• J 117 TWX (Online Journalism): After discussing media’s coverage of the August 23 hostage-taking incident for the past two sessions, we will now evaluate your journalistic outputs.

September 8 (Wednesday)

• J 202 WZZ (Advanced Reporting): No class. You only need to submit your column article.

September 9 (Thursday)

• Media 230 HZZ (Media Ethics): Rain will discuss selected case studies on advertising and public relations.

Taken inside the airport in Manila (where we took the flight to Cagayan de Oro City), this sign really made my wife and I smile. And the airline that advertised this did not have to go the extra mile.

Walking around the City of Golden Friendship, we noticed a sign badly in need of a hyphen.

And when we observed the signs inside the hotel where we checked in, we noticed the same problem.

Of course, the absence of a hyphen is minor compared to a sign, the name of an organization no less, that is “double-sexist” even if it may not be the intention of its members.

Let’s take a closer look.

This leads you to ask if women are allowed to become members of a brotherhood. What’s wrong with the use of the word businessmen? In my opinion, the word industrialist is more gender-neutral.

At this point, we come to a close, albeit temporarily. And by this time, you should know what’s wrong with our last sign.

This installment, however, does not really come to a close as I promise to present more funny signs from Cagayan de Oro City next week. Thank you for reading!

Eleven nominees are running for president of the Philippines’ national university. The six-year term of the current UP President, Dr. Emerlinda Roman, will end on February 9, 2011.

The Board of Regents (BOR), at its meeting last August 27, accepted the nominations of 11 candidates. The short announcement was uploaded the day after (August 28) in the university’s website. The nominees are the following:

1. Alaras, Consolacion R.
2. Azanza, Patrick Alain T.
3. Briones, Leonor M.
4. Cabral, Esperanza I.
5. Cao, Sergio S.
6. Diokno, Benjamin E.
7. Diokno Ma. Serena I.
8. Pangalangan, Raul C.
9. Pascual, Alfredo E.
10. Teodosio, Virginia S.
11. Velasco, Luis Rey I.

Among the 11 nominees, many Filipinos (especially those who are not connected with UP) may be more familiar with Briones, Cabral and Benjamin Diokno as they held Cabinet positions under past Philippine presidents. Students, professors and alumni of UP, however, may also know the candidates who served or continue to serve as professors – Alaras, Azanza, Serena Diokno, Pangalangan and Teodosio. Two candidates are currently chancellors of the biggest campuses of UP – Cao (UP Diliman) and Velasco (UP Los Baños). According to his LinkedIn account, Pascual is currently president of the UP Alumni Association and is therefore a member of the BOR representing the alumni.

Analyzing their credentials, all candidates clearly excel in their chosen fields (e.g., language, business, finance, economics, human resource management, labor, law, history, entomology, medicine). They are apparently respected by their peers. As high-ranking officials of UP, however, Cao and Velasco have a proven track record in management and can claim to have deeper working knowledge of UP. The same may also be true for Serena Diokno who once served as vice president of UP.

Much as one is tempted to scrutinize their track records (within and outside UP) this early, it may be prudent to suspend judgment and wait for them to present their vision statements.

Based on UP’s timetable, the nominees’ fora where they are expected to present their vision statements and to answer questions from the UP community will be held from September to October in the different constituent units (Diliman, Manila, Los Baños, Baguio, Visayas, Mindanao and Open University). A forum to be done via video-conferencing, for example, is scheduled at UP Diliman on September 24.

The presentation before the BOR and the interview with BOR members are scheduled on November 8. The BOR will then meet on November 26 to elect the next UP President on or before December 3. Update (September 1, 3:50 p.m.): UP released an updated schedule.

The UP BOR has 11 members. Commission on Higher Education (CHED) chair Patricia Licuanan currently serves as the chair of the UP BOR, with UP President Roman as co-chairperson. The members are Sen. Edgardo Angara (chair, Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture), Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara (chair, House Committee on Higher Education), Alfredo Pascual (president, UP Alumni Association), Judy Taguiwalo (faculty regent), Clodualdo Cabrera (staff regent), Cori Alessa Co (student regent), Abraham Sarmiento, Francis Chua and Nelia Gonzalez. The last three were appointees of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

There is much importance given to the presidency of UP as the latter is the country’s national university. It is widely perceived to be the one of the three best universities in the Philippines (the other two being Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University-Manila).

