UPDATE: The class is multimedia: You may include evaluation of reports, commentaries, posts, tweets, memes, in all kinds of media, on the President’s speech in Malacañang last night and the ensuing Q & A (i,e., all kinds of reports, commentaries, posts, tweets, memes , in all kinds of media including the social media on the President’s speech and the media conference). Two or more paragraphs — you can write in your own site/ platform/account and paste the link here, or write in the comments section here, or email your post to me either as a link or as embedded paragraphs: Pls do not use “postbox” in your email or any app that cannot be opened by anyone except yourself. The deadline is extended to 1pm today Jan. 29.
For ethics students C110: This is a continuation of this afternoon’s discussion. You may post the second bonus media monitor here for ten points as discussed a few minutes ago inside the classroom, with the discussion extended here. Pls examine how the Malacañang press corps followed thru the presidenital announcement with their questions, or how media organizations storified the presidential media conference with their news reports, i.e., news reports of the presidential announcement and the media conference. [you don’t have to evaluate the news subject (PNoy) — you can if you want to — but we will be looking at your evaluation of the news report or the news reporter.],
You may also email your evaluation instead of posting here. You can state whether the report/ reporting is a form of good practice (specify why), or a violation of media ethics (specify the pertinent provision), or involves an ethical dilemma (specify the principle of ethics involved) (fair, foolish, or in an ethical fix). Mere rants without substance will not be given any points.
You may use a pseudonym or your student number or your name. Deadline is up to the end of the morning news tomorrow at 10am. Those who cannot post for the bonus points may post a regular media monitor on any story in the media (any media: online, TV or radio, social media, newspapers, etc. ) for five points, with the same deadline at 10am tomorrow.
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comm 110 W 4-7
2013-11425
Copy of the President’s speech about Mamasapano clash: youtube.com
Copy of article to be analyzed:gmanetwork compnoy-admits-knowing-about-mamasapano-operation
Copy of tweets from general audience:
gmanetwork com netizens-react-to-president-aquino-s-speech-on-the-mamasapanoclash
One of provisions the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is to “seek the truth and report it,” The video which is linked above followed it particularly its statement; “Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government”. We can see that the media did what they have to do in televising the full coverage of the President’s speech. The issue about the Mamasapano clash concerns the general public so it is the imperative of the media people to deliver what the president would have to say about the issue.
Regarding the article linked above, it somehow followed the provision from the SPJ Code of Ethics to “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing”. This can be seen when the article provided a statement from the MILF CHIEF negotiator Mohagher Iqbal. Although the news is biased to the government because only a portion of it is given in defense of the MILF. It has a lot of information about the government’s side.
The third link is about the tweets of the viewers. Here we can see that the provision “Support the open and civil exchange of views” is exercised. The media institution used the social networking site Twitter in order to generate the views and opinions of the public.
Overall, the coverage of the president’s speech about the Mamasapano incident, for me, followed some of the guidelines from the SPJ Code of Ethics although there were some things which should also be taken into consideration whether it was ethical or not particularly the balance of the news because this kind of news report is a conflict news story. It should not only air the side of the government but also those of the MILF and BFF. The media also should put the whole context of the issue.
LikeLike
I was able to listen to a commentary on Radyo Singko last night and the host kept saying that he disagreed with calling the Mamasapano Encounter. He said that it was not an encounter and the President should’ve called it a massacre instead. In my opinion, this is not in accordance with the SPJ code of ethics and this was also part of our discussion yesterday wherein we agreed that “massacre” is not the right word and that it is a loaded term.
LikeLike
Comm 110
The article on this link rappler.com/-netizens-aquino-who-gave-orders? posted by Rappler features some twitter responses to a discussion faciliated by Rappler’s twitter account that encourages civic engagement (@MovePH). It zeroes in on how Aquino was not able to give a categorical response on who gave the orders for the operation. It was impartial in that it featured only responses from netizens, but it was cluttered because it focused on different points of the speech and other aspects about the “misencounter” (questions like ‘can the MILF be trusted?’, etc).
It would be better if the article only focused on what the netizens think about Aquino’s “hand-washing” and expounded on that, rather than including other Twitter responses to less related questions.
