10 Comments

  1. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/338734/news/metromanila/father-of-abducted-atenean-dismayed-by-police-kidnap-me-theory

    Conflicting reports have arisen regarding an alleged kidnapping of an Ateneo de Manila University student within the said campus on November 21. As of December 3 the incident was confirmed by the university administration; however, according to Quezon City Police District Chief Superintendent Richard Albano, there had been no such kidnapping incident, and what happened might have merely been a “kidnap-me case.”

    In an article dated December 7, 2013, the father of the kidnapped Atenean decried the “double-victimisation” of his child by both kidnappers and police. On November 21, the victim was said to have been seized by kidnappers at ADMU North Car Park. The father received a text message from a person who claimed to be one of the victim’s professors, asking P50,000 as payment for a debt the victim owed him, followed by a text message coming from the victim’s own number, demanding P250,000 to be dropped off at Jollibee Cubao. After some haggling with the kidnappers the ransom was lowered to P30,000. In the end, no ransom was paid, but the victim was released unharmed, as the university’s statement claimed. However, the victim narrated that her abductors took instead a cell phone, jewellery and cash amounting to P50,000.

    Clearly there are inconsistencies in the facts that were presented by both institutions supposedly involved in the case. In this event, it is extremely difficult to determine which party’s statements were factual. Hence, I believe the author was correct to present both without claiming truth for either statement. The article was left open-ended, unresolved, to emphasize that the case is ongoing and NOT yet closed. However, the title appears to be partial to the victim’s father, by making him the subject and calling the police’s statement a “theory” which may appear to have a negative connotation in the specific context in which the article was written. This creates a presumption that the victim is innocent, and is a violation of Article 7 (Individual Rights), Section 8 of the KBP Code of Ethics. However, as there was no direct finger-pointing, such an accusation cannot be easily made.

    Alliah Czarielle R. Guerra
    2011-18140
    Comm 110

  2. To: Prof. Marichu Lambino
    Re: 3rd Media Monitor (dec 4-10, 2013) for COMM 110

    Date submitted: December 9, 2013

    Link:

    The link above shows the news coverage of GMA7’s Balitanghali on the clearing operation lead by Vice Mayor Isko Moreno in Divisoria last Thursday (December 5, 2013). The said operations’ goal is to address the complaints receive in the office of the Mayor with regards to orderliness of Divisoria. Moreno said that he is neither disallowing the vendors from selling nor he is confiscating their products. He clarified that he is simply putting everything in its proper order. Furthermore, according to Moreno, the vendors are allowed to place their stand as long as it is according to the law, which states they can either be in the center island or on the roadside not exceeding to 1.5 meters ( as approved by the Vice Mayor).

    I can say that this news coverage is credible, fair and objective. Here are my reasons. First, the credibility of this news is of no doubt. Why? It is because they are able to get a direct source ( from the Vice Mayor himself) . Second, It was also said by the Vice Mayor that he they will not arrest vendors unless they will fight against the authorities. In the video, we can see that the reporter interviewed 2 brothers who were arrested by the authorities. She then questioned if they fought against the authorities. The 2 brothers said “no”. This is simply fair. A reporter must not directly accuse anyone (especially if he/she doesn’t have a proof that those 2 brothers fought against the authorities). Third, the reporter also did an interview to the people (consumer/ street passers) to know their reaction to the said operation. This is important. Why? It is because the main reason for this “clearing operation” is for the street passers so that they can have enough space for walking/ passing so to get if they are satisfied with the Vice Mayor’s action.

    From :
    Charmaine Ycasas
    COMM 110
    2013-78428

  3. Media Monitor 3: MTRCB admonishes Arnold Clavio and Unang Hirit
    http://www.rappler.com/entertainment/30-editors-pick/45417-mtrcb-admonishes-arnold-clavio-unang-hirit

    In this article, the infamous incident by News Anchor Arnold Clavio in Unang Hirit last November 7 was criticized. The measures taken by the MTRCB to penalize the show and its production staff were tackled saying that they were to attend a seminar conducted by a professor in media ethics. I think that the live phone patch interview done by Arnold Clavio was the perfect example of an unethical journalism practice. As stated in the KBP code of ethics for Broadcast media, news and public affairs should be broadcasted with objectivity. Also, in news interviews, the questions are the responsibility of the interviewer; and in this interview, Clavio lost his temper and crossed the line. He disrespected the interviewee by insulting him and saying that he ruined the reporter’s day, thus interrupting the attorney while he was in the middle of answering Clavio’s questions. In conducting interviews, we don’t always get the answers or information that we want. But as media practitioners, this does not give us the right and permission to show unprofessional behavior. We still need to keep our composure and bid goodbye politely to our interviewees. Clavio was not able to comply to these rules and therefore, manifested unethical media practice.

    Despite this event, I commend Arnold Clavio for owning up to his mistake by apologizing two days after his outburst. It is courageous of him to admit his mistake in front of live national tv amidst having the netizens criticize his actions. This gesture shows how much he wanted to regain the people’s trust through his sincerity. Although, I don’t think that he will earn the public, especially the social media’s preference just yet. His reputation as a news anchor will always be associated to his unfortunate interview. The masses will start seeing him as the arrogant reporter who disrespected his interviewee. I guess that attending the seminar on proper and ethical media practice will help him reestablish his now tainted reputation.

