N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (August 9) where I write a column (Subtext).

International Relations students from the Lyceum of the Philippines University emailed questions on the culture of blaming in Philippine society. I think my answers are worth sharing to a broader audience as I tried to highlight the misuse of social media these past few days and a news media organization’s responsibility due to the resulting case of cyber-bullying.

Yes, I refer particularly to the cyber-bullying experienced by a motorist who committed two mistakes last August 2 – driving his car through a flooded area on Mother Ignacia Avenue in Quezon City and having a television crew catching his misfortune in time for the primetime newscast that night.

Is it fair to say that sisihan or continuous blaming is inherently Filipino, or is this exemplified by just a segment (or the majority) of the population?

Sisihan or blaming is neither inherently Filipino nor patently cultural. The so-called blame game happens in various ways. In the context of the public domain like mass media and social media, I think “passing the buck,” so to speak, happens as a result of one’s lack of a level-headed demeanor.

Blaming others, for example, could be a person’s knee-jerk reaction when confronted by a mistake he or she is accused of committing. It could serve as a defense mechanism of sorts so that the focus could be transferred to others instead of himself or herself.

Playing the blame game could be a reflection of either the lack of maturity of the person being confronted or the lack of information as regards the situation he or she is in. The latter two, of course are not mutually exclusive so the situation of buck-passing could be both.

A more level-headed or mature individual is wont to either immediately own up to his or her mistakes or refrain from commenting until he or she has enough information to provide a sound and sober analysis of what had happened.

In the case of the unfortunate University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law student whose misfortune last August 2 was caught on camera by a leading broadcast station, his perceived decision to blame others should be properly understood in the context of the questions he was asked (which we know nothing about) and the selected sound bites that were aired.

In my opinion, the particular news report is slanted to highlight his mistake, as well as the manner in which he tried to explain it (which clearly he was not successful doing so).

Public opinion definitely went against this particular UP student as the circumstances surrounding his predicament (it was learned later on, for example, that he was in a hurry due to a family emergency and that he was not familiar with the route he had taken) were not clearly explained in the particular news report. What was highlighted was his perceived act of stupidity and alleged arrogance toward the bystanders and the government for not properly informing him of how deep the flood was.

As the audience, is it true that the ordinary persons have a short attention span in following whatever direction the actors point us to? If yes, do media acknowledge this fact and use it to reinforce sisihan behavior/strategy?

Media are not expected to mirror social reality as they provide only the important information needed in the shaping of public opinion.

This is the reason journalists exercise utmost care in presenting data and analyses given limitations of space (print and online) and airtime (radio and television). The people should not be blamed for their alleged short attention span as limitations are imposed by the news media organizations themselves, particularly the gatekeepers of information.

It is commendable that the leading broadcast station immediately pulled down the video report in its website and issued a public statement denouncing the vilification the law student got in the social media. This news media organization is clearly against cyber-bullying and upholds the seventh point in the Philippine journalist’s code of ethics: “I shall not in any manner ridicule, cast aspersions on or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin.”

Much as the handling of the August 2 report of the law student’s misfortune leaves much to be desired, the consequent action of the station makes up for it. My personal recommendation, however, is for the broadcast station to also engage in self-criticism and perhaps issue a public apology if the August 2 news report is found to be unfairly slanted against the unfortunate law student.

In its reflection, the broadcast station could look into the extent of its responsibility for the cyber-bullying this law student continues to endure in social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter. One of the FB hate pages, for example, now has more than 65,000 “fans” as of this writing. The name of the unfortunate law student also became a trending topic worldwide on Twitter last week as many social media users engaged in ad hominem attacks, going to the extent of maligning the student’s family, social status, ethnicity, school and even his appearance.

I think it is necessary to assess the news segment based on the prescribed code of ethics. Only then can future events like this be avoided as, just like other news media organizations, it goes about reporting events to properly inform people.