Category: media

calling out cheche

so what’s winston garcia of gsis up to, doing a mike defensor and doing it worse, harassing bullying persecuting no less than the veteran journalist cheche lazaro, who is highly esteemed, widely loved, and multi-awarded for the excellence and relevance of her body of work in broadcast journalism and nation-building?   and don’t tell me that winston garcia is not calling the shots here, because that’s simply not to be believed in the context of either the public teachers’ gsis pension plight or the war between garcia and the lopezes over meralco, or both.

cheche lazaro is right, she did not break the anti-wiretapping law.    she wasn’t a sammy ong or a vidal doble wire-tapping gma’s phone conversations with garci without gma’s and garci’s knowledge.    she was just cheche of probe interviewing a gsis pr lady on her cellphone for a show she was putting together, and yes she recorded the conversation, in the course of which she informed the gsis lady that it was being recorded, and the gsis lady did not stop talking, did not get off the line in protest, so what’s the crime.   the complaint shouldnot have prospered.   there is no wiretapping case.

what there is however is a breach of journalistic ethics.   when cheche aired a part of the recorded conversation without the gsis pr lady’s consent, cheche gave the lady reason to ask,what about my individual right to privacy?

Are the media allowed to violate the individual rights of a person? I was asking the court if the media could simply call you up, record your conversation, and broadcast it for the entire world to hear; all these, without your knowledge, much less, your permission.

…”I am a believer of the significant role journalists play in a democratic system. They are the watchmen, protecting us from wrongdoings taking place both in government and private sectors. But even journalists are not infallible. They can have their share of wrongdoings. And when journalists do wrong, how can we – especially private individuals – protect ourselves from them?”

the gsis pr lady gave cheche tacit approval to record, but not to disclose.   “hindi po lalabas…” and cheche agreed, “no, no…” yet she did put out a part of it, on the convoluted ground that the gsis pr lady had insisted that it be explained to viewers that gsis refused to grant an interview because of biased reporting by lopez-owned media entities.   cheche could simply have shown the official letter refusing the invitation to air the gsis side, she could have highlighted, even read out the pertinent parts, and the message would have been sent as effectively.

given her long history in the business, it surprises that cheche chose to publicize what was clearly off-the-record.   of course journalists hate off-the-record, it usually denies them the satisfaction of scooping a juicy story, but it’s a short-sighted view.    some of the biggest stories of corporate scandals, i am told, have been broken based on information that off-the-record statements led to.    there’s value, too, in something said that you can’t write or broadcast but which you can follow up in private and which might lead to you more info you would otherwise have missed out on.

the question is, why did cheche do it?   freedom of the press?   maybe she thought she could get away with it because the larger issue of gsis’s lack of transparency or the teachers’ well-being is more important than any government official’s privacy?   maybe she thought that off-the-record was an outdated ethic, it doesn’t promote nation-building?   maybe she thought that public opinion would be with her given the low satisfaction ratings of government and its institutions?  but says bong austero:

Lazaro is of course a pillar in broadcast journalism in this country with a sterling reputation both in academe and in media. I am a fan of Lazaro; I think very highly of her work … Being dismayed that someone of her caliber has to go through something like this is a natural gut reaction.

But if we really come to think about it, who Lazaro is and what she stands for is important and relevant but is not a foolproof defense and justification. I dread the idea that anyone who feels wronged cannot file a case against anyone on account of that other person’s reputation. I dread the idea that people likeLazaro is deemed untouchable because of who she is.

Moreover, I think it’s a disservice to automatically rile against the whole case, scream suppression of freedom of the press, and make reckless generalizations about how the case is yet another proof of sinister political machination of the powers-that-be without considering the intrinsic value of the case … the whole case is potentially just as much a chance to validate press freedom given the opportunity it offers to vindicate Lazaro’s cause as it is an opportunity to stress the right to privacy of individuals against the often invasive posturing of media.

and says the daily tribune:

The local media community appears to be divided on the issue on whether the Lazaro case is a case of press freedom or a case of a journalist having violated the rules of journalism, as even an instance of a journalist airing or publishing agreed off-the-record statements of his source is already a breach of journalistic ethics.

It will be recalled that veteran US broadcaster Connie Chung was booted out of the major network in the US a decade ago for having aired an off the record comment made by the mother of then Rep. Newt Gringgich that then First Lady Hilary Clinton was a bitch. This was not regarded as a case of press freedom, but a violation of the rules of journalism.

and says alex magno:

The mass media could be intrusive. It could so easily break into anyone’s privacy and brazenly trample on rights to privacy. There needs to be a finer consensus in the journalistic community over the conduct of interviews and the use of phone conversations, outside the formal setting of an interview, for airing.

