N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (November 23, 2011) where I write a column (Subtext).

Right from the start, you already sense that there is something wrong with this media event.

One minute, the male host claims “Walang topic na off limits.” And then the female co-host later describes the foreign dignitary as a “rock star.”

Yes, the stage has been set last November 16 at the National Museum for the human spectacle that is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The audio-visual presentation that precedes the combined town hall meeting, interview and online chat – the host uses the term “townterchat” to describe this media event – is positively slanted for Clinton as it mainly highlights her strengths. In my opinion, the AVP seems to address only one question: “How awesome is Hillary Clinton?”

Not surprisingly, the comments from the audience prior to her entrance consist mostly of positive comments. Reviewing the “townterchat’s” one-hour video, I counted 11 positive comments and two neutral comments (the last two pertaining to what food Clinton should eat and what place she should visit in Mindanao).

When Clinton finally joins the hosts for the “townterchat,” what is expected to be a no-holds-barred encounter becomes a social gathering where the ever gracious hosts do not bother to raise controversial issues. In the first place, what can one expect from the two hosts who take it upon themselves to sometimes give positive compliments to Clinton in between questions coming from them, the live audience and social media (Facebook, Twitter and Skype).

Out of the 22 questions asked during the “townterchat,” I classified 13 as serious and nine as light or neutral. Even then, one cannot find depth in the discussion in a situation where questions like what’s inside Clinton’s purse get mixed with how the US intends to reform its immigration policies. Is this the hosts’ concept of no topics being off limits? Is this how they define pluralism in the newsroom?

It doesn’t help any that a comedian helps facilitate the questions from the audience as the mood becomes generally light, and the questions not so controversial (even for those classified as serious ones).

Toward the end of the spectacle, there is no in-depth discussion of the nature of relations between the Philippines and United States. This is quite strange, considering that this year marks the 60th year of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the two countries.

If many Filipinos are not so familiar with the contents of the MDT which is, incidentally, only two pages long, the “townterchat” does not help any in getting, for example, Clinton’s assessment of its impact in the past six decades.

And then, all of a sudden, a student leader shouts, “There is nothing mutual about the mutual defense treaty!” Holding up a streamer, he also shouts “Junk VFA!” as security personnel lead him out of the venue. The student leader turns out to be the editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian, the official student publication of UP Diliman.

Instead of asking Clinton her reaction to the claim that there is nothing mutual about the MDT, the female host opts to ask: “Ma’am, what attitude do you take toward protesters who greet you…similar to the one we had earlier?” This gives Clinton the easy way out to easily dismiss the protester and hide behind nebulous words like democracy and free speech.

This media event is better off called “townterchat” even if the word does not exist. To call it a “press conference” would be a misrepresentation of the basic principles and standards of journalism. To quote from Kovach and Rosenstiel, journalism “must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.”

What happened last November 16 is nothing but a “praise” conference, an event that should have no room in the programming of a leading broadcast network and is better off organized by unscrupulous advertising and public relations firms. As we all know, these shady entities are the ones that churn out what are jokingly referred to in the media as “praise” releases.

There is much debate on the allegedly uncouth behavior of the campus journalist who disrupted the “townterchat.” There are those who argue that he was unethical, arguing that The Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics explicitly states that a journalist should “comport (himself or herself) in public or while performing (his or her) duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of (the) profession. When in doubt, decency should be (his or her) watchword.”

Given that the nature of the questions and comments during the event, I can actually argue that he was the one who articulated (despite the limited time he had) the reality of US hegemony which is the exact opposite of what Clinton is claiming. If media organizations claim objectivity and fairness as their standards in the pursuit of the journalism profession, then they should have a conscious effort to ask not just a hodge-podge of serious and light questions but also a barrage of controversial ones. In the case of Clinton, questions that are potentially embarrassing should also be raised like the US economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region (including the Philippines) and its role in the Arab Spring movements in the Middle East.

It is unfortunate that this campus journalist is now being vilified for not adhering to the highest standards of the journalism profession. What proves to be ironic is that in the context of the media event that was organized, he was the one who asserted journalism in this rare chance of sharing the same room with a high-ranking official of the most powerful nation in the world.