Sige, punahin natin ang midya. Pero dapat pa rin nating ipagtanggol ito. Ang pagpuna ay hindi pagkutya kundi indikasyon ng pag-aalala. Sa kaso ng midya, dapat na ginagawa ang pagpuna para umunlad ang kalidad ng pag-uulat.

Kung ang pagpuna’y sa konteksto ng pagbibigay ng makatotohanang pagpapaliwanag – at ginawa sa paraang magalang – sa aking palagay ay nakabubuti ito sa epektibong paggampan ng propesyon. Gusto kong isiping handang makinig ang sinuman, kasama na ang ating mga kaibigan sa midya, kung ang kritisismo’y nasa lugar.

Ang nagiging problema lang sa kasalukuyang pamahalaa’y ginagamit nito ang pagkakataon para maging katanggap-tanggap ang sensura’t iba pang porma ng kontrol sa midya. Nariyan ang pahayag ng isang opisyal na dapat magkaroon ng news blackout tuwing may maselang pangyayari tulad ng hostage-taking. Mayroon ding nagsasabing dapat nang isabatas ang mga etikal na pamantayan ng peryodismo dahil hindi na raw kayang bantayan ng mga peryodista ang kanilang hanay.

Kaya sa kabila ng pagpuna sa mga kakulangang kapansin-pansin noong Agosto 23, kailangan ng isang paglilinaw: Hindi dapat isuko ng midya ang kalayaan nito. Hindi dapat hayaan ng publiko ang panunupil sa pangunahing pinagkukunan ng impormasyon.

Kung may pagkukulang, totoong ang solusyon ay disiplina. Pero hindi ito puwedeng magmula sa mga nasa kapangyarihan. Kung sila ang magtatakda ng mga nararapat gawin, ano pa ang saysay ng peryodismo? Mabuti pang huwag nang ituro ito sa mga pamantasan dahil ang kailangan lang gawin ng isang peryodista, kung masusunod ang pamahalaan, ay alamin kung ano ang gusto ng huli. Itapon na lang sa bintana ang mga etikal na pamantayan dahil pinapasok na sa pinto ang sensura!

Kung hindi manggagaling sa pamahalaan, kanino manggagaling ang pagdidisiplina sa midya? Saan pa kundi sa midya mismo? Makakaya ba ng midyang ayusin ang hanay nila? Maiigpawan kaya ng mga organisasyong pang-midya ang kompetisyong namamagitan sa kanila tungo sa makabuluhang pagkakaisa?

Kung susuriin ang mga pahayag ng ilan sa kanila sa gitna ng pagkamatay ng siyam na tao sa hostage-taking na nangyari noong Agosto 23, may tuwirang pag-amin ang midya sa ilang pagkukulang nila. Bukas din sila sa pagkakaroon ng malawaka’t malalimang pag-uusap para masiguradong hindi na mauulit ang mga naging pagkakamali.

Oo, hindi sapat ang mga ito pero kailangang tandaang nasa posisyon ang publiko para maningil sa mga pagkukulang ng midya. Kung naniniwala ang isang tao sa argumentong midya ang may kasalanan sa pagkamatay ng walong hostages, pati na ang mismong hostage-taker, walang pumipigil sa kanyang ipahayag ang kanyang saloobin. At kung sakaling walang organisasyong pang-midyang maglalabas ng pahayag niya, maipapakalat pa rin niya ang kanyang pagsusuri sa ibang paraan. Ang dalawang mabilis na pumapasok sa isipan ay paggamit ng blog at social media tulad ng Facebook.

Oo, abusado’t arogante ang ilang peryodista. Pero maniwala kang marami pa ring responsable sa kanila. Nakalulungkot lang na maraming nasa Quirino Grandstand noong Agosto 23 na tila nakalimutan ang malinaw na nakasaad sa pag-uulat ng mga sitwasyon tulad ng hostage-taking. Sa kabila nito, nakikita ang responsibilidad sa dalawang bagay – (1) sa indibidwal na pag-ako sa anumang pagkakamali; at (2) institusyonal na pagbibigay ng paliwanag sa publiko.

