano kasakit — mabuhay siya!  and good luck na rin sa kanyang ABC channel 5!