#universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman The 11th & final media monitor (or any bonus not yet submitted) can be posted here

The 11th & final media monitor (or any bonus not yet submitted)  can be posted here with deadline on May 4, 2016 at 12 noon. 

CODE

Posts will no longer be admitted after the deadline in order to give members of the class time to review for the exams.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “#universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman The 11th & final media monitor (or any bonus not yet submitted) can be posted here

  1. MEDIA 230

    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 Presidentiables which is a non-compliance to Article 8 Political Propaganda,Sections 1 and 6 of the Broadcast Code of the Philippines.

  2. 11th Regular Media Monitor

    Facebook removes Ellen Tordesillas’ post on Duterte’s Bank Account
    Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154143820074282&set=a.60799864281.89327.685659281&type=3&theater

    A day after Ellen Tordesillas’ post about the confirmation of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte BPI account being real, Tordesillas’ receives a message from Facebook saying that they removed the post “because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards”. Though it did not specifically say which of the standards it violated, it maybe because it was an attack on a public figure, that being Rodrigo Duterte. I think this is a violation since the Facebook Community Standards clearly shows that a post can be taken down, regarding a public figure, only if there are: 1) Credible threats to to public figures, and 2) Hate speech directed at them.

    With the post, we can see that Tordesillas did not do any of those things, when in fact she was just exposing the truth, which the public are entitled to know. By this, we can clearly see that there is a violation, and Tordesillas notes that “Is this a preview of what media would be if Duterte becomes president?”

    Shortly after Tordesillas received the message, she posted a greater in depth analysis of the bank account of Rodrigo Duterte on her site, and posted the link on her facebook wall. Shortly after that, she also posted her findings on VERA files. She mentions, “But you cannot forever suppress the truth. I will repost and repost this article.”

  3. Comm 110
    4th BONUS MEDIA MONITOR – ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE COVERAGE
    2012-27434

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/130667-tv-political-ads-third-presidential-debate-abs-cbn

    This article from Rappler noted the number of commercials, including political ads in the duration of ABS-CBN’s coverage of the final presidential debate. Part of the commercials that were noted are campaigns of the presidential candidates, namely Grace Poe and Mar Roxas, as well as vice-presidential candidates like Leni Robredo, Francis Escudero and Antonio Trillianes. Part of the commercials as well are promotions for the said station’s shows.

    This is a violation of what KBP Code of Ethics is saying on Political Propaganda, specifically stating, “No program or sponsor shall be allowed to manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or political party.” Allowing the political ads of some of the presidential candidates during their debate can be favorable to them. The televised debate can garner higher number of audience, and they can see these ads. This can be somehow considered as a campaign of the said candidates. Moreover, showing commercials promoting their shows displays how the station is not only using the debate to ‘inform the people of significant matters regarding the candidates”, but they also use it for the benefit of their ratings.

  4. 11th Regular Media Monitor
    2012 78 409
    http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/131716-history-martial-law-filipino-youth

    The article linked above is Rappler featuring the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses to Malacañang – Carmma’s viral video. The issue here is that the authenticity of the interviews in the video may be questionable. Since the video was made by an advocacy group, there may be a high chance that it’s scripted. However, Rappler made it seem as if it was not scripted, which may mislead people. Even if it’s an advocacy video (which could be scripted anyway), it is still important to let the viewers know whether it is or not to help viewers discern the message for themselves. The fault lies not only on Rappler, but also on the maker of video.

  5. BONUS POST
    Comm 110
    2012-78568

    http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/jpe-slow-gov-t-response-led-to-kidapawan-massacre

    In the article entitled “JPE: Slow gov’t response led to Kidapawan massacre,” I found it problematic because the primary sources of the articles were the PNP and government officials. Hence, the side of the Kidapawan farmers were not presented in the news story. The PNP and government were clearly justifying their sides regarding the tragic event. For instance, the PNP said that they are doing utmost efforts in investigating what really happened.Some government officials also mentioned about their endeavours to solve the issue. “In the Senate hearing, we will listen to all parties present. But most importantly, we hope to get to the bottom of this issue and render justice to all the victims of this unnecessary use of violence,” said VP candidate Alan Peter Cayetano.To say it simply, there was “victory framing” because the positive actions of government and PNP were highlighted, but the farmers were misrepresented because their grievance and testimonies were not heard.
    There was also a conflict of interest when Juan Ponce Enrile claimed, “We did not do that during martial law,” referring to the violent dispersal of protesting farmers and alleged failure to release livelihood assistance.We know that JPE supports VP candidate Bongbong Marcos so the motive of his statement was quite questionable.

  6. 11th regular media monitor
    Comm110
    2012-25182

    INC to name its ‘Magic 12’ tomorrow, but insider says…

    Article: http://www.mb.com.ph/inc-to-name-its-magic-12tomorrow-but-insider-says/

    The article basically talks about when the Iglesia ni Cristo members are going to know who they will be voting for in the upcoming elections (the article says it will be tomorrrow). Most of the article is about who they are most likely voting for according to an unnamed source.

    This is an example of unethical reporting because the whole article relied on just one source, did not name the source, and did not specify why. It violates the SPJ Code of Ethic which states that journalists must “consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.” The writer should have at least given reasons why the source was being kept a secret.

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