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.

BRIEF NARRATIVES

Edel Garcellano

1.
The Chinese
Was handcuffed
To the door
When the gunman
Started firing behind him,
He struggled madly…
Nothing, after all,
Had escaped him
Throughout the ordeal –
The rat-tat-tat,
The screaming…
And every second that ticked
edged him closer…
Suddenly,
A cosmos of whiteness
Spread like light
Inside his eyes.

2.
The dead were piled up
Like butchered animals
All over the floor:
The slaughter,
According to breaking news,
Was unimaginable.
In the succeeding investigation,
No one would claim
Responsibility for the massacre
Except maybe the criminal
Who couldn’t anymore
Plead for his reinstatement
& retirement pension.
But the demands were cheap,
Lamented a survivor…
Didn’t she know
The wheels of justice
Grind slower
Than Zeno’s turtle?

3.
Should he be calling
The shots?
His circle feared for
His safety,
Giving him wise advise.
Accidents may happen
From a friendly fire.
O If only Machiavelli
Were alive
To brief him on
The craft of governance.
The eyes of the dead
Stud the night
Nowadays
Like stars
That nobody understands
Why they twinkle
Like fireflies.

4.
After all is said
& done,
Life will move on
With time  –
Years later
All will be busy
With the banality
Of living.
The bus will be
Repaired
To again ferry
Those who will return
In droves
To take a break’
From HK’s cold weather
Remembrances
Will be strictly
A family affair
Until the last generation
Loses its memory.
Malacañang will
Keep on promoting generals
Who’ll ever be clueless
To prevent tragedies
As if everything
Were destiny.

5.
It was no big deal,
Really
Purely a police matter
They could handle –
Such as this crazy guy
Who took over at gunpoint
A busload of tourists
To air his side
They had handled it
Before
Now if it were an Abu affair,
It could very well
Be a different matter
Besides, the dude was family,
Of their kind…
Everything was large writ
In the manual
But when night came
Like a tiger
Lying down in the grass
Tempers suddenly shifted
& no longer there was
Any protocol to observe.
Was it destined to happen?
Everything that might go wrong
Went wrong?
It was inevitable,
They privately mused,
As if no one could be faulted
For the outcome of murder.
The man-made Event’
Became every inch
Metaphysical:
Therefore only God
Could have stopped
The flood of tears.

6.
The negotiator averred
His powers
Were limited
He had to defer to higher
Authorities,
Like a serf to his lord,
Who, alas, didn’t know
Any better
Though written
It was into the manual
Every general joined the fray,
& everyone must have felt
Relieved,
It’s finally over
Except the survivors
Who wished
The police
should not have bothered
To save them
From the stupidity of it all.

7.
Of course,
The President
Must be above suspicion –
That he never cared
He will not want
For Palace defenders:
They have fancy titles
To carry out the job of language bodyguards.
But bystanders wished
He didn’t feel
Assured
Just watching
The event
Unfold on television
His shooting buddy
After all was in control

more

what if

i had been wondering how erap or villar or gibo or gordon would have handled the aug 23 hostage-taking, in contrast of course to the low-key laid-back wait-it-out style of the new prez.   and then i read this in facebook via leslie bocobo and, oo nga naman, why wonder about losers.  instead, what if FVR?   under his watch we, and the world, would have at the very least “witnessed cogent efforts to end it without bloodshed.”

My thoughts on the Quirino tragedy
by Rafael Alunan III

In answer to queries on what might have happened in FVR’s time had the Quirino tragedy taken place during his watch, here’s a probable picture recalling that, before his presidency, he was a former head of the national police (Phil. Constabulary), AFP Chief of Staff and Sec. of National Defense.

The Secretary of Interior and Local Government (SILG) and concurrently the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Chair and National Committee on Anti-Hijacking and Terrorism (NACAHT) Chair, an intelligence exchange and crisis management body that only a few knew about, would play a key role.

Once known that a tourist bus was hijacked and foreign nationals held hostage, SILG would immediately notify FVR, adding that it was Live on global TV. He probably would have been aware already since his office monitors the news round-the-clock. He would have deemed it a national concern paving the entry of NACAHT.

FVR would instruct his crisis center in Malacanan manned by a joint AFP/PNP task force to coordinate with NACAHT. The National Security Adviser; DFA, DND, DOJ, DILG and Press Secretaries; and the President’s spokesman would be called to support the TF for the duration of the crisis. SILG would function as the Chief of the Office of Primary Responsibility to control the strategic play and keep FVR informed.

