Jollibee TVC: Company Promotions as Peddlers of Hope?

Jollibee, a fast-growing Filipino fastfood chain in the country, recently came up with a promo in partnership with Ford entitled "Scratch 2 Snatch A Ford." Apart from advertising the promo, the TVC¹ also strengthens the company’s value---family.

 However the television commercial, with the intention to showcase and promote the promo, did a rather outrageous thing on the last line of the script. The last line of the TVC---habang may promo, may pag-asa---gave me a different idea of its purpose. The line implied a different concept of hope and promos. This unmindful "claim" of hope could have an impact to some struggling families by changing their outlook towards life. After watching the TVC, they might fall for the subtle message and consider promos as the answer to their daily woes. In addition, the last line was partly delivered by the child whom I bet did not have any idea that she would be a part of this distasteful yet subtle message.

I came up with the judgment that the TVC is unethical by simply putting more value in KBP’s principle of Pananagutan. Although the said principle is intended for broadcasters, it could also be applied to the ad agency of the TVC. As communication students and soon-to-be part of the industry, we should be responsible for all the things that we will make, write, or release because our name is at stake every time we “fulfill” our roles in our society.

2012-50133 (1)

At the Expense of Others: the Case of the Infamous Aegis Malaysia Viral Ad

          Aegis Malaysia, a global business process outsourcing company, was featured in an online video advertisement that discouraged foreign investors from coming to our country, saying that Malaysia is a better investment site than the Philippines.

          The video ad entitled “Aegis: Spearheading Malaysia’s ‘Developed Economy’ Drive,” listed several reasons why one shouldn’t invest in the Philippines -- inadequate infrastructure, unfriendly climate, less security, lack of government support, and the country’s location being at the Pacific Ring of Fire. Later on, the opposite of these reasons were attributed to Malaysia, suggesting that their country is the better choice.

          The 3-minute video was originally uploaded on YouTube and went viral hours after it was released.  It incited anger from both Filipino and foreign netizens, saying that the ad portrayed the country in a bad light and it was “very offensive” and “unethical.” According to reports, the ad was deleted from the website after gathering such negative feedbacks and only downloaded copies of it are now available online.

          The company, however, already issued a public apology saying, "We regret the upload of the recent video on Malaysia. The video was developed locally by an agency and uploaded in error and the contents were NOT approved by Aegis Corporate." They also added that they “apologize and regret any communication that may have inadvertently hurt any sentiments.”

          This video advertisement is a good example that illustrates violations of the Ads Standards Council (ASC) Code of Ethics. The ad agency may not be from the country and is not under the ASC but this affected the image of the Philippines.

          First, the ad violated Article I, Section 1 (Respect for Country & the Law) by belittling the country just to promote their own. It contains elements that are “injurious to the image and prestige of the Philippines and its people,” including the “faults” of the government, law, and its reinforcement.

          It also violated Article IV, Section 1. a. (Disparagement) indicating that “advertisements shall not directly or indirectly disparage, ridicule, criticize or attack…” competitors. It is clear that the country was looked down on as portrayed in the advertisement. Another violation is that of Section 1. g. which says that “advertisements shall not make any presentation that brings advertising into disrepute both as a profession and as a business activity.” This ad received comments all over the social media as “the worst advertising strategy” and some netizens also asked why advertising had come to this, stooping to the level of bashing a competitor just for promotion.

          The ad also violated Article IV Section 2 (Comparison Advertising) for not providing enough bases for claims of superiority of Malaysia over the Philippines in the aspects mentioned. Besides, there was never really a need for comparing the two countries in the first place. Malaysia can be promoted in other ways such as pointing out the good things the country can offer and simply not looking much into the negative aspects of another country for comparison.

          The Philippines has its own flaws (any other country actually has) and Malaysia may be of a better standing compared with the Philippines, but that need not to be slapped right into the Filipinos’ faces. What if investors saw this ad and cause them to really think twice of coming into the country for business? What if other countries watch this video and deem the country weak?