LikeLike
Comm 110
W 4-7
2013-22674
The article I took that covered the speech of the president was from InterAksyon.com, the online news portal of TV 5. The article was titled: “PNoy says he wasn’t told about SAF specific action; group says prexy ‘washed’ his hands of the mess.” In this report, not only did they write up about the president’s conference with the media last night but they took the sides of the parties involved in the Mamasapano issue. They provided context regarding the speech of PNoy, if it did answer the question of the people and what really happened in the Mamasapano. They did seek truth and reported it, which is what journalist should do in covering stories.
On the other hand, what I noticed in the article is that though all sides was given a voice the MILF wasn’t given deeper consideration. Only one sentence coming from their side was put in the article. You will also notice than in the sub topics discussed in the article which are: “PNoy knew covert mission?” and “Clueless or not telling the whole truth?.” In my opinion somehow this shows bias. they are not pro PNoy’s information given to them.
On the media conference itself, the second reporter to ask question was able to ask the questions that are necessary like “Why didn’t Mar Roxas and such didn’t know about the operation?”, then both officers were also there. I think another representation of seeking the truth and reporting it.
Here is the link to the article I used: interaksyon com/pnoy-says-saf-just-executed-warrant-vs-marwan-but-group-says-prexy-washed-his-hands-of-the-mess
LikeLike
Comm 110 W 4-7
2013-11425
Copy of the President’s speech about Mamasapano clash: youtube.com
Copy of article to be analyzed: gmanetwork com pnoy-admits-knowing-about-mamasapano-operation
Copy of tweets from general audience:
gmanetwork com netizens-react-to-president-aquino-s-speech-on-the-mamasapanoclash
One of provisions the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is to “seek the truth and report it,” The video which is linked above followed it particularly its statement; “Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government”. We can see that the media did what they have to do in televising the full coverage of the President’s speech. The issue about the Mamasapano clash concerns the general public so it is the imperative of the media people to deliver what the president would have to say about the issue.
Regarding the article linked above, it somehow followed the provision from the SPJ Code of Ethics to “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing”. This can be seen when the article provided a statement from the MILF CHIEF negotiator Mohagher Iqbal. Although the news is biased to the government because only a portion of it is given in defense of the MILF. It has a lot of information about the government’s side.
The third link is about the tweets of the viewers. Here we can see that the provision “Support the open and civil exchange of views” is exercised. The media institution used the social networking site Twitter in order to generate the views and opinions of the public.
Overall, the coverage of the president’s speech about the Mamasapano incident, for me, followed some of the guidelines from the SPJ Code of Ethics although there were some things which should also be taken into consideration whether it was ethical or not particularly the balance of the news because this kind of news report is a conflict news story. It should not only air the side of the government but also those of the MILF and BFF. The media also should put the whole context of the issue.
LikeLike
Comm 110 W 4-7
2013-11425
Copy of the President’s speech about Mamasapano clash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422411861&v=Ec5n0fP1YYg&x-yt-cl=84924572&feature=player_embedded
Copy of article to be analyzed: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/418971/news/nation/pnoy-admits-knowing-about-mamasapano-operation
Copy of tweets from general audience:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/419125/scitech/socialmedia/youscoop-netizens-react-to-president-aquino-s-speech-on-the-mamasapanoclash
One of provisions the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is to “seek the truth and report it,” The video which is linked above followed it particularly its statement; “Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government”. We can see that the media did what they have to do in televising the full coverage of the President’s speech. The issue about the Mamasapano clash concerns the general public so it is the imperative of the media people to deliver what the president would have to say about the issue.
Regarding the article linked above, it somehow followed the provision from the SPJ Code of Ethics to “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing”. This can be seen when the article provided a statement from the MILF CHIEF negotiator Mohagher Iqbal. Although the news is biased to the government because only a portion of it is given in defense of the MILF. It has a lot of information about the government’s side.
The third link is about the tweets of the viewers. Here we can see that the provision “Support the open and civil exchange of views” is exercised. The media institution used the social networking site Twitter in order to generate the views and opinions of the public.
