M230 The 3rd Bonus (final presidential debate) can be posted here #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

M230: As discussed in class thrice: The 3rd Bonus is on the final presidential debate as media content: Pls post your comments on the news organization’s pre-debate show, the debate itself, and the post-debate show, if any, using the provisions taken up in class such as: the KBP Broadcast Code, the PPI Code and Expanded Code, the 2014 SPJ, etc. General comments will not merit any points — pls specify the segment or quote or behavior or commission/ omission, or images/ words; and specify the pertinent provision. Deadline: May 2, 2016 at 5pm.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “M230 The 3rd Bonus (final presidential debate) can be posted here #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

  1. During the last Presidential Debate, held last April 26, 2016. Karen Davila was accused by the netizens that she is being biased during the fast talk portion. She attacked more personal questions to Duterte than the other candidates. One of Karen Davila’s personal questions to Duterte is if he has as son who is an addict. Karen Davila asked this to him while she didn’t ask this kind of personal question to others. Another one is when she misquoted Duterte plan of action against heavy traffic. Karen Davila said “Susunugin ang mga sasakyan” which Duterte didn’t even mention that it as his plan of action. In that, aspect the citizen dubbed him as “biased host”. Karen Davila defended her stand on the accusations and said that she attacked Duterte in that way because he is the leading presidential candidate and can answer tough questions. However, mentioning this, it can attributed that she is not following the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics since it lets her personal motives affects the performance of her duties as journalist. Though, she is doing her job, she done it with a motive towards the leading presidential candidate. Karen Davila should ask the candidates with equal level of questions on each candidates and not attacking the candidate who is more likely to win with the toughest questions.

    source: http://www.pep.ph/electionwatch2016/news/180/karen-davila-accused-of-being-biased-posts-selfie-with-duterte

  2. During the last Presidential Debate, held last April 24, 2016. Karen Davila was accused by the netizens that she is being biased during the fast talk portion. She attacked more personal questions to Duterte than the other candidates. One of Karen Davila’s personal questions to Duterte is if he has as son who is an addict. Karen Davila asked this to him while she didn’t ask this kind of personal question to others. Another one is when she misquoted Duterte plan of action against heavy traffic. Karen Davila said “Susunugin ang mga sasakyan” which Duterte didn’t even mention that it as his plan of action. In that, aspect the citizen dubbed him as “biased host”. Karen Davila defended her stand on the accusations and said that she attacked Duterte in that way because he is the leading presidential candidate and can answer tough questions. However, mentioning this, it can attributed that she is not following the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics since it lets her personal motives affects the performance of her duties as journalist. Though, she is doing her job, she done it with a motive towards the leading presidential candidate. Karen Davila should ask the candidates with equal level of questions on each candidates and not attacking the candidate who is more likely to win with the toughest questions.

    source: http://www.pep.ph/electionwatch2016/news/180/karen-davila-accused-of-being-biased-posts-selfie-with-duterte

    (This is the right one, got correction on the date and I can’t edit my previous post. Thanks 🙂 )

  3. Heated exchanges about the latest presidential debates intensified once again after ABS- CBN hosted the last 2016 Presidential Debate last April 24, 2016. The internet exploded with opinions and insights from experts, advocates, and even ordinary people in the Philippines and even abroad. Their point: there was improvement from the past two debates but still, the execution and mechanics were still not enough to provide details of the candidates’ platforms. Most of all, Karen Davila’s hosting became the talk of the town.

    Others say that she violated the PPI Code of Ethics where, “All efforts must be exerted to make stories fair, accurate and balanced, getting the other side is a must.” In my opinion, however, Davila practiced SPJ Code of Ethics’ “Seek the truth and Report It”, knowing full well that she did what she had to do as the conduit of information, discussion, and discourse of the debate; taking into consideration the liability from the network.

    I think most of you will agree with me if I say that 30 seconds to talk about your side and rebut your opponent’s statement will never be enough for a candidate to adequately illustrate and present his platform; it is not enough to convince them with this set-up. How much more for a host who deliberately overseers the presidential heated exchange? Her time is not also enough given the pressure from a nationwide audience at that.

    Many issues like the leakage of questions in favor of Mar Roxas emerged because of the supposedly “advanced” portrayal of his answers. But if one closely monitored the debate, which was aired live so to speak, Roxas stated the dialogue beforehand. It has nothing to do with the network, nor the host/s. I didn’t see anything unusual nor heard any derogatory remarks that could constitute as a violation of KBP, PPI and SPJ code of ethics. It is also hard to say that everything was edited because again, the debate was a live TV broadcast. ABS-CBN clearly abide with Article 17 of KBP code of ethics.

  4. The last presidential debate that was covered by ABS-CBN caught my attention. The hosts’ appearances were simple that I appreciated because it does not divert the attention of the audience from the debate unlike the first two hosts in the Vice Presidentiable debate. At first the simplicity of how Karen Davila dressed up with minimal make-up and hairdo,as well as the attire of her co-host Tony, could make one say it is a non-compliance to Section 1 of Article 28 of the KBP Broadcast Code of Ethics. But knowing the two hosts were trying to make a statement representing the common tao or masa,it being a town-hall debate, for me is not so much of an issue but a brave decision of the hosts and of the network themselves. The hosts simply wore polo shirt with maong, and plain tops that did not represent a candidate. Although VP Binay made a side comment to Karen Davila, “ napansin ko naka blue ka nga ngayon” ( which is the campaign color of Binay) , it was noticeable that the facial expression of Karen Davila changed which is in non-compliance again to Article 28,On-Air Decorum Sections 1 and 2. Somehow, it showed some fair and straightforward impression to viewers during the first leg of the debate.
    They were able to decently manage the time of the debate as well, unlike the previous debates that had lots of running time and time slot adjustments subjected to poor time manipulation. The abidance to the schedule secured the assurance of the viewers and audience of a smooth flow of the program. The debate was less dramatic and emotional on the part of the Presidentiables and the hosts unlike the last two ones brought by frustrations because of mismanagement and dirty political bashings.
    One of the positive highlights of the debate was the producer’s decision of bringing common citizens facing common problems of the Filipinos which they personally were given a chance to air their grievances and questions directly to the possible Presidential winner on May 9. This is in compliance to Article 19 of the BCP which is National Development and Article 10 Personal Calls or Messages and Article 9 Public Complaints and Grievances specifically Section 3 of the said article. They may not be able to ask intellectual questions from professionals but they were able to ask the questions , majority of the poor population wanted to ask the future President.
    As for the negative remarks, it seems that the station were rooting for Mar Roxas impliedly. It was said earlier that it is a positive remark that they brought civilians with concerns with them, however it became an advantage for Mar Roxas since his answers seem to be very specific as well. Specific in the sense of giving examples, he was able to point at people who benefited from the administration but was meant or not to ignore what his party had done to the country as a whole.
    During the fast talk where candidates were bombarded by numerous questions within the span of one or two minutes, all other candidates aside from Mar Roxas has received similar set of questions however, during the turn of Mar Roxas they asked different questions to him, so different from the questions asked to the other candidates and noticeably, Mar Roxas answered enthusiastically and straightforwardly as if he predicted the questions already before it was asked to him. Needless to say, the hosts did not cut in between Roxas answers unlike the other Presidentiable which is a non-compliance to Article 8 Political Propaganda,Sections 1 and 6 of the Broadcast Code of the Philippines.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s