SILG would activate NACAHT, position it at the top floor of the Manila Hotel to gain a vantage view, and have it controlled by the Vice-Chair and concurrent DILG USEC for Peace and Order. He would likely invite the MMDA Chair and Mayor of Manila to join the PNP Chief, senior reps from the national government and other experts vital to the mission.Equipment that the venue didn’t have would be brought in to provide NACAHT a functioning crisis center on the ground.

An experienced and trustworthy ground commander (GC) to head the hostage rescue operations at the scene would be chosen next. He would quickly estimate the situation based on available intelligence, map out his strategy, draw up supporting plans and choose the personnel required to negotiate, disarm/disable or neutralize the hostage-taker while ensuring the hostages’ safety.

The GC would then assemble a potent hostage-rescue team (HRT) – negotiator/s; psychologist/s; crowd / perimeter control and SWAT teams – based on capability and track record. Crucial considerations for selection would be the need for continuous intelligence gathering, communication, coordination, thinking on the run, physical stamina and split second decisions, often under duress.

After NACAHT vets his strategy and plans, and obtains the TF’s concurrence, it would then be the GC’s play all the way. NACAHT would then become the GC’s advisory team and clearing house, breaking up into work shifts to monitor 24/7 to stay on top of the situation.

Should an unforeseen factor arise along the way that could jeopardize the mission or impact on the nation’s honor and integrity, NACAHT and the GC would quickly assess and process courses of action, choose the best options, and elevate to the TF for the President’s approval.

As soon as feasible, FVR would notify the Chinese Ambassador of the government’s efforts to ensure the safety of the hostages and its quick and peaceful resolution. He could graciously ask him and his police attache to advise the TF and NACAHT on the matter. He would also call the HK Administrator to keep him in the loop.

The President’s moves would be disclosed by his spokesman in a series of controlled press conferences, while the Press Secretary would brief the press about the rules of engagement in this delicate situation. A media pool would be organized to cover the event under the strict control of the GC to ensure that no punches are telegraphed unwittingly that could put the rescue mission at risk.

Regular feedback would be streaming to the TF from NACAHT. As commander-in-chief he could, if need be under extreme circumstances, intervene to order a freeze, to accelerate operations or modify strategies based on his appreciation of the dynamic situation. NACAHT would stay put in close proximity for quick communication and easy coordination until the job got done.

That was how FVR and his senior team could have likely handled the situation. The veterans who manned their battle stations and experienced harrowing situations would only be too willing to help by sharing a thing or two with the incumbents.

Enough said on that except for these personal observations:

* SILG Jesse Robredo had/has no command and control over the PNP; his Undersecretary does, on instructions of the President. That raises serious legal issues and complicates the system of public administration and governance.

* There was no functioningcrisis management committee (CMC) either at the national or at the local levels. An inexperienced GC was all alone to figure things out without professional CMC backing.

* The fraternal links of Manila Mayor Fred Lim, the ground commander, the HRT and the Mendoza brothers to the Manila Police Brotherhood, may have blurred logic, focus, priorities and dividing lines. The risk was the absence of check and balance, fanning laxity that led to tragedy.

* A cardinal rule is to never agitate the hostage-taker. They did. There were golden chances to disarm/disable Mendoza before he could inflict any harm. They didn’t take it. A functioning CMC in support of the GC should have persuaded the Ombudsman to issue a report clearing Mendoza (non-binding because it was obtained under duress). It didn’t.

That deception might have led him to give up at that stage. Then he could have been cuffed and charged for kidnapping, illegal possession of firearms and attempted murder; and locked away for good. It was worth a try, even if it failed, given his state of mind.

* The GC must never leave his post until the crisis is over. He did, on the invitation of the Mayor who got hungry. Instead of sending for food, they proceeded to a place that was not equipped to monitor the situation, thus, was nowhere near when Mendoza started killing.

* No one was thinking: of inserting a fiber optic camera to monitor the hostages and Mendoza; that Mendoza was monitoring from the bus’ radio-TV system and his cell phone, and was getting homicidal; of clamping down on the media that wanted to be part of the story instead of just reporting it.

* A professional team would have taken a minute or less to break-in, board, blastMendoza and secure the hostages. The PNP’s Special Action Force or Aviation Security Command would have been ideal, trained by the Australian SAS and Israel’s Yamam for close quarter battle (CQB). SAF was, in fact, on standby but never used.

Could a tragedy have been avoided in any case? Assuming the right components were in place with the right mindset, probably. With bad luck, maybe not, precious lives could have still been lost. But at least the world would have witnessed cogent efforts to end it without bloodshed, and the country’s honor as well as the people’s morale and self-esteem may not have taken such a beating.

I extend my deepest sympathies for the injured and sincerest condolences to the families of those who died. And for those who tried and failed, don’t despair; your fall might yet be your springboard to redemption. Just make it happen.