Ginawa naman ang mga ito ng iba, bagama’t may ilang piniling manahimik na lang o ipagtanggol ang malinaw na kamaliang nagawa. Aaminin kong naiinis ako sa isang sikat na brodkaster na sinabing ang kanyang panayam sa hostage-taker ay “dinamita” lang pero hindi naging “mitsa” ng madugong pangyayari. Malinaw na nagiging matalinghaga lang siya para pagtakpan ang kanyang pagkukulang!

Pero ang anumang inis o galit sa midya ay hindi dapat mangahulugan ng paghingi ng tulong sa pamahalaan para kontrolin ito. At lalong hindi dapat payagang maging oportunidad ito ng pamahalaan para maging katanggap-tanggap ang sensura. Ang lahat ng mapanlikhang paraan para supilin ang midya’y kailangang ilantad at tutulan ng sambayanan.

Sa katunayan, walang lugar ang news blackout o media blackout sa isang lipunang pinaniniwalaang may kapayapaan at demokrasya. Sa kaso ng maseselang sitwasyon tulad ng hostage-taking, ang posibleng mangyari’y limitadong pag-uulat (limited coverage) o naantalang pagbabalita (delayed coverage) na minsa’y tinatawag ding news embargo. Sa pamamagitan ng epektibong koordinasyon ng kapulisan sa midya, maaaring magkaroon ng kasunduan ang dalawang panig para masiguradong hindi makokompromiso ng midya ang gawain ng mga pulis. Kung wala kasing koordinasyon, malaki ang posibilidad ng adelantadong pagbabalita ng mga taktikal na impormasyong may kinalaman sa aktuwal na operasyon. Hindi ba’t ito ang nangyari noong Agosto 23?

Oo, may malaking kasalanan ang mga pulis noong panahong iyon pero may mga pagkukulang din ang midya. Tungkulin ng pamahalaang pangasiwaan ang anumang kinakailangang reporma sa kapulisan, pero labas na sa tungkulin nito ang direktang pagkontrol sa midya, sa porma man ng pagpapatupad ng news blackout o pagsasabatas ng etikal na pamantayan.

Ang pagbibigay ng puna ay salik sa pagbabagong hinahangad sa hanay ng midya. Kung susuriin ang pagpuna ng ilang organisasyong pang-midya sa sarili, gusto kong isiping handa naman silang makinig. Pero ano naman ang ating gagawin kung sakaling sila’y magmatigas at sabihing wala silang malaking pagkakamali sa kanilang mga naging gawi?

Maraming maiisip na mapanlikhang paraan para ipakita ang pagtutol ng nagagalit na sambayanan sa midyang mali. At malinaw na ang paghingi ng tulong sa pamahalaan para rendahan ang midya ay hindi isa sa mga ito.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

Journalists and media workers should know crisis reporting,
Aquino administration must be held accountable for disorganized police

Statement from 10 faculty members, 155 students and 4 staff
from the UP College of Mass Communication led by Dean Roland Tolentino
dated August 27, 2010

As the police need to review the handling of crisis situations, it is necessary for journalists and media workers to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses in reporting the hostage-taking last August 23 which left nine dead (including the hostage-taker) and seven wounded. Even if the media’s role is to help shape public opinion, the reporting of relevant information should be also in the context of ensuring the safety of civilians.

While our friends in the media should be commended for providing up-to-date information on what transpired, some media organizations should be criticized for the same reason because they ended up giving TOO MUCH information.

Commendation, however, cannot be given to the police as it failed not only to properly coordinate with media but also to ensure the peaceful resolution of the hostage-taking. Those responsible for the failed operation should even be punished. The disarray in the police operation reflects the disorganization and chaos in the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Aquino administration.

We need to remember some basic rules in covering hostage-taking incidents. First, journalists and media workers should refrain from interviewing a hostage-taker and reporting the latter’s statements while the situation is not yet resolved. Second, broadcast news anchors and field reporters who give live reports must not engage in speculation and innuendo as they try to “kill time” during a lull  in their reportage. Third, journalists and media workers should avoid interviewing elements of the police (e.g., snipers taking aim of their target) while an operation is ongoing. Fourth, they cannot report a hostage-taker’s state of mind or mental condition while there is still a standoff because it can make the situation worse. Fifth, they should be very careful when interviewing family members or friends of a hostage-taker as their statements could either even more agitate the latter. Sixth, they cannot give a live, blow-by-blow account of actual police operations as doing so eliminates the element of surprise in ending the crisis.