          Filipino people are resilient. The country may have inadequate infrastructure, unfriendly climate, less security, lack of government support, and is located at the Pacific Ring of Fire, but all of these are taken as challenges. Despite these, Filipinos continue to stand tall and the Philippines continues to grow.

          2012-33947 (1)

(Editor's note: The moral agent in this case is the ad agency that produced and uploaded the video and not Aegis Malaysia. It was also clear in the blog article that Aegis Malaysia already issued a public apology and has categorically stated that the ad was not approved. Another ethical lapse that could be tackled is the breach of confidentiality of the producer/agency in uploading an unapproved communication materials.)

Covering Grief: Laude's Funeral

       As I was doing my research about Jennifer Laude for an article I’m writing for my Journalism class, I stumbled upon this photo of Julita Laude, mother of Jennifer, crying at her child’s funeral.

          My attention won’t be caught this much if there weren’t a lot of media personnel feasting on an unfortunate event that was supposed to be solemn and private. (Editor’s note: It was an AFP/Getty Images photo showing media personnel just a few feet away from the crying mother and the casket of Laude. Laude’s body inside the casket could even be seen on the foreground of the photo.)

         I understand that those media personnel were just doing their jobs, taking photos that were essential to their news stories. I also know that what happened to Jennifer is already a national story and coverage of every bit of detail that can be possibly obtained regarding that issue is needed for the running story. I am also aware that that specific photo can be used to attract attention of the audience and at the same time, gather sympathy and support for the ongoing battle for justice of Jennifer’s death. All of these may be within the duty of being part of the media but care and respect for the subject (and all people involved) should also be considered.

         What really bothers me is the lack of respect the media showed for the Laude family, acting like the funeral was some sort of spectacle. Would it hurt to at least give the family a few days of peace to mourn their lost family member? Would it hurt to at least pay respects for the dead, by simply allowing the funeral to be private and quiet? The media has been into the Laude family for some time now and the least the media can do is to let them grieve their loss. What if the same thing happened to them? How would they feel if cameras were all over the place covering such private matter? Would they like strangers intruding their last moments with their loved one? Of course not. Nobody wants that.

          Again, all of these boils down to respect. Everybody deserves that. The media should perform their duty, yes, but disrespect is not part of it.

2012-33947 (2)

GGV: No Golden Rule?

Isa na siguro sa pinakamasakit na mangyari ay ang mapahiya ka sa harap ng maraming tao. Eh ano pa kaya kung sa buong Pilipinas at buong mundo mangyari sa iyo ito?

Marami sa mga komedyante ngayon ang patok na patok sa telebisyon. Nariyan sina Ai-ai de las Alas, Eugene Domingo at marami pang iba. Pero kung tatanungin siguro natin ang bawat Pilipino kung sino ang pinakasikat na komedyante ngayon, isa lang ang isasagot nila. Si Vice Ganda. Hindi lingid sa ating kaalaman ang istorya ng buhay ng komedyanteng ito. Sumikat siya dahil sa pagpupursigi niya at ang kanyang kakaibang talento sa pagpapatawa. Ngunit sa kabila ng lahat ng ito, tama bang purihin siya sa pamamahiya sa mga tao?

Oo, parte ito ng kanyang pagpapatawa. Oo, kailangang hindi KJ. Oo, kailangang open-minded. Pero hindi ba’t masakit sa pakiramdam ang mapag-tawanan at mapagtripan ka sa harap ng maraming tao? Kitang-kita ang maling gawaing ito ni Vice Ganda o Jose Marie Viceral sa kanyang programang ‘Gandang Gabi Vice’. Rated SPG ang mga episodes kung minsan dahil may mga malalaswa at sensitibong tema itong ipinalalabas.