On this concern, there is public merit in hearing out the arguments in the case filed against Cheche. Ordinary citizens, not only journalists, have rights too.

a qualified yes.    there is public merit in hearing out the arguments in the case of cheche but only on the question of journalistic ethics, NOT on the bogus and ridiculous wiretapping charges which should be dropped, the arrest order withdrawn, and the bail money returned.   in fairness lang naman.

rocking with da reyna

quite interesting how manolo’s mistake spun off debates on academic credentials & credibility in the comment threads of filipino voices.com and reynaelena.com,  and quite quite yummy how fv blogger benignO’s entry that manolo’s apology empowers “dimwits” added fuel to da reyna’s war on yet another fv blogger with homophobic ethics, yes the ilusyonado one who claims more than 8 million readers a day, lol.

naturally the conflict finds me siding with da reyna, having myself (hindi ako nag-iisa) been viciously attacked not too long ago by yet yet another fv blogger across three blogs — in fv, in his personal blog, and in mine — one irrational accusatory insulting diatribe after another, castigating me for abetting the abu sayyaf, condoning terrorism, giving away territory, even torture, moral turpitude, stinking words, apalling, disgusting, lack of humanity and womanity (!) at kung ano-ano pang kalait-lait daw about my person and my morals and my intellect, when nothing in my entry warranted it.   the same fv blogger now gleefully claiming that manolo’s apology is “full of sarcastic, if hidden wit” but the reyna just doesn’t get it, and in the next breath talking “standards of civility.” talaga naman, ano ba yan.

worse, not a peep from editor-not-chief nick, as though the utter lack of tolerance for any deviation from an arrogantly opinionated one’s opinion is all right.   as though it’s perfectly acceptable for fv to be used as a platform for sensationalist writing and irresponsible labelling.

The Ca_t is right:

…sa isang blog na ang titulo ay Filipino Voices at ang mga ipinagmamalaking manunulat ay sinasabing siyang tinig ng bayan, hindi kaya nararapat na kilatisin ng mga magbabasa kung sino ang mga taong ito?

At kung ang mga taong ito na tumatawag sa mga nagbabasa at nagkukumento stupido, hindi kaya dapat malaman kung sino sila at bakit may karapatan silang mang-insulto ng kapwa nila?

and da reyna, too:

Some writers and bloggers at Filipino Voices are guilty of being pa-intellectual. Feeling ba. Some are so uber-napoleonic with their own opinions, think and believe in all their ass that they’re the only one that is all knowing, high and mighty and what they say and write sway the nation. They believe that whatever they say would help create national policies and every one in the tralala-land gets their piece of opinion!

unfortunately, ito ang attitude ni nick-not-chief:

Ipersonally believe that the readers should be able to discern for themselves with regards to many issues..

…which is like washing his hands of any responsibility for anything.   e ano kung walang karapatan ang ilang taga-fv to speak for filipinos.    e ano kung walang karapatan kahit sino na mang-insulto o mambastos.   wtf.   is this the same nick who stood up and accused malu fernandez of stuff that some of his bloggers are now accused of?   ah, but nick is not the chief, there is no chief.

filipino voices could use a leader who would value the collective as a whole and not be intimidated by the noisy know-it-alls, never mind if their pasaway ways bring in traffic.    the kind of leader who at the very least would impose standards of honesty and civility.   otherwise fv is suspect as a source of credible information and rational opinion, because how can anyone tell that the good ones have not been infected by the bad ones?   all it takes is one rotten apple to spoil the barrel.   three or four speeds up the process.

this is also to say that i don’t agree with the conventional blogging wisdom that values more the freedom to say anything than the rightness, correctness, of what is said in the context of nation-building, especially for a collective blog that claims to sway public opinion and shape government policy.    leaving it to readers to “discern for themselves” who’s right and who’s wrong is such a cop-out and just so mainstream media.

OMGWTFIDONTWANTTODIE 2

since that comment posted by lem about the death of the policeman who was injured at the u.p. friday the 13th riot, i’ve been googling news sites and broadsheets to either confirmor deny the news but nothing, absolutely nothing, which is so weird.   so i emailed lem to ask where he got the balita and he said from a rakista, pero sadyang “hindi raw ipinapaalam sa media, ewan kung bakit.”

ganoon?  like the warrior lawyer says, sana hindi totoo, sana buhay pa at on the way to recovery si sgt. ramon mondrigo of the u.p. police.  pero kung totoo that he has passed away, what is the news blackout all about?  is it possible that mainstream media have no idea, are not interested, do not care, or can it be that they just do not care enough to let us know?  baka napakiusapan ng u.p. admin o ng u.p. orgs that organized the concert na huwag nang palakihin,  sila-sila na lang ang bahala sa mga namatayan?  OMGWTF ganoon na lang ba ‘yon?  what does that say about u.p., and about our youth, hope of the motherland!

for all our sakes i pray it’s not true, and sgt. mondrigo lives.

defending celso

i’m not going to pretend i understand what’s really going on with celso de los angeles and the banking establishment.  my kneejerk response when i read that his rural banks had a ponzi-like scheme going, promising high returns to depositors, higher than that offered by the big banks, i was disgusted, lalo na’t it seemed that he was counting on the pdic to bail out his depositors just in case…

and then i read manila times columnist dan mariano‘s vilification of celso de los angeles, and it made me think again. in the wake of the u.s. economy’s crash thanks to innovative financial schemes, it’s hard to think positive of celso’s own innovations, especially because he has been painted as an incorrigible scoundrel by the mass media.

but if it’s true that big banks could actually match the interest rates he offered on savers’ deposits but big banks just won’t because it would eat into their huge profits, then talaga, it’s possible that celso is the victim of a vilification campaign that was meant to panic his depositors, thus to protect the interests of big banks rather than the interests of the banking public.

makes me wonder about the senate and house investigations.  sino ba talagang pinoprotektahan nila?  makes me wonder too about vice-president noli de castro’s deafening silence.  anyway here’s dan mariano’s column in full:

Vilification of Celso de los Angeles

If you are convinced that Celso de los Angeles is as guilty as sin, read no further.