In analyzing the media’s coverage of what happened last August 23, there was  information that proved to be relevant not to the public but to the hostage-taker as he became desperate and ended up killing the hostages. That media covered live the arrest of the hostage-taker’s brother apparently did not help in resolving the situation.

It is appalling that the live coverage was done not to help the public make sense of the situation but only to milk it for all it is worth. The competition for higher ratings among broadcast stations was evident as they tried to provide “exclusive” reports, even going to the extent of interviewing another hostage-taker in 2007 who expressed no remorse in what he did. He even claimed that he did it for the country.

Just like the police, media should use the time to reflect. Journalists and media workers, after all, should not allow themselves to be held hostage by their  ignorance of ethical practice because they will end up doing a disservice to the victims and the public. And on the part of the Aquino administration, it should be resolute in resolving crisis situations affecting not only visiting tourists but also the majority of the Filipinos.

This sign in front of the Bahay ng Alumni (loose translation: House of Alumni) in the University of the Philippines (UP) in Diliman leads me to one conclusion.

At UP, we always go Left! We don’t like going Right.

I know, it’s not really funny. But I’m sure you’ll get a chuckle or two after buying this doll.

Yes, these are changing times indeed. The sign below shows that you can mix numbers and letters and come up with a sign, just 4 U!

I hope I’m not just speaking for myself when I say that there is something wrong with a sign that sells pasta and…something!

As regards our next sign, there’s nothing ungrammatical about it. It’s just that the bathroom product has an interesting name.

I can only hope that the person who uses this does not end up looking like a couch potato!

Anyway, writing about couches reminds me of massage tables. In the Philippines, there are massage parlors that offer services beyond giving a massage. I guess this explains the defensive nature of this sign.

Let’s take a closer look at the message.

No need to explain. Just read between the lines!

Our next sign is taken from a tarpaulin which lists some signs of autism. Notice the error in diction?

Yes, the word “interacting” or “playing” should be used instead of “mixing.”

For our last sign, allow me to give another crash course in diction.

The word “persons” is a legal concept and refers to those who are natural (like you and me), juridical (like corporations) or both. In other words, persons could be living or non-living. What is a more accurate word to refer to those who are differently abled? People, of course.

More funny signs (and a few more English lessons) next week. Thank you for reading!

• J 117 TWX (Online Journalism): Members of Group 4 will present their report on IT and Online Journalism. We will also evaluate your outputs. Please also email the URL of your published online newsfeature.

September 1 (Wednesday)

• J 202 WZZ (Advanced News Reporting): No class. We will have a research break.

September 2 (Thursday)

• Media 230 HZZ (Media Ethics): We will continue our Q & A on selected codes of ethics in entertainment. Neil will present his report on selected case studies in journalism. If there is time, Rain will also report on selected case studies in advertising and public relations.

A student from De La Salle University (DLSU)-Manila interviewed me via email about the concept of news blackout. This is a very timely topic considering the ongoing hostage-taking not yet been resolved as I write this today (August 23, 6:45 p.m.). Breaking news like hostage-taking highlights the uselessness of a news blackout as the people deserve to know the latest developments. Fortunately for the public in this case, the police did not impose a news blackout.

The interviewer’s questions and my answers were all in Filipino, so please find below the translation in English.

As a journalist, what is your definition of a news blackout?

A news blackout is the concerned authorities’ direct withholding of information which journalists need for their reports. The decision of the authorities could be in the context of protecting their own interests or of upholding the general welfare of society. Because of this, it is necessary for those in power to explain well the reasons for imposing a news blackout. They should also clearly state up to when it will last, if ever.

In your opinion, aside from invoking national security and upholding the interest of the majority, are there other reasons for imposing a news blackout?