Overall, the coverage of the president’s speech about the Mamasapano incident, for me, followed some of the guidelines from the SPJ Code of Ethics although there were some things which should also be taken into consideration whether it was ethical or not particularly the balance of the news because this kind of news report is a conflict news story. It should not only air the side of the government but also those of the MILF and BFF. The media also should put the whole context of the issue.
LikeLike
Nais kong punahin ang huling bahagi ng episode ng TV Patrol kahapon, Enero 28, 2015. Sa huling bahagi noon, gaya ng parati nating napapanuod, ay nagkaroon ng maikling pagpapalitan ng kuru-kuro ang mga mamamahayag. Aking napansin na nabigo silang sundin ang SPJ Code of Ethics 2014 na nagsasabing “Label advocacy and commentary,” sapagkat sa pagkakataon nanamang iyon ay naglabas sila ng kanilang sariling opinyon na hindi na parte ng balita. Nagbigay sila ng kuru-kuro na walang paglilinaw na ang mga sasabihin nila ay opinyon na nila at hiwalay na sa balita.
Pangalawa, napanuod ko rin ang report ni George Carino ukol sa balitang napatay si Marwan. Masasabi ko na nasunod ni George Carino ang SPJ Code of Ethics 2014 sapagkat nilinaw niya na walang siyang sapat na impormasyon o ebidensya na nakalap upang ibalita na napatay nga si Marwan. Hindi agad siya naniwala sa mga sinabi ng mga tao roon na isang magandang ugali ng pagbabalita.
LikeLike
News report by Lei Alviz (Saksi): http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/249529/saksi/pnoy-tila-iwas-pusoy-kung-may-basbas-ba-niya-ang-pnp-saf-operation-sa-mamasapano
In my opinion, the news report was good and followed the provisions in the SPJ Code of Ethics. In the first part of the report, Lei Alviz accurately summarized the statement of the president. It also featured properly cited and labeled news information from another media organization (Manila Standard Today). The report also featured comments from other relevant sources such as the founding member of the PNP-SAF. Aside from the news about the conflict, the report included comments from the families of the deceased SAF officers. Background about the long-standing conflict between the government and the opposing parties was also provided (mention of Erap and FVR’s actions when they were in office).
LikeLike
In ABS-CBN’s reportage of the President’s address,Ted Failon was responsible in clarifying the information on the government’s hand on the encounter, which was not previously given by the government agencies before the President’s official statement to the press, and this is adherent to SPJ’s Code of Ethics, which is to “gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.”(SPJ, 2014) It was also a prudent move to ask about the possible implications of the findings of the Special Investigating Panel from the MILF and the findings of the Board of Inquiry from the PNP, which may inevitably contrast following the ‘who started it first’ analogy.
However, with the national clamor that it has generated, the Mamasapano encounter still lacks the proper context that should be provided by an ethical and responsible news source. This is a violation of a clause in the SPJ Code of Ethics, which advises media practitioners to ‘provide context’ and ‘take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.'(SPJ, 2014) Up to now, even after the President’s official address, the precedent causes and events leading to the Mamasapano encounter has not been aired to provide context to the concerned public audience who deserve to know this kind of information, and also to get a clue as to why the President is still pushing for the Bangsamoro Basic Law(BBL).
Also, it is very important that the names mentioned by the President, which include the SAF Director, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa who is the chief of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Council, DILG Secretary Roxas, and (now suspended)PNP Chief Dir.Gen. Alan Purisima, should have been interviewed by Willard Cheng, since they are important government officials who in one way or the other are linked to the incident, and the SPJ Code of ethics was clear about being “vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.”(SPJ, 2014)
Reporters should keep in mind for whom are they reporting the news.
The news report can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofngILzImkc
Reference: Society of Professional Journalists. 2014. “SPJ Code of Ethics”. Accessed at: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp January 28, 2015.
LikeLike
I was able to watch TV Patrol’s coverage of PNoy’s speech last night regarding the encounter in Mamasapano. In my opinion, TV Patrol adhered to SPJ code of ethics. They were able to cover the speech in an accurate manner. Surprisingly, Noli de Castro did not comment on Aquino’s speech, (at least not right after). However, they were not able to cover the “question and answer” that followed the speech, maybe because covering this would alter the programming the station. He just reiterated the points made by Aquino in his speech.