Sa programang ito malayang nagagawa ni Vice Ganda ang lahat ng anumang gustuhin niya. Mula sa kasuotan na kung minsan ay hindi na maganda sa paningin, sa mga dance at song numbers at pati na rin sa mga guests niya sa programa, siya ang namimili. Hindi mawawala sa GGV ang pag-tripan si Neggy. Si Neggy ang kanyang assistant/friend/pet. Pangalan pa lang, nakakainsulto na. Palagi siyang pinagtatawanan ni Vice Ganda dahil sa kanyang itsura. Ito ay isang paglabag sa Article 22 ng KBP Broadcast Code (ARTICLE 22 - DISCRIMINATION, A person’s race, religion, color, ethnicity, gender, and physical or mental disability shall not be used in a way that would embarass, denigrate, or ridicule him) kung saan sinasabing hindi tayo dapat mang-discriminate ng tao ayon sa kanyang relihiyon o lahi. Malinaw na malinaw ang paglabag na ito ni Vice. Kahit naman sino ay hindi dapat minamaliit dahil lang sa itsura nito. Nagiging katatawanan tuloy si Neggy dahil sa kanyang itsura. Paglabag din ito sa Sec 3 ng nasabing article (Name-calling and personal insults are prohibited).

 Isa pang hindi magandang gawain ni Vice sa kanyang programa ay ang pagsusuot ng malalaswang mga kasuotan sa telebisyon. Minsan ay mahirap pang tignan ang mga kasuotang ito ni Vice dahil kadalasan ay malaswa ito. Isa rin itong paglabag sa Article 28 Section 1(ON-AIR DECORUM - Persons who appear in entertainment and variety progras such as hosts, emcess, talents, guests, participants, and audiences, espeially in live shows, shall be decently attired and behave in a way that is considered appropriate in public based on the standards of the community where the programs are aired) kung saan sinasabing dapat ay presentable ang isang host o guest paglabas sa telebisyon.

Pang-huli, marami sa mga sinasabi ni Vice sa programang ito ay may double-meaning. Minsan, may kabastusan na ito at kung minsan naman ay patama naman ito sa isang tao. Maling-mali ang gawaing ito. Maaaring ma-mislead niya ang mga tao sa mga ganitong uri ng joke. Paglabag din ito sa Article 25 Section 5 ng KBP Broadcast Code (SEX, OBSCENITY AAND PORNOGRAPHY - Offensive, obscene blasphemous, profane, and vulgar double meaning words and phrases are prohibited, even if understood only by a segment of the audience) kung saan mahigpit na ipinagbabawal ang pagsasabi ng mga double-meaning o may ibang deinisyong salita.

Sa bawat tawang naibigay ni Vice Ganda sa atin, ilang kalungkutan kaya ang kapalit? Sa bawat halakhak natin, ilang tao kaya ang naiinsulto? Sa bawat pagsang-ayon natin sa kanyang mga sinasabi, ilang taong nasasaktan kaya ang katumbas? Hindi masamang magpasaya ng tao. Basta’t wala tayong nasasaktan at natatapakang pagkatao, magiging tama ito. Tandaan lamang ang Golden Rule, kung ayaw mong mangyari sa iyo, huwag mong gawin sa iba.

2012-67513

(Editor's note: It would have been better if specific episodes or scenes were identified as examples of the show/host's violations.) 

Exchanging dignity for money? Eat Bulaga's Suffer Sireyna

          Most of the Filipinos, especially families, are fond of watching noontime shows. These shows obviously have entertainment value since almost all of the hosts are comedians; plus the poor funny contestants make them even better. We watch out for these shows on television because they give us time to relax in our couch, because they make us laugh, and because most of us are not aware that they are not (editor’s note: morally) good in a deeper sense.

           Let us take a look in one segment of the longest-running noontime show Eat Bulaga, the Suffer Sireyna. It is a beauty contest where gays from different barangays are introduced. They do modeling with their costumes, show their talents, and also undergo a question and answer portion. Some say it is good to see that media found a way to empower the LGBT community because it gives chance for the gays to prove their selves. But is it really for empowerment? First of all, it is not a beauty contest. Second, it humiliates the participants. Third, they are using poverty to make fun of other people.