It is very hard to define “national security” or “public interest” in imposing a news blackout. This explains why having a news blackout may not necessarily be for the good of the people. During the time of Martial Law (1972-1986), for example, state repression was evident (e.g., in the form of human rights violations and enactment of anti-people laws) but the Marcos administration opted to prohibit the reportage of sensitive issues (i.e., those that put the government in a bad light). While it’s true that the government has the right to protect the country, media have an obligation to bring to the public’s attention important issues (even if these are against the government like human rights violations, corruption and abuse of power). It is so easy for some officials to invoke the public interest in imposing a news blackout. But there are times when the statements they give are just empty rhetoric. In reality, they are only thinking of their own interests.

What are the circumstances that could make a news blackout acceptable?

In general, the government should avoid having a news blackout. It should trust journalists enough that they would be responsible in their reportage (even if it’s true that there are some journalists who have shortcomings in the performance of their jobs). If the government is transparent and accountable to the people and does not withhold any information from them, it follows that those in power should not prevent media from reporting on issues that may be negative to them.

Is there justice in a situation where a news blackout is imposed?

There’s no justice in this case because it results in the deprivation of vital information. Actually, a journalist does not usually report ALL information he or she gets. There is still a need to verify all information before including them in his or her report. The journalist carefully selects the information that, in his or her own judgment call using the prescribed professional and ethical standards, should be made known to the public. He or she consequently decides not to include information deemed not important. It must be stressed that there are ethical standards in reporting so the government should not worry about irresponsibility of the media. Even if there are a few irresponsible and corrupt journalists, the government (or even the ordinary citizens) can condemn and expose them by, among others, not patronizing the media organizations they work for.

• J 117 TWX (Online Journalism): We will discuss Online Journalistic Outputs by analyzing the articles you submitted.

August 25 (Wednesday)

• J 202 WZZ (Advanced Reporting): We will discuss selected types of journalistic reports.

August 26 (Thursday)

• Media 230 HZZ (Media Ethics): No class. See you next week (September 2).

Maikli lang naman ang aking reaksyon pagkatapos kong mapanood ang pelikulang Sigwa (2010) noong Agosto 21 sa Cine Adarna ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas (UP) Diliman. Wala pa ngang 10 salita ang aking pagsusuma: Sadyang hindi ako karapat-dapat na matawag na aktibista!

Umiinog ang kuwento ng pelikula sa anim na aktibistang magkakaibigan noong dekada 70 – Dolly, Cita, Oliver, Azon, Eddie at Rading. Sa paglipas ng halos 40 taon, may nagpatuloy sa pakikibaka, may nakisimpatiya na lang, may naging ahente ng militar at may tuwirang bumaligtad. Ipinapakita ng pelikula ang komplikadong buhay ng progresibong kabataan noong panahon ng Batas Militar – ang kanilang agam-agam sa landas na tinahak, ang kanilang pagkatakot sa buhay na pinili at ang kanilang kasiyahan sa bawat maliliit na tagumpay.

Isang kalakasan ng pelikulang Sigwa ang epektibong pagsasalarawan ng buhay ng mga aktibista. Sila’y marunong din palang tumawa’t umiyak, tulad ng ibang taong pinili ang buhay na “normal” at “tahimik.” Ipinapakita sa pelikula, halimbawa, ang kanilang kuwentuhan habang nag-iinuman, bagama’t ang paksa ng kanilang pinag-uusapan ay ang lipunan. May pag-aaway din ang magkasintahan habang nasa welga ng isang pagawaan. Kahit sa kabundukan, nakita ang pag-usbong at pagkawasak ng relasyon ng mga nagmamahalan sa maraming dahilan.

Kitang kita ang relasyon ng aktibismo sa rebolusyonaryong pagkilos noong dekada 70. Ang Kabataang Makabayan (KM) na kung saan miyembro ng anim na magkakaibigan ay napilitang mag-underground dahil sa diktadura. Hindi na nakakagulat ang desisyon ng marami sa mga miyembro nitong tumungo sa kanayunan na kung saan, ayon kay Oliver, ay “patas ang laban.”

Ano nga ba namang bentahe para sa mga aktibistang manatili sa kalunsuran? Una, malakas ang puwersa ng pamahalaan. Ikalawa, limitado lang ang maaaring pagtaguan. Kahit na hindi tuwirang binabanggit sa pelikula, alam ng mga pangunahing tauhan na sa kanayunan lang sila makakaasa ng malawak na suporta mula sa masa.