But, some articles I found in the internet somehow violate the SPJ Code of Ethics. INTERAKSYON’s article’s headline was “’HUGAS-KAMAY’ – netizens react to PNoy address on Mamasapano ‘misencounter’”. In my opinion, it was kind of misleading and only sides to the opinion of the people. Another article by Sun Star Bacolod was “Aquino’s speech shows ‘sincerity’”. This is also misleading and obviously biased to Aquino.
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/bacolod/local-news/2014/07/29/aquino-s-speech-shows-sincerity-356572
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/103966/hugas-kamay–netizens-react-to-pnoy-address-on-mamasapano-misencounter
LikeLike
Laman ng mga balita kagabi at kaninang umaga ang talumpati ni Pangulong Noynoy Aquino tungkol sa naganap na Mamasapano encounter kung saan higit 40 katao ang nasawi. Kaninang umaga sa isang programa sa DZMM na Kabayan kung saan si Noli de Castro ang anchor, Patuloy niyang ginagamit ang salitang massacre imbes na Mamasapano encounter. Mali ang terminong ito sapagkat ang dalawang grupo naman ay parehong may mga armas. Maaari nitong ma-mislead ang mga tagapakinig na labag sa SPJ Code of ethics. Dahil dito, patuloy na namamasama ang grupo ng MILF at BIFF sa mata ng publiko kahit wala pang ebidensya kung sino talaga ang may sala.
Sa isang banda naman, tinuligsa ni de Castro si Pnoy lalong-lalo na sa kanyang pagmamadali para sa Bangsamoro Basic Law. Nagbigay pa siya ng komento na nararapat daw bago ang pagtutok sa basic law ay maresolba muna ang kaso ng engkwentro. Makikita rito na talagang may kinikilingan siya.
LikeLike
Laman ng mga balita kagabi at kaninang umaga ang talumpati ni Pangulong Noynoy Aquino tungkol sa naganap na Mamasapano encounter kung saan higit 40 katao ang nasawi. Kaninang umaga sa isang programa sa DZMM na Kabayan kung saan si Noli de Castro ang anchor, Patuloy niyang ginagamit ang salitang massacre imbes na Mamasapano encounter. Mali ang terminong ito sapagkat ang dalawang grupo naman ay parehong may mga armas. Maaari nitong ma-mislead ang mga tagapakinig na labag sa SPJ Code of ethics. Dahil dito, patuloy na namamasama ang grupo ng MILF at BIFF sa mata ng publiko kahit wala pang ebidensya kung sino talaga ang may sala.
Sa isang banda naman, tinuligsa ni de Castro si Pnoy lalong-lalo na sa kanyang pagmamadali para sa Bangsamoro Basic Law. Nagbigay pa siya ng komento na nararapat daw bago ang pagtutok sa basic law ay maresolba muna ang kaso ng engkwentro. Makikita rito na talagang may kinikilingan siya.
LikeLike
http://robbyreyes17.tumblr.com/post/109459872237/netizens-on-fire-re-pnoy-speech-washing-of-hands
LikeLike
Among the news reports I’ve read regarding the speech of President Aquino, I believe that Natasha Gutierez’ entry on Rappler entitled “Aquino: I talked to SAF chief before Maguindanao ops” tackled the most important points regarding the issue as compared to others (written reports from ABS-CBN and Interaksyon). This is because the article carefully examined the important parts of PNoy’s speech and not just narrated what he said. Gutierez also included the implications of his statements to the current situation and to future plans of the government such as the Bangsamoro Basic Law peace treaties. This is clearly important because not all people have a context of the situation. Thus, with the given background and critical analysis, the readers are informed of and given the chance to formulate their own opinions regarding the matter. Another notable element of the article is the subtopic “What now?” where the author discusses the reaction of other high-ranking and influential officials on the event and even includes a specific date of when they will start evaluating the event, which also gives an update to the readers.
