Get Real Philippines: Pagiging Hindi Patas Para sa Layuning Matalinong Pagboto

Ang video na ito na napanuod ko sa Youtube ay naglalayong maging mapagmatyag ang mga botante noong nakaraang 2010 eleksyon para sa pagkapresidente. Dahil sa seryosong topic na nakapaloob sa video at sa graphics ng screen ay aakalain ng isang pangkaraniwang mamamayan na news ito kahit pa ito ay animated.

Maganda ang hangarin ng naturang video subalit hindi kaaya-aya ang pagpapangalan sa mga kandidatong halimbawa nito ng hindi karapatdapat sa posisyon ng pagkapresidente. Una, sinabi ng “reporter” sa video na ang media exposure ng mga kandidato ay paraan nila ng pambobola at hindi lamang para mangampanya. Kaya naman, ang mga kandidatong may pambayad sa advertisement ang laging nangunguna sa mga binoboto ng publiko. Nabanggit din sa video ang patuloy na pagkakaroon ng political dynasty kung saan ipinapasa sa kamag-anak ng mga politiko ang posisyon para hindi mawala ang kanilang mga koneksyon. Pati ang pagtitiwala ng mga botante sa mga kandidatong dating artista ay binatikos din. Nasabi sa video na wala raw kakayahan ang mga artista sa pagpapatakbo ng bansa.

Matalinong mungkahi ang ibinigay sa video na magkaroon ng criteria o panuntunan sa pagpili at pagboto ng isang kandidato. Nasabi dito na kailangan natin ng presidenteng may matatatag na pamumuno, kongkretong plano kung paano niya mapapalakad ang bansa, integridad laban sa pangungurakot at pandaraya, sapat na kaalaman para maglunsad ng mga proyektong kailangan sa pag-unlad, at abilidad sa pakikipagkomunikasyon sa iba pang bansa tungkol sa siguridad at ekonomiya ng ating bansa.

Ang kampanyang ito ng website na www.G_ETR_EALP_HILIPPINES.C_OM, ayon na  rin sa video, ay ginawa upang hindi maging beauty contest ang election at para maging matalino sa pagpili ang lahat ng mamamayang maaaring makapanood ng nasabing video. Nasabi rin dito na hindi na maganda ang lagay ng ating kalikasan kaya dapat na magbawas ng populasyon upang maging mas magaan ang pamumuhay ng mga susunod na henerasyon na hindi na dapat makakalanghap ng ganitong klase ng polusyon.

Kung ako ang tatanungin, napakaganda sana ganitong klase ng pagbibigay kaalaman sa masa ngunit mas magiging maganda at patas pa sana kung hindi pinangalanan ang mga nasabing pulitiko. Kung ako ang gagawa ng hawig sa ganitong klase ng pagpapayag na may kaparehong layunin, pipiliin kong hindi pangalanan ang mga kandidato at hindi gawing news format ang kabuuan nito. Malinaw dapat sa lahat ng makakapanood ng video na isang paalala o advisory at hindi balita ang video upang hindi magdulot ng pagkalito o pagmumukhang paninira sa mga nabanggit na kandidato para maging patas sa lahat ng kandidato. Maaari din namang kunan ng komento ang mga nabanggit na kandidato sa mga aligasyon patungkol sa kanila kung news at hindi advisory ang ipapahayag sa video na ito.

2012-51417 (2)

News Anchors as Products Endorsers

            Mike Enriquez, Mel Tiangco, Vicky Morales and Arnold Clavio are some of the most trusted and famous broadcasters in the country. Because of their fame and reputation, people rely on them for current news. As news presenters, the audience believes in almost everything they say. But a side-line all of them practice might be affecting their credibility.

            These broadcasters are also endorsers of products. Just like celebrities who are paid to promote certain products, these reporters are seen in television commercials and other kinds of advertisements. But as people with a reputation to keep, is endorsing products not a problem for their image?

            As these newsmen decide to become the faces of these products, whatever image this certain product may have to the public, the reporter’s image will be attached to the product’s reputation.

            What if one of these broadcasters has to report something about the products that they endorse which is in bad light? There is conflict of interest. This instance may not only affect a reporter’s credibility, but his will also have an impact to the whole program as well because of a confusion that people behind the lime light may have about the report which has to be done.

            Although there are some television stations in the country that don’t impose strict restrictions for its reporters, this should not be taken as an excuse by news presenters to not be critical of their actions. It is not easy to establish a good reputation, but once it is tarnished, trust will be hard to be regained from the public.