Off the bat, let me say he is a former classmate of mine. I still regard him as a friend even if these past couple of weeks he has not replied to my calls, text messages and e-mail. Given the pressure he is under, I don’t fault him at all.

As Celso’s friend, I am ready to give him, if not sympathy, then certainly the benefit of the doubt. I am still so prepared-even in the current lynch-mob atmosphere created by certain central bank officials and other quarters.

Not too long ago, Celsotold some of his friends he was anxious about a plot to shut down his businesses. The rural banks he set up, for instance, were offering depositors interest rates on their savings that the big banks could not-or simply refused to-match lest it cut into their profit margins.

As a result, the number of depositors in Celso’s banks, which were spread out across the archipelago, grew at such a rate that the big banks began to feel genuinely threatened.

Serves the big banks right, I thought. Their interest rates were so tiny they did not even allow their depositors’ savings to keep pace with inflation. Keeping your money in one of those big banks was only a bit better than stuffing cash into your mattress, but it still was a losing proposition for the average depositors. I had thought that the aggressive marketing tack taken by Celso’s banks would ultimately stir the big banks into giving their customers a similar or an even better deal. I had hoped the big banks would finally wake up and realize that they now face a serious competitor.

Boy, was I wrong.

Instead of stimulating the big banks’ competitive instincts, Celso’s rural banks-along with his “preneed” ventures, which formed an integrated business-became the object of what amounts to corporate murder. The big banks decided to deal with the competition the only way they knew how-elimination at all costs.

For months, articles and columns were caused to be printed in newspapers and aired on radio and TV questioning the “unsound practices” of the rural banks identified with De los Angeles. Predictably, politicians saw a chance to draw free publicity to themselves and grabbed it.

In what seemed like the blink of any eye Celso had become one of the most vilified men in the Philippines.

Even before the hatchet job was completed, enough of the rural banks’ customers had been so unnerved that they understandably withdrew their money.

Result: A bank run triggered, not by the lack of assets or fraudulent business practices, but by negative publicity and intimidation by officials-far too many of whom look forward to a cushy sinecure in conglomerates that own big banks after retirement.

But was there anything intrinsically illegal in how Celso’s banks and preneed companies operated?

For an answer let me quote excerpts from a column written by Dean de la Paz in the Busi-nessMirror. Last Friday, de la Paz wrote in part:

“Despite the absence of an elementary preneed code, regulators and Monday-morning quarterbacking politicians cry illegality. Because there are no laws, to declare criminality requires some amount of creativity for the charges to stick if fraud and malice are to complement illegality.

“Let us examine a hypothetical preneed offering and see whether those are present.

“Matching revenues against costs is critical in the preneed industry. Where revenue sources and fund providers are one, through a virtual holdout feature, risks of defaults are mitigated, collections more efficient and the matching of revenues to costs closer. Note that here we have a preneed subscriber as clients of either a credit-card company or borrowers in affiliated banks.

“By enhancing this financial model, either through a compounding mechanism on the invested fund where interest earned is compounded monthly, quarterly or even semiannually, a doubling of earnings can be achieved.

“For instance, a credit-card holder paying an effective annual interest of 36 percent, or 3 percent monthly, quickly covers a holdout on the same individual whose funds provided costs a nominal 12 percent annually. By tying an investment that earns 12 percent annually to a debt, or a revenue source that earns 36 percent within the same period, a financial institution can earn 300 percent over the same base. Depending on the compounding schedule-doubling can occur in less than five years.

“In the preneed industry, a hypothetical educational plan can be offered featuring a front-end 20-percent rebate. With warrants that allow repurchases where credit-card companies buy the plan via postdated checks [PDCs], a double-your-money instrument can be offered.

“Should the plan holder liquidate prior to maturity, the 20-percent front-end rebate and the PDC repayments that double the plan’s initial value count as the cost of the investment. Matched against the credit-card company’s 36-percent-per-annum revenue, the cost of the assignable preneed plan can adequately be covered under normal circumstances.

“When offered as a contiguous package, is this patently illegal? Was fraud the intent? Are these designed to steal from plan holders? Or were they meant to offer yields matched against specific revenues?”

Some commentators bewail the fact that the deposit insurance cover for the customers of Celso de los Angeles’s rural banks will cost taxpayers some P14 billion.

Yet some of the same pundits remain mum on, say, the billions of pesos in kickbacks from World Bank projects that were reportedly cornered by a close relative of a high-ranking government official.

Now, why is that?