            It is not a beauty contest because it is not meant to show the gays’ beauty but to tell people that they are funny. They do modeling with barbeque smoke, show their funny talents, and undergo a question and answer portion wherein they have to eat unusual food such as fresh onions while answering funny statements with the shows’ nonsense questions like “In what way do you want to die, in the middle of a country war or bombing?” plus they have to pass obstacle race. Maybe there is nothing actually wrong with these because this was really meant for fun.

            But the way they are treated? That is another story. Some say that it is the contestants’ fault why they are humiliated. They say it is because those gays know that they are going to be insulted if they join and they just let the hosts throw bad words or insult to them. That is the point. Almost all of the people joining such noontime show contests are there for money and by that, they do not already have the time to think if they are going to give up their dignity. People who produce the show know that poor people can only hope for the amount they will give because nowadays, joining such contests can be considered as the contestants’ instant source of income.

             As I can see, the situation is really about the humiliation of dignity, but the media’s decision is to still have it as a show. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism under Teleological ethical theories says it is alright if it harms one as long as a greater number of people are happy. But they are violating the KBP Code of Ethics Article 17 that talks about quiz shows, contests, public participation programs and promotions; Section 3 says that public or audience participation programs shall not ridicule, diminish or demean the dignity of an individual participating in such programs. Even people who are poor or included in the so-called “third sex” still have the right to maintain their dignity.

2012-40511 (1)

Going LIVE when LIFE is at stake

         Madalas talaga akong manood ng mga balitang panglokal at mga teleserye sa primetime bago pa man gawing requirement ang paggawa ng blog tungkol sa mga ethical lapses ng  Philippine media.

Kararating ko lamang sa inuupahang bahay, nagsisigaw ang landlady namin at tinawag ako, “Taga Pangasinan ka ‘di ba? Tignan mo ‘to. Breaking News sa Amianan, may nagtatangka daw magpakamatay. Ay, magulo din pala sa inyo.”

          Siyempre tinignan ko at bukod sa interesado ako dahil balita ito sa probinsya namin, nabigla ako sa nakita ko, LIVE REPORT tungkol sa lalaking umakyat sa overpass. Nagulat ako. At tinitigang mabuti ang balita kung LIVE nga ba talaga o DELAYED TELECAST lamang. Pero, live footage talaga ito, walang nakasulat na “taken earlier” o “delayed telecast”. Ayan, sinubaybayan ko ang balitang ito sa buong episode ng Balitang Amianan ng araw na ‘yon.

           Ika-dalawampu’t dalawang araw ng Oktobre taong 2014, Miyerkules, isang lalaki ang umakyat mula sa pedestrian overpass (168 Mall) ng Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Magsasampung oras ang negosasyon. Nakunan pa ng kamera kung paano nalaglag ang lalaking ito mula sa overpass. Sa pagkakataong ito, marahil ay mas inuna ng mga reporter ang kanilang trabaho na maipaalam sa publiko ang impormasyong ito. Dahil na rin siguro ito sa tensiyon at drama na taglay ng isang live incident. At, inere nga ang insidenteng ito ng LIVE. WITHOUT SENSITIVITY.

           Nalabag ng news report na ito ang nakasaad sa KBP Broadcast Code of the Philippines Art.VI (CRIME AND CRISIS SITUATION) Section I na kailangan unahin ang seguridad ng sino mang nasasangkot sa kaso kaysa sa karapatan ng publikong malaman ang mga bagay/impormasyon na ito, kaya’t nararapat na sa kahit ano mang estasyon na huwag mag-ere nang live, at magkaroon na lamang ng delayed telecast ng ganitong krisis.

