The 2nd Media Monitor (or 1st/ 2nd Bonus) can be posted here #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

      The 2nd Media Monitor or the 1st/ 2nd Bonus can be posted here, with deadline extended to Wednesday 12 noon Feb. 10 in view of the holiday.

     To give students a heads-up, the 3rd Bonus is  on: Reporting on Surveys — this topic will be discussed on Feb. 10 as part of the expanded PPI Code of Ethics and of related studies and articles 

    Bonuses are worth twice the number of points assigned to a regular media monitor  (as long as the discussion is in point 🙂  )

    As stated, only one monitor per week, whether  regular or bonus, is allowed. Enjoy the lunar New Year’s Day!

     Kiong Hee Huat Tsai! (“Wishing you prosperity!”)


27 thoughts on “The 2nd Media Monitor (or 1st/ 2nd Bonus) can be posted here #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

  1. 1st Bonus Post

    The news story highlights how a Taiwanese couple “may have” been warned of an impending earthquake disaster that will devastate their apartment building after getting rejected from a housing loan they applied for prior to moving in. Although the news article explained what actually caused the building to collapse (poor construction and permit problems), it was somehow downplayed since the bulk of the scientific explanation was written at the end. Instead of blaming the couple for not checking the building’s safety measures prior to moving in, the news article made it seem that it was the couple’s fault for not considering the loan rejection as an “early warning” for the disaster. This type of news suggests a superstitious belief that may affect readers who are especially prone to believing such. Ultimately, it promotes superstitious beliefs over scientific reasoning, which is not necessarily a good thing especially when checking safety measures prior to moving in to houses/ apartments/ buildings.

  2. 1st Bonus Media Monitor
    Comm 110

    Japanese low cost carrier adds two more routes from Manila to Tokyo and Nagoya (from

    This article in the lifestyle section of Philippine Daily Inquirer features JetStar Japan and their recent addition of two more Manila to Japan routes. The announcement was made in a Travel Tour Expo in Pasay. I agree that the public must know this information, given that we have a lot of OFWs working in Japan and travelling is now becoming a popular leisure. In fact, the interview even cited statistics and the upward trend of tourist travels in Japan in the past two years. However, the inclusion of other details such as the “Seat Sale” promo, in light of the opening of the two said routes, made it look like an advertisement for JetStar. The interview with an officer from the company also gave them a chance to promote more as it mentioned its safety priority, subtly pointing out that they are the better choice over other carriers. I also find it dubious that the company’s website was mentioned at the end of the article because that made it appear more like a promotional flyer than a news article. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics 2014, under the provision “Act independently”, “Journalists should distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” If PDI faithfully abides by this code, they should have focused on the real news which is the addition of routes and not on the company and its promo, or if they were commissioned to promote for JetStar, they should have cited it in the article. However, since they failed to do neither, they should be called out for publishing an article that appeared to be an advertorial disguised as a news article.

  3. 2nd Regular Media Monitor
    Comm 110

    SSS chief: No pension hike under Aquino

    The president has been under a lot of fire from people ever since his veto of House Bill 5842, which was supposed to give an increase of 2,000 Pesos per month to the SSS Pension. After reading some articles and seeing it on the news, I noticed that a lot of articles and the media started covering this after the president’s veto. However, after reading articles on HB 5842, I felt like that the media failed to do its job on reporting on the bill even before it’s passing. There was hardly any discussion on it. And the bill was passed in June and November 2015 respectively.

    According to the Journalists Code of Ethics, it says that we must “Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government”. I don’t think the media did their bit in order for the public to specifically understand the whole process and what the discussions were regarding the bill. According to President Aquino’s veto message, he said that the increase would result in “substantial negative income for the Social Security System”. This was already being talked about though even before the veto, but the public knew nothing about it. Instead, the media decided to focus on what happened after the veto, and this mainly had a lot of negative responses. The media focused on the all these negative responses instead of trying to make the public understand why there was a veto. Secondly, since the elections are around the corner, the media decided to use the veto as an opportunity to ask questions regarding the public’s votes, specifically on Mar Roxas.