            2011-01955(2)

Princess Snell's Rape Joke on Social Media Backfires

Starlet Natalie Hart or popular known as “Princess Snell” recently became a trending topic on Twitter and Facebook because of her controversial post on Instagram. This was not received by the netizens as a joke.

           Hart apologized after and posted her apology on Twitter saying, “I do not promote nor support that behavior! I'm against domestic violence and rape! It was a bad joke and I'm extremely sorry.”  As someone who is popular and followed by many in social media, she should be responsible for everything that she posts. Rape is a very sensitive topic just like suicide; it should never be glamorized or worse, made into a joke. She probably acted on her right to speak freely whatever she wants, but freedom of speech does not equate to irresponsible speech.

          In this light, author David Gordon in his book Controversies in Media Ethics, provided a model in evaluating ethical communication in Media:

1. Consider the purpose of a particular expression to understand intentions and motivations.

Why is someone saying this? Why might they be feeling this way? What thinking

might be behind this expressive action?

2. Examine the platform of an expression to become aware of the potential audience for,

as well as the form of, the expression. Who is likely to view, hear or read this expression?

Will the form keep the expression among a few individuals or will it be conveyed

around the world?

3. Review practices to comprehend the process of creating the message form and its

content. How was this expression determined? Is there a more responsible way to

express this message and convey it to those who need to hear it?

4. Envision potentials to focus attention on possible or probable effects or consequences

of conveying an expression. What might happen if I say this? Will it hurt or help

someone? Is the hurt justified because it will help others? To what extent will this

message harm someone and is it worth the harm?

          I feel that this model should exactly solve dilemmas before posting something on social media. This is also useful for news reporters to guide them before giving personal opinions or commentaries.

Even if Hart a.k.a. Princess Snell made her apology, she should still get a lesson on responsible freedom of expression. An apology is never an excuse for not being apprehended or sanctioned on an action which can greatly impact a group of people, on her case, the people who are victims of rape.

2009-25438 (2)

2 blogs in 1: Korina Sanchez and Her Irresponsible Comment

Recently, Typhoon Ruby struck Visayas. During the time it was approaching Philippines, it got stronger and stronger until it became a Super typhoon and is feared to bring the same power and destruction like Super Typhoon Yolanda. During one episode of TV Patrol, its main anchors, Ted Failon, Noli De Castro and Korina Sanchez were doing their usual banter at the tail-end of the newscast when Sanchez and de Castro made side comments and shared their opinions live on the air.

Sanchez said, “Kaya pa natin idasal yan para lumihis." (We can still pray to change its direction.)

De Castro then commented, “Sana ay hati na lang tayo." (I wish we could split the storm) “Kalahati sa Pilipinas, kalahati sa Japan (Half of it for the Philippines, half for Japan),” De Castro said, to which Sanchez replied, “Puwede bang sa kanila na lang lahat?" (Can’t they have all of it?)

De Castro then said “Wag naman” hopefully not, but Korina defended her stand, saying “Sa kanila na lang lahat. Parang mas kaya nila." (Let them have it all. It seems that they can handle it better).

Korina’s remarks have caused an uproar in social media, calling her insensitive and irresponsible. I understand the fact that she is only concerned for her people, like praying for the typhoon to change its direction but the fact that she involved Japan on her comments can be considered as an ethical lapse. Keep in mind that she is one of the top broadcasters in the country and she is one of ABS-CBN’s most famous news anchors. Her opinions matter and it can easily influence a lot of people.

Korina Sanchez is known for many unethical comments on air. I believe it is time for her to change this kind of attitude. In my opinion, there is no problem in making side comments of subjects on air as long as they are neutral and not subjective because these side comments can also be helpful like presenting facts from the other side that the viewers don’t know. Besides, they are the people with the most experience and they are credible enough to handle these kinds of stories and information but I really believe that a media personality should value neutrality in giving comments. Your goal is to inform and educated the public and not to persuade them. Maybe it is time for Sanchez to listen carefully to herself before she opens her mouth. She needs to think twice about what she’s going to say especially when she is live during national television or via radio and the internet. 

2012-15300 (2)

========================

ABS-CBN news anchor Korina Sanchez became viral on social media again for her controversial comments on Typhoon Ruby. This is the second time in recent Philippine TV memory that this veteran news anchor made headlines; the first was when she commented on-air about CNN journalist Anderson Cooper during the Typhoon Yolanda. This time, Korina, along with her two co-anchors, was about to end the their on-air program TV Patrol when she said that she hoped Typhoon Ruby would hit Japan instead of the Philippines. Her comment drew anger from netizens. A satirical website The Adobo Chronicles even made satire news about Japan banning Korina from their country. Why do media still tolerate such irresponsible news commentaries?

