Category: media

postmortem: horrid media owe marcos kids a public apology

i thought that imee and bongbong marcos (with wife lisa araneta) showed a lot of class by showing up at cory’s wake, probably at the behest of their mother, who herself had the delicadeza to stayaway.

though it was clearly an ordeal for the marcos siblings (nakatutok sa kanila ang mga camera every step of the way) they nevertheless went through the paces with as much poise as they could muster.   nice of the aquino grandsons to meet them, take them to cory, and sit with them in an an empty front pew.   and yes, what a relief when ballsy finally came out to greet them, shake hands, beso-beso, small talk.   a show of good manners and right conduct all around.   cory would have approved.

when ballsy had exited frame, imee and bongbong left the pew tagged “family” and moved to another, some pews behind.    they must have thought the media cameras would finally leave them be, but no, the media know nothing of good manners and right conduct!

the media behaved absolutely horrendously, gathering around, thrusting microphones and tape recorders at the sibs, asking what they said to ballsy and what ballsysaid to them — an assault that no other guests had been subjected to, and which succeeded only in driving the marcoses away.   was that the point?   how bastos.

my sympathies to imee and bongbong, who did not deserve to be embarrassed so.   cory would have been horrified.

those media people and their bosses — attention, ANC! — owe the marcos kids a public apology.

michael & the big bad media

i’ve always been a huge fan of michael jackson, even when he turned white and sorta whacko, just because at his peak he was so f*cking sensational — the greatest entertainer yet that this planet has ever seen, bar none.   when he died and his music videos were all over cable tv and the internet, i was only too happy to wallow and be dazzled anew by michael’s magic.

not that i could forever ignore the usual bad press that he continues to get from big bad media with small minds that just can’t get over the cosmetic changes — as if michael were the only one — or the drugs, or the sexual ambivalence — as if, as if — and of course the child molestation allegations — never giving him the benefit of the doubt, guilty until proven innocent.

the pedophile tag broke michael’s spirit.

MJ’s career saw his thrilling and spectacular rise from the Jackson 5 stardom in the 1970s to cultural mega icon in the 1980s. The two decades that followed were not as bright as they proved to be a disaster for his personal life and public image. In the 1990s, while he was no longer as big a cultural force as in his “Thriller” days, he did continue to sp(in) out hit singles and albums; however, a child molestation charge in 1993 marked his gradual falling out with the American audience appalled by his supposed indiscretion with minors in his Neverland ranch in California.He reportedly agreed to a settlement initiated by the father of the alleged victim to a whooping tune of over $20 million. Ten years later, he faced another child molestation charge, this time brought to court but which ended up in the singer’s acquittal. The stress he suffered from the trial and the negative publicity the 2003 accusations brought forth reportedly got MJ hooked on prescription drugs.

but what if none of it was true?   what if the boys just made it up?

Since Jackson’s passing the Internet has been all a-buzz with reports that Jordan Chandler, the boy who accused Jackson of molestation in 1993, has recanted his story for the second time and is seeking forgiveness for the allegations he made against Jackson. Curiously, this latest developmenthas yet to be confirmed or denied by any major U.S. news organization. The lack of mainstream media scrutiny has fueled speculation about the media’s lack of motivation to publicize the story. “If the media discloses that the accuser lied about being molested, it clears Michael’s reputation. If the charges are removed from his public record, Michael Jackson will achieve a level of martyrdom that no other person has achieved”, that’s a widely voiced response to the quiet storm brewing online and in the streets.

can’t help wondering how it might have changed things for michael, and the world, if those malicious charges had never been raised against him, or if the media had been less credulous, less eager to believe the worst, never mind sales and ratings.    maybe michael would still be around.

scandalizing the media

i join women’s rights advocate dr. sylvia estrada-claudio in bemoaning the way the media are handling the hayden kho scandal (anc media in focus), wallowing gleefully in the stories being revealed about kho and belo, kho and halili, kho and his friends, kho and the wife of one of these friends, and what about the sexy comedienne, kaya pala siya iritang irita tuwing matatanong tungkol kay hayden…  among many other juicy items…  and, surprise surprise, the media that never takes sides — pa-objective kuno — are now taking sides, mostly the side of halili the woman betrayed violated exposed, championed by the notorious lolit solis, no less, who is screaming for kho’s head…  na nabusan ng tubig, what a scene, pero bakit parang hindi siya nagulat, was he expecting it, was it staged to show how hated he is, kawawa naman, ang cute pa naman…   i hear a bading radio anchor wanted to rush to the senate and help the mother make punas punas hayden, lol…

but seriously, the media should stop feasting lang on the scandal and, sabi nga ni dr. claudio, move on, maybe start talking sexual ethics naman.   yes  let’s get beyond who’s more baboy, who’s more guilty, because c’mon they’re all guilty of one mistake or another that contributed to the mess.   too much misplaced trust all around, i would think.   everyone was being naive, failing to anticipate, and protect oneself against, a fall-out.   so yes let’s talk sexual ethics (or the lack of it). just please not the self-righteous anti-hayden ethics of lolit.   rather, a sexual ethics that’s appropriate to the sexuality of the times, where both men and women are more adventurous and aggressive, and they have a right to be, freedom of expression and all that, as long as it’s private and consensual and walang ibang taong nasasaktan, and with full awareness of the additional risks involved in these days of AIDS and STDs, digicams and the internet, and the huge dvd market for erotica and porn.

and puwede ba, lubayan na si vicky belo.   i heard someone asking on startalk, dapat bang tanggalan din ng professional license ang doctora dahil nagpakuha rin siya ng sex video?   ano ba.   ang dapat tanggalan ng lisensiya ay ang mga kaibigang doktor na allegedly responsible for making and selling copies of and uploading the videos without the consent of hayden and the different women.   if we are making excuses for katrina halili, why are we not making excuses for vicky belo?   besides when it comes to sex, kanya-kanyang trip ‘yan.   i can imagine how being video-ed while making love, and then watching the video after, can be a turn on for some couples.   especially narcissists, ‘yung mga gandang-ganda sa sarili nila, would get a real kick out of seeing their beautiful bodies in the physical throes of lovemaking.  which doesn’t make them immoral.

as for the sexual deviance angle that karen davila insists on pursuing vs hayden kho, medyo masalimuot na usapin ‘yan.   because really, deviant in relation to what norm, the norm imposed by the church, or the norm of our sexual nature?   davila hasn’t a clue.   why not follow up na lang on belo’s appeal sa kababaihan: pag may girlfriend o committed na ang lalaki, huwag nang tuksuhin, huwag nang patulan, or at the very least, huwag seryosohin.   indeed.   what was katrina halili thinking, all is fair in love and war?   what was she hoping for when she settled for being just the “other woman” in hiding?   that it would be temporary?   that eventually, hayden would give up vicky for her, mas bata kasi siya at mas maganda?   or that eventually vicky would give hayden up and she katrina would be next in line?   well, she gambled and she lost.   media should stop glorifying her.

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.