           Parang breaking news pa ang dating ng sitwasyong ito, bawat update isinisingit kahit may nauna pang news report kaysa dito. At dahil halos kada-limang minuto kung ipakita ang insedente, nakunan ng kamera kung paano nalaglag ang lalaking ito mula sa overpass. Isa na namang paglabag sa Art.VI (CRIME AND CRISIS SITUATION) Section 13 na hindi maaring magpakita ng offensive images sa loob ng ganitong klaseng sitwasyon. Kahit papaano, hindi naging madugo ang pagkakalaglag nito dahil nasalo naman ang lalaking ito gamit ang tolda. Isipin na lang natin, paano kung walang tolda noong mga oras na iyon? Anong makikita ng publiko? Isang lalaking nabali-bali ang buto mula sa pagtalon sa overpass? Isang lalaking duguan at lasog na lasog na pangangatawan? Respeto na lang din sa mga manunood.

            Kagaya ng ng nasabi sa klase na, “There is no absolute freedom” kailangan natin pag-isipan nang mabuti kung hanggang saan nga ba tayo dadalhin ng tinatawag nating freedom(of expression) para iparating sa publiko ang mga impormasyong nakalap at magampanan ang ating mga trabaho bilang communicator. Dahil minsan, bukod sa freedom na tinutukoy natin, may mga mas importanteng bagay tayong dapat pahalagahan.

**Ang news report na ito ay hindi in-upload ng Balitang Amianan sa bilang ng kanilang mga Full Episodes noong Oktobre. Mayron na lamang po akong video/link ng follow-up news ng coverage na ito. Ibinalita rin ito sa Balita Pilipinas kinabukasan pagkatapos ng krimen noong ika-dalawampu’t tatlong araw ng Oktobre 2014.

2012-08045(1)

Aquino and Abunda Tonight: Getting overly personal and biased?

       Talking about timely issues is helpful for the people to have a stand about a particular news or event. Having shows that make way for commentaries makes it more democratic for the media people, but there is no need to stretch opinions to a point of unfair statements. Let us just say for example, the show Aquino and Abunda Tonight. Both of the hosts are good and credible enough to give their opinions that is why they were given their own commentary shows.

          Let me start with Aquino. Aside from the fact that she is one of the sisters of the Philippines’ current President and that she may be biased from giving statements when the news appears related to him, she is also biased about her personal issues. Months ago, she had a one-on-one interview with her ex-boyfriend Herbert Bautista when Abunda was absent at that time. The segment was to talk about Herbert’s issue on slapping a Chinese drug dealer. Aquino had this time to bring up their personal issue by putting Herbert into a hot seat and treating the conclusion of the interview as something that was against Herbert’s attitude. She said that he is not actually hurting physically but only emotionally. Professionalism is one of the issues of Kris; this proves that she cannot separate news from her own emotional opinion. Other than this, she cannot stop talking when she already started to comment on any issues.

           Turning to Abunda, he is a great interviewer and I appreciate how he speaks with straightforward statements that he can make his interviewees answer whatever question he has for them. But as I observe some of his questions, they are insensitive and reach to a point that his questions are already too personal. Almost all of his interviewees, especially in their show Aquino and Abunda, are actors and actresses. Yes, those artists chose a public a life, but that doesn’t mean that they have to give their all to the public. Like for example, in one of their interviews with Enchong Dee. The actor was only to give an opinion about post-marital sex. But Abunda insisted him to answer the question, “Are you still a virgin?” Philippines may be getting liberated, but having that information is too personal especially if the mass will know. Abunda should be fair with his co-media persons. If he has a good image, he should not do otherwise to the artists.

            I have nothing against them but I think both, in particular with Kris, should be more sensitive and fair especially about their personal issues. Because KBP Code of Ethics Section 3 of Article 2 that involves Analysis and Commentaries says that personal bias or prejudice shall not be allowed to distort the facts. The situation is that the straightforward tandem reaches personal issues, whether it is their own or others’; well in fact they should focus more on what is really the issue which the show recommends them. But then, they were able to still have the show. I guess they both have this ethical subjectivism that says what is ethical is only a personal approval and no objective right or wrong exists. And despite their flaws, they are good and influential that can garner high ratings. That is why they still have the show.

2012-40511 (2)