Regarding the media personalities that had a chance to ask questions right after the president’s speech, I believe that they did well because they were able to clarify PNoy’s statements which were sort of playing-safe. Although some questions were answered vaguely, the mere effort of asking somehow lead to a conclusion that there are still some details that are vague and questionable, which in turn, the media may still use to critique and follow up on the story.
LikeLike
News coverage regarding President Noynoy Aquino’s speech on the Mamasapano Clash varied in terms of media framing and angle. Every agency chose a particular segment in Noynoy’s speech to focus on, although a noticeable trend is the acknowledgement of Noynoy’s incapability to answer who really is responsible for giving the greenlight for the operation. Although the speech of Noynoy was quite lenghty, news agencies were able to summarize the important parts.
GMA News (????) emphasized on the problematic statements of President Noynoy, such as not being able to directly answer who gave the “go” signal for the attack; his defense about being unaware that the SAF was about to go through with the operation, considering the SAF had been given the warrant of arrest beforehand and thus had the right to attack at any given moment; and his cluelessness as to why Roxas and Espina had been unaware of the operation. GMA also gave a different angle, as they had been able to come up with was providing the audience with the other side of the story—MILF Iqbal’s reason regarding why they attacked the SAF; a means of defense in their own part. GMA hadn’t given a general background overview on the operation regardin the clash, however.
ANC News was more comprehensive in their reporting. They were able to provide context—a summary on the events that transpired during “Oplan Wolverine,” while paralleling them to particular parts of the speech stated by Noynoy. Their news coverage focused on the cluelessness of the President regarding answers he has yet to find out, after consultation with Board of Inquiry in the future; and the lack of coordination, that resulted in the killings. They were also able to provide information regarding MILF’s side—using an interview of Iqbal with DZMM as a source. Iqbal’s view was that coordination with the police and Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH) and the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group (AHJAG) should have been set before the operation. ANC also provided information in the Q&A that transpired after the speech, giving emphasis when the President said that the MILF doesn’t have a fault in any of this; stating that the camaraderie with them is even necessary to help clear things.
Philippine Star was able to provide a general overview about the operation that had transpired; and their angle focused on Aquino’s being incapable of answering who was responsible behind giving the “go” signal. Something I noticed only in their article was their choice in focusing on the relationship between Aquino and suspended PNP chief Director Alan Purisma—someone whom the president had been in communication with regarding the operation, because he had been knowledegable about the plans being made.
GMA and Interaskyon also devoted articles on the reactions of netizens regarding the speech. GMA had even set up a discussion and hashtag on Twitter for the general public to voice out their thoughts. They compiled the reactions into an article. The netizens had two views on the situation: either they were badmouthing the president for “washing his hands” and trying to act like a goody-two-shoes for lingering on and on (paliguy-ligoy) without actually directly answering the questions thrown at him; or they were empathetic about the families and the SAF that had been affected, saying that now is a time for mourning and that we should all pray for the affected.
Generally, the news agencies had been able to write a “neutral” story– neutral, in a sense that were able to voice out the problematics stated in the speech without coming off as “rant-y” or showing any emotional bias to the news. They merely laid out facts and acknowledged the problematics in the speech. All the emotional biases and reactions were provided by the netizens.
LINKS:
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/01/29/1417941/who-gave-green-light-noy-cant-say
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/418971/news/nation/pnoy-admits-knowing-about-mamasapano-operation
https://anc.yahoo.com/news/pnoy-weighs-in-on-mamasapano-101037665.html
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/419125/scitech/socialmedia/youscoop-netizens-react-to-president-aquino-s-speech-on-the-mamasapanoclash
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/103966/hugas-kamay–netizens-react-to-pnoy-address-on-mamasapano-misencounter
LikeLike
-Comm 110-
I was able to catch the initial coverage of the press conference on PNoy’s statement regarding the Mamasapano clash. What struck me during the speech was the part where the president mentioned that he did not have to give the go signal in all operations done by police forces. The same part of the speech was also mentioned in one of the commentaries last night over the radio, in Suhestyon, Reaksyon, Opinyon. Apparently, the claim was that there was already a warrant present a year before, which is why authorities did not need the president’s permission.