According to KBP Broadcast Code, Article 2. Section 2, “public affair programs and commentaries shall be handled only by persons who have thorough knowledge and practice broadcast ethics.” Given this ethical standard in broadcasting, Korina Sanchez is guilty of a broadcaster who does not practice broadcast ethics. Korina probably was motivated by her freedom of speech to express her opinion regarding her hope for Typhoon Ruby to hit Japan instead; it is still an act of irresponsible reporting. KBP preamble posits, “broadcasting, because of its immediate and lasting impact on the public, demands of its practitioners a high sense of responsibility, morality, fairness and honesty at all times.”

This is not the first time Korina made rude or harsh commentaries. Since she is a prominent figure in broadcasting, it is important that she gets another briefing about the ethical broadcasting standards.

(2009-25438)

No Story is Worth Dying For: Atom Araullo's Live Report During #RubyPH

ABS-CBN’S news reporter Atom Araullo does it again.

Airing that day was ABS-CBN’s Salamat Dok and the show had a live coverage of the events in Calbayog, Samar that was experiencing the strong winds and heavy rains of Typhoon Ruby (Intl Name: Hagupit). The live news was delivered by news reporter Atom Araullo who seemed to be standing on a balcony. Atom Araullo went live and reported even though he was soaking wet because of the strong winds and rain -- even the camera was getting wet.

As a broadcast journalist, he should know better than this. We can consider his actions unethical because it is dangerous and it gives the public the wrong message. As of now, there are mixed reactions regarding this particular live report he did. Some of the people see him as a hero, a strong and brave knight in shining armor who is not afraid of any natural calamities. Some people actually commend his bravery for doing such a thing. But also some people view his actions as reckless and dangerous. On-cam people like Atom Araullo have strong influence on viewers. He sets a wrong example to the people by possibly risking their lives to do the same. For us students of communications, journalism and broadcasting, we consider his actions unethical because of the risks he poses as a role model.

His actions are not new. Last year, during Bagyong Yolanda, he also did this kind of stint except in a much dangerous way, he was out in the open. He had the same appearance, wearing only his raincoat and without protection gear. Sadly, I believe he needs to review guidelines for ethical and safe news reporting. His actions are affecting the public by stirring confusion and debate among viewers.

2012-15300 (1)

"Sirena" and "Ituloy Mo Lang": Pro-LGBT or Anti-LGBT songs?

I was with two of my closest friends, chillin’ on a Saturday afternoon when Siakol’s “Ituloy Mo Lang” played on the radio. I heard the song several times, but I never really knew the lyrics, word-per-word. All I knew was that the song was for a friend of the composer who was apparently gay. It goes on about how he got his friend’s back since he was bullied a lot because of his gender. And so, thinking the song was “pro-gay”, I liked it. I tried to listen closely to the song while humming to its tune when suddenly, one of my friends interrupted.

“I don’t like that song. I despise it.”

I was shocked, of course, hearing that from my friend (who is gay, by the way), since I thought the song was for them (them, referring to the LGBT community). Seeing my blank reaction, obviously waiting for an explanation as to why he hated it, my friend continued.

(Non-verbatim):
“I don’t like it because people think that song it’s so ‘empowering’ for us gays. It’s not. It actually does the opposite. That song is kind of being used against us, if it does anything,” he said.

            I looked towards my other friend (who is also gay), and he nodded in agreement.

“Totoo yan. Pati yung kanta na ‘Sirena’ ni Gloc-9? Ginagamit ‘yang kantang yun pang-asar sa akin ng mga kaklase ko,” says my friend. “Pag dumadaan ako sa kalsada sa amin, yung mga batang makikita ako, bigla na lang kakantahin yun, na para bang pang-asar,” he added.

      Hitting a somewhat controversial topic, the discussion heated up and opinions were shared regarding these songs whose lyrics revolve around the issue of gender equality, particularly the acceptance of the LGBT community in society. The sharing of stories and opinions by my friends, as a result, was quite enlightening for me. Ever since I became an Iska, I have supported the LGBT community as much as many of us do, and it was a great shock to learn that sometimes, we feel that we’re so ‘gender-sensitive, but unconsciously, we’re not being sensitive enough. And so, I will be sharing in this blog the reasons why (in our personal opinion) these songs are not too gender-sensitive like how we thought they were.

·       These songs strengthen and add up to gender stereotypes and prejudices.