At bakit suportado ng maraming masa sa kanayunan ang rebolusyonaryong pagkilos? Sila kasi ang direktang nakakaranas ng pang-aapi’t pagkakait, ng pagsasamantala’t pagnanakaw ng mga nasa kapangyarihan. Ang rebolusyonaryong kilusan lang ang kanilang takbuhan para sa anumang pangangailangan – lupang masasaka (sa pamamagitan ng rebolusyonaryong agraryo) at kahit patas na desisyon sa anumang hindi pagkakaunawaan (sa pamamagitan ng rebolusyonaryong hukuman).

Bagama’t madali para sa isang estudyanteng kumilos sa kalunsuran at maging aktibista, mahirap na desisyon naman ang sumama sa armadong pakikibaka. Tulad ng ipinapakita sa pelikulang Sigwa, malaking sakripisyo ang mabuhay sa kabundukan. Wala ang luho ng kalunsuran. Iba ang kultura’t kalakaran lalo na’t ang seguridad ng mga kasama ay dapat pangalagaan.

Apatnapung taon na ang nakaraan mula nang mangyari ang First Quarter Storm na siyang pangunahing paksa ng pelikula (kahit na ang istorya’y tungkol sa paghahanap ni Dolly sa kanyang nawawalang anak). Maraming nagsasabing iba ang sitwasyon noong dekada 70 at wala nang batayan ang diumanong mapusok na pagkilos ng kabataan.

Napakadaling balewalain ang aktibismo, lalo na sa bahagi ng nakatatandang naging bahagi ng kilusan. Hindi man nila sabihin nang direkta, iisa lang ang mensahe nila sa kabataang aktibista: “Papunta pa lang kayo, pabalik na ako.” Para sa kabataang may malalim na kaalaman sa kanilang ginagawa, may simpleng sagot sa walang-batayang patutsada: “Mawalang-galang lang po, pero bakit hindi na lang po kayo nanatili? Tila naligaw po kayo sa inyong pagbalik.”

Aaminin kong ang epekto ng pelikulang Sigwa sa akin ay pagpapalakas ng paniniwalang ang titulong “aktibista” ay ibinibigay lamang sa mga piling indibidwal. Sila ay dapat na handang magsakripisyo’t talikuran ang buhay na kinagisnan para sa makahulugang pakikipaglaban. Sila ay mga natatanging mandirigmang hindi magdadalawang-isip na ialay ang lahat, kahit ang sariling buhay, para sa ikabubuti ng iba pa. Sila ay katulad ni Cita na dala-dala ang aktibismo sa kanilang pagtanda.

May progresibong mag-isip at kontento na sa sariling buhay. May progresibong mag-isip at kumikilos para ang buhay ng nakararami’y magkaroon ng saysay. Naniniwala ako sa sinabi ni Rading sa isang eksena: Hindi lahat ng sumasama sa mga rally ay aktibista. Mas malalim pa sa pagmamartsa’t pagtataas ng kamao ang esensiya ng aktibismo. Ang hindi tuwirang nakikita ay ang nangyayari sa likod ng mga naiuulat sa midya – ang pag-aaral sa mga teorya at ang pagsasapraktika ng natutuhan sa pamamagitan ng integrasyon sa masa.

Pero tulad ng sitwasyong ang mga pelikulang tulad ng Sigwa ay bihirang mapanood sa ating bansa, mas nakapangingibabaw ang negatibong pagtingin sa mga aktibista. Tinitingnan silang baliw at salot dahil sa paniniwalang ang ating lipunan ay may kapayapaan at kaginhawaan. Pilit na ibinibenta ang ilusyong hindi kailangang labanan ang pamahalaan dahil kailangan lang magtiwala rito.

Sa huling pagsusuri, maiintindihan lang ang aktibismo kung iuugnay sa mga nangyayari sa lipunan. Sa pagbasag sa ilusyon at tuwirang pagkamulat sa kabulukan ng lipunan, nakikita hindi lang ang pangangailangang sumuporta sa mga aktibista kundi maging kabahagi nila.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.