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).
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.