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)

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)