    – 2012-79263

  4. Rica Angela Aquino (201179130)
    Comm 110 Media Monitor

    Article link:

    The article entitled “Does Pacquiao have a green card?” written by GMA news was posted Dec 9 2013 at 10:02 pm. According to the article, the boxing champ Manny Pacquiao running for Congressman is not eligible to run during the elections because of the possibility that he is a US immigrant. This law is written in the Omnibus Election Code under section 68.

    This issue was blogged by Raissa Robles, a veteran journalist in the country. She has cited sources in her blog, raissarobles.com. She is a credible source and it serves its right to be aired under section 4, News Sources, of the KBP code of ethics.

    The writer also aired in other sources to defend Pacquiaos side such as his Lawyer, Atty. Tranquil Salvador and Representative Lito Atienza, who both claim that Manny Pacquiao is no green card holder. However, to further defend his side under section 3, Fairness and Objectivity, of the KBP code of ethics, the writer wrote Manny Pacquiao’s side poorly, almost in an unconvincing matter. It seemed like an attack to his honesty the way his side was written where he said that Pacquiao merely laughed off and said he is no green card holder. The writer wrote this in no quotation marks or no footage of him talking in the video. I think Manny Pacquiao should have been given more than that to explain his side, given that this is an unconfirmed report and still is under investigation since the BIR wont give out any information.

    Yet, under section 5, unconfirmed reports of the KBP code of ethics, it is allowed as long as there is public interest.

  5. Media Monitor 3: GMA 24 Oras News Reports about the Amalayer Incident

    In this video, GMA reporter Cesar Apolinario is given approximately three-minutes airtime to report on the “Amalayer” incident. Interview with the lady guard is shown with inter-cuts to the actual footage that went viral on YouTube. It was not until later that the side of the student/girl was revealed, and it only served as a futile attempt to balance out the report since she was already discredited with bad behavior.

    Cesar Apolinario was partial to the lady guard for a number of reasons: (1) we would hear him talking behind the camera, encouraging dramatic response from the lady guard and (2) he reported the story in an overly hyped way, as if this the issue at hand was important to the public.

    GMA Network also violated KBP Code of Ethics (Article 7) which states the individual’s right to privacy. I think that reporting this kind of story is in itself is a personal attack to the person involved regardless of the way it was reported. For me, it’s not so much a case of fair and accurate reporting, but more of should this be reported at all, moreover on National TV? Not only is It embarrassing to the student/girl and the lady guard, viewers might think that they should engage themselves in a public discussion regarding these two people’s lives to which they have no real connection.

    I think reporters must concern themselves with disclosing information that might be helpful to the general public.

  6. Inigo Ramil Giorgetti
    2009-15725

    Article link: http://www.rappler.com/nation/45314-ateneo-kidnapping-victim-parents-statement
    Parents of Ateneo student deny ‘kidnap me’ scheme

    The article gives an excellent view of the story, with fair treatment given to both sides despite overwhelming evidence leaning towards the victim’s testimony. Mixed reports from both the police and the (at the time) unnamed victim resulted in a conflicting perspective of the events that transpired, and even though the victim, Ateneo de Manila University, and several eye witnesses at multiple points during the ordeal all reported congruent stories, the police have released their own statement contrary to the victim’s testimony. Different people involved in the situation all reported slightly different facts, such as the amounts requested by the criminals as well as discrepancies in times and specific locations, but generally only the police have come to the conclusion that it was all an elaborate set-up put together by the victim and her friends.

    The article also clearly exhibits the victim’s family’s dismay at both the lack of security at the university, which may have led to the kidnapping, as well as the unfavourable police response during and after the ordeal. Thankfully, no one was physically harmed during the kidnapping, although the victim and her family are going through much as they not only had to go through the aforementioned kidnapping situation, but are now being told by the government authorities that nothing really transpired that evening, despite numerous validated reports from many identified sources, some being quoted in the article as ‘police witnesses’ as well. The piece does not discriminate however, and all sides are explored and given fair treatment. There are several sides that agree however, which leads to the police statement being slightly underwhelming, yet not much can be said as they are the only side to have a completely different take on the situation.

  7. Patricia Ann S. Concepcion
    2010-35451

    Article Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/543525/power-hike-shocks-users
    Power Hike Shocks Users

    Concise – the first word which aptly describes this article. It was well-written simply because it included all the important facts concerning the Php 4.15 per kilowatt-hour rate increase without giving too much emphasis on any perspectives. As expected in conflicts, the story usually has at least 2 different POVs – in this article, there were three. The main standpoints in this article were those affected by the power hike (consumers), those who implemented the rate increase (Manila Electric Co. or Meralco) and those against it (National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc.).

    Aside from giving an equal amount of coverage for each perspective, I believe that the article was well written because it established the details on the implementation of the power hike meticulously while doing away with the excesses and facts which the average juan may not understand. It explained the terminologies clearly and discussed the consequences of the power hike.

    The manner in which the article was written isn’t all that common. Facts are usually overemphasized and perspectives are biased. This is probably why the article piqued my interest as soon as I read it – it’s professional and straight to the point.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.