I still found the speech quite questionable because it only had the President’s reactions and promise of investigating the case. I only remembered him declaring a national day of mourning. Unfortunately, I was only able to catch most of the main coverage, which was only reflective of what the President said over the press conference.
LikeLike
News coverage regarding President Noynoy Aquino’s speech on the Mamasapano Clash varied in terms of media framing and angle. Every agency chose a particular segment in Noynoy’s speech to focus on, although a noticeable trend is the acknowledgement of Noynoy’s incapability to answer who really is responsible for giving the greenlight for the operation. Although the speech of Noynoy was quite lenghty, news agencies were able to summarize the important parts.
GMA News emphasized on the problematic statements of President Noynoy, such as not being able to directly answer who gave the “go” signal for the attack; his defense about being unaware that the SAF was about to go through with the operation, considering the SAF had been given the warrant of arrest beforehand and thus had the right to attack at any given moment; and his cluelessness as to why Roxas and Espina had been unaware of the operation. GMA also gave a different angle, as they had been able to come up with was providing the audience with the other side of the story—MILF Iqbal’s reason regarding why they attacked the SAF; a means of defense in their own part. GMA hadn’t given a general background overview on the operation regardin the clash, however.
ANC News was more comprehensive in their reporting. They were able to provide context—a summary on the events that transpired during “Oplan Wolverine,” while paralleling them to particular parts of the speech stated by Noynoy. Their news coverage focused on the cluelessness of the President regarding answers he has yet to find out, after consultation with Board of Inquiry in the future; and the lack of coordination, that resulted in the killings. They were also able to provide information regarding MILF’s side—using an interview of Iqbal with DZMM as a source. Iqbal’s view was that coordination with the police and Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH) and the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group (AHJAG) should have been set before the operation. ANC also provided information in the Q&A that transpired after the speech, giving emphasis when the President said that the MILF doesn’t have a fault in any of this; stating that the camaraderie with them is even necessary to help clear things.
Philippine Star was able to provide a general overview about the operation that had transpired; and their angle focused on Aquino’s being incapable of answering who was responsible behind giving the “go” signal. Something I noticed only in their article was their choice in focusing on the relationship between Aquino and suspended PNP chief Director Alan Purisma—someone whom the president had been in communication with regarding the operation, because he had been knowledegable about the plans being made.
GMA and Interaskyon also devoted articles on the reactions of netizens regarding the speech. GMA had even set up a discussion and hashtag on Twitter for the general public to voice out their thoughts. They compiled the reactions into an article. The netizens had two views on the situation: either they were badmouthing the president for “washing his hands” and trying to act like a goody-two-shoes for lingering on and on (paliguy-ligoy) without actually directly answering the questions thrown at him; or they were empathetic about the families and the SAF that had been affected, saying that now is a time for mourning and that we should all pray for the affected.
Generally, the news agencies had been able to write a “neutral” story– neutral, in a sense that were able to voice out the problematics stated in the speech without coming off as “rant-y” or showing any emotional bias to the news. They merely laid out facts and acknowledged the problematics in the speech. All the emotional biases and reactions were provided by the netizens.
LikeLike
Rose Ann Solo
Comm 110
2013-29069
This is the URL I used for the media monitor:
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/82250-netizens-aquino-who-gave-orders
Rappler made its way to voice out what the mass had said and choose not to dwell on being pro-Aquino. In this sense, they reflect what the majority talks about. They focused on the negative side of PNoy’s speech instead of other things. This was emphasized through the negative tweets that was shown with the article.
The article talks about how Aquino did not clarify or even explain anything, framing that PNoy’s speech was nothing, meaningless. It also features how PNoy had actually talked, had his speech, but never really discuss anything at all.
But the ending of the article was turned away from Aquino’s speech to the feelings of the people about the war.
(PS, Mam I’m sorry for the late response but I swear I made this on the evening of 28 and then I sent it but I never had the chance to recheck it again because I was just renting in the computer shop and when I finally got the chance to recheck it again today, mine wasn’t here. So I send it again today. I’m really sorry mam.)
LikeLike