Cross-dressing, waist-swaying, doll-playing, loud, comedic, artistic people. These are only few of the many stereotypes and labels that have been placed upon the gay community. Unfortunately, by adding these labels into the lyrics, the songs that were made and produced to supposedly “empower” seem to have strengthened our society’s habit of stereotyping, as well as reinforcing a generalized perspective on the LGBT group. While we know that there is some truth in these labels, we want to avoid reinforcing these stereotypes because they tend to limit an individual on what he/she can be, thus defeating the goal of empowerment. Lady Gaga’s Born This Way is one of the songs that showed us that labels and stereotypes are not necessary to paint the picture for the people to know that our generation’s demand is a demand for gender equality, acceptance, and empowerment.

·       They become tools for discrimination and bullying.

While it would be pleasant to think that the motive of the bands and song writers in writing their lyrics are to express their support and sentiments of the seemingly lack of and clamor for acceptance by the LGBT community, we have to admit that sometimes, these songs are being used for ridicule instead. Yes, the song in its entirety is supposedly putting a positive image, however, the labels and the stereotypes are just so strong that the message of the song is being overlooked, and so mockery, prejudice and ridicule take its place instead. Let’s face it, we live in a hostile world, using everything that can be used to beat the uniqueness out of every extraordinary and special individual, forcing them to conform to what is “normal” and “right”.

So? What should we do now? Should we dismiss these songs as unethical or gender-insensitive? Should be stop listening to them? Well, that will be your personal decision. I think that these songs are not totally unethical, nor gender insensitive, but it depends on how we use them. If you feel that I’m overreacting and that these kinds of songs are totally harmless, I’m afraid I would have to disagree. We must be aware that stereotypes and labels, regardless of what form they are presented, are always harmful and never beneficial.

So, the next time you feel like singing out a line from Sirena to one of your gay friends or acquaintances, think first. Think very well. Sirena nga ba ang kausap mo, o tao ’ rin na katulad mo, nakakaramdam at nasasaktan?

2011-61230 (1)

MisterParodist’s Parody of Magic! turns out to be ‘Rude’

            High school pa lamang kami nang nagsimulang sumikat si MisterParodist na mas kilala sa tawag na Boy Tiwtiw. Sumikat siya dahil sa tagalog version niya ng Buko na usong-uso noon. At kamakailan lamang ay na-feature siya sa ABS-CBN Bicol: Mag TV na Oragon at sa Rated-K ngayong taon (2014). Dahil diyan, ina’assume ko na mas marami nang tatangkilik sa kanya dahil na TV na nga siya.

            Kaso nga lang namo’mroblema ako sa ginawa niyang parody ng Rude by Magic! noong October  2014. Ginawan niya ito ng tagalog version kagaya ng mga ginagawa niya sa iba pa niyang videos.

            Maayos naman at medyo nakakatawa nga ang translation na ginawa niya. Ngunit may mga linya roon na bother lang ako kasi ang sabi:

            (nasa verse 2) ‘Magtatanan kami, sa isang motel hotel sogo” – Naku, nagbigay pa talaga siya ng lugar na maaring puntahan ng mga nagbabalak magtanan.

            (nasa Chorus) “Pakasal ka, Kahit ayaw ng tatay mo Pakasal ka gagawa tayo family…”

            (nasa Chorus) “Kasi mahal niya ako susunod siya sa’king gusto” – Bilang babae, damang-damang ko ang pagiging subordinate. Pero para ito sa mga mas umiibig nang higit, kasi sila ang laging talo.

            Oo sa English version ay medyo may pagkaganun nga ang lyrics pero at least hindi paulit ulit na nasa chorus, ngayong na translate na ni Boy Tiwtiw ang kanta, mas marami nang makakaintindi niyon sa ating mga Pilipino.

            Ang parody ni Boy Tiwtiw ay parang nanghihikayat ng rebelyon laban sa mga magulang – na okay lang sumuway basta’t masunod lang ang dinidikta ng puso mo.

            Hindi sa lahat ng pagkakataon ay kailangang sundin ang puso, dapat parehas – puso’t isipan dapat ang laging gamitin nang hindi napapahamak. Hindi po ito hugot; ito po ay isang katotohanan na dapat nating malaman bilang mga future media practitioners/men/personnel/etc. Dapat hindi mababaw ang stand natin sa mga bagay-bagay, dapat may dahilan at kaya natin itong ipaglaban.

            Kung binabalak nating pumasok sa mundo ng media bilang mga taong humaharap sa camera o taong nasa likod nito, sana maging layunin natin na makapag-impluwensya para sa ikauunlad ng bansa dahil alam natin kung gaano kalaki ang nagiging epekto nito sa lahat.

2012-49508 (2)