    The media didn’t seem to be interested on the bill, hence why probably a lot of people received the veto so negatively. Everyone thought that the bill was going to be passed and in the end it wasn’t. If the media covered the discussions effectively, then maybe there would have been a threat for the veto. Or even for the public to know that there was a possibility that the bill wasn’t going to be passed.

  4. Comm 110 Second Media Monitor (can also be found here:

    “Grace begins another life chapter at Quiapo Church” (source:

    The article basically talks about how Grace Poe officially started her presidential campaign after hearing mass at Quiapo Church. The title itself is very misleading, as the whole article turns into facts and coverage about Grace Poe’s run for president. This is as compared to other articles involving the other presidential candidates where article previews get straight to the point. The Quiapo Church section is only mentioned a little at the start of the article before it goes on to talk about the start of her campaign, and then facts about her run, the article even includes news about Noynoy Aquino in relation to Grace Poe, but not at all related to what happened in Quiapo Churc.

    This can go against the “Seek Truth and Report It” section of the Code of Ethics where it says that we shouldn’t be misrepresenting or oversimplifying news in promoting the story. This article’s promotion/preview seems more like what you’d see out of a feature about human life than a promotional rally and can be very misleading to readers.

  5. 2nd Media Monitor
    Comm 110

    The French Baker opens a new branch

    The article is about the restaurant, “The French Baker”, opening a new branch in Nueva Ecija. It talked about The French Baker as a restaurant, what food can be bought there, the price of the food there, and who went to the ribbon cutting. It’s basically an advertisement for The French Baker. But what bothered me about it was it was in the “Latest News” section in the provincial tag. When I clicked “News” then clicked “Provincial”, this was the first article on the list, which I think is a violation of the SPJ Code of Ethics 2014 where it states that “Journalists should label advocacy and commentary.” This article was an advertorial, and though it didn’t mask itself otherwise, I think it shouldn’t have been in the “Latest News” section of the provincial tag.

  6. 1st Bonus Media Monitor
    Comm 110

    Bodies of Filipinos killed in Iraq fire identified

    In this article, the Philippine embassy in Baghdad, Iraq identified bodies of 13 Filipinos who were killed in a fire accident. This news was verified by chargé d’affaires Elmer Cato. He said, “the Philippine embassy has identified all 13 of our kababayans (countrymen) who perished in the Capitol Hotel fire in Iraqi Kurdistan on Friday.” In this light, Rappler did not disclose the names of the 13 victims. It says that the fatalities’ names will not be released until the families are informed about it. This complied with the provision in the SPJ Code which states “…show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent.” Moreover, they highly considered that private people like the victims’ families have greater right to control information about themselves as compared to public figures. Rappler was careful to publish private information without the consent of the people involved. Again, this action is in compliance with the SPJ Code’s provisions about minimizing harm.


    This article featured a netizen who posted “hugot lines” out of a fast-food commercial which became viral. McDonalds, which was openly mentioned in the article, released an advertisement for their ice cream catered to singles and couples alike, though with a slight difference on the serving.

    According to SPJ Code of Ethics, “distinguish news from advertising
    and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two”

    As a reader, I view the article cited as somehow a promotional stint for the fast-food chain. After the release of the commercial, exposing this kind of news can also add to the hype of the people to try out the product, resulting to higher sales of the said company. Somehow, even it was listed as a news article, it can be treated as an advertisement, so that the people will know and try the product that was openly mentioned. Moreover, hyped by the season, this article can also bring up discussions, which could lead to addition of customers of the said company.

  8. Thank you for posting. This media monitor post (2nd) is closed. Any posts submitted after this line will be considered for the next media monitor (the 3rd) and will no longer be admitted for this week’s media monitor. Thanks everyone!


    The news about the person who committed suicide last Sunday went viral on Facebook and other social networking sites. This was also picked up by some online news websites. However, their posts (like the one cited) somehow violated the provision of the SPJ Code of Ethics, such as, “Show compassion for those who may be affected by the news coverage”.

    The news mentioned the name of the person and even speculated the person’s gender and reason of the suicide. Suicide is really a serious and sensitive topic and somehow this news is sensationalized. As a journalist, one should be able to inform the people without adding extra details just to get the attention of the readers.

comments are welcome anytime EXCEPT those with more than 12 links or 12 URLs pasted. Tnx)

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

You are commenting using your 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.