9th Media Monitor here (bonuses apply), deadline Oct.26. Exams nxt wk #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

The 9th media monitor can be posted here, or any bonus not yet submitted (provided that only one post per week would be credited.), with deadline this Wednesday, Oct. 26 at 12 noon. 

     Since we have taken up the MTRCB standards and guidelines, you may include entertainment shows and dramatic programs in your media monitor, provided they’re current.

    We will continue with the same assignment this week and — as scheduled in the syllabus — the next three presenters should be ready this Thursday. Chop chop.

  The exams will push through next week, Nov. 3, to cover all the topics taken up after the first exam, up to topics to be taken up this Thursday.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “9th Media Monitor here (bonuses apply), deadline Oct.26. Exams nxt wk #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

  1. 9th Media Monitor: Regular (MTRCB Ratings)

    Last weekend, I saw two films, Inferno, starring Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones and Jack Reacher, starring Tom Cruise and Cobie Smulders. Inferno has a PG rating, which I think is not suitable for the film, whereas Jack Reacher has an R-13 rating, which I think is just.

    In the film Inferno, I do not think that the film had a theme that is suitable for children below 13 years of age because it dealt with death and evil. It had quite a lot of violence and horror that were quite graphic and frequent. Thus, I believe that an R-13 rating would be more suitable for the film based on the MTRCB ratings.

    On the other hand, Jack Reacher has an R-13 rating, which is definitely suitable because of its theme, language, violence, and drug references.

    The MTRCB rating is something that should be carefully followed because this may affect the way children think and they might be influenced negatively if not followed accordingly.

  2. Regine C. Gochuico
    (7th Bonus Post)-9th media monitor
    1st bonus: Media coverage of the Malacanang planned Marcos Burial at the Libingan ng mga bayani and related events such as the litigation of the Supreme Court
    The Supreme Court (SC) conducted litigation for the burial of the late President Ferdinand Marcos. In the news the writer presented the different views coming from Associate Justice of the Supreme Court which was interpolated by Justice Teresita De Castro stating that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is only for those soldiers who died for one’s country. Colmenares even made an argument that Marcos was not even a source of inspiration or worth emulating.

    The news article written by Elizabeth Marcelo entitled “Justice De Castro: Libingan ng mga Bayani mainly a cemetery for soldiers” published August 31, 2016 has violated the following SPJ Code of Ethics: (1.) Identify sources clearly. The news article is making a confusion of who is making the second statement because it refers to a “he”. Is it referring to another person or is it just a misuse of pronoun for a “she” to mean for De Castro? (2) Provide context. The article did not state when the oral argument was made this is important because the reader may verify the information. This is in contrast with the third issue (3.)Gather, update, and correct information throughout the life of a news story. Although the writer has provided the source where she has taken the news article, the reader must also be provided with complete detail as to when it happened. On the other hand, it follows the provision (1.) Support the open and civil exchange of views. Likewise (2.) It diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrong doing.   Again it has provided the views of De Castro and the victims of torture during the martial law as well as the opinions coming from Neri Colmenares, Bayan Muna Represenative. 
    

    Source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/579639/news/nation/justice-de-castro-libingan-ng-mga-bayani-mainly-a-cemetery-for-soldiers

  3. Regine C. Gochuico
    (7th Bonus Post)-9th media monitor
    1st bonus: Media coverage of the Malacanang planned Marcos Burial at the Libingan ng mga bayani and related events such as the litigation of the Supreme Court
    The Supreme Court (SC) conducted litigation for the burial of the late President Ferdinand Marcos. In the news the writer presented the different views coming from Associate Justice of the Supreme Court which was interpolated by Justice Teresita De Castro stating that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is only for those soldiers who died for one’s country. Colmenares even made an argument that Marcos was not even a source of inspiration or worth emulating.
    The news article written by Elizabeth Marcelo entitled “Justice De Castro: Libingan ng mga Bayani mainly a cemetery for soldiers” published August 31, 2016 has violated the following SPJ Code of Ethics: (1.) Identify sources clearly. The news article is making a confusion of who is making the second statement because it refers to a “he”. Is it referring to another person or is it just a misuse of pronoun for a “she” to mean for De Castro? (2) Provide context. The article did not state when the oral argument was made this is important because the reader may verify the information. This is in contrast with the third issue (3.)Gather, update, and correct information throughout the life of a news story. Although the writer has provided the source where she has taken the news article, the reader must also be provided with complete detail as to when it happened. On the other hand, it follows the provision (1.) Support the open and civil exchange of views. Likewise (2.) It diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrong doing. Again it has provided the views of De Castro and the victims of torture during the martial law as well as the opinions coming from Neri Colmenares, Bayan Muna Represenative.
    Source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/579639/news/nation/justice-de-castro-libingan-ng-mga-bayani-mainly-a-cemetery-for-soldiers

    SPECIAL NOTE: Reposting because i saw that my first post was that my second paragraph is like in a teleprompter and I don’t know why so I reposted again.

  4. *For Media230/Wed class bonus points

    The right to freedom to expression is the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint and without fear of subsequent punishment. Taking the definition of the right of freedom to assembly in the section 3 of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 880, it states that public assembly” means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Therefore, the freedom of right of assembly could be deemed as part of exercising the freedom of expression.
    In the recent protest held by the National Minority group, Lumad at the US embassy, the right to freedom of assembly was exercised. However, tension grew between the activists and the police officers that led to a violent dispersal. Justifying “No Permit, No Rally” policy, a police patrol ran over the activists, injuring not less than 5 people including women. As the freedom of speech is not absolute, there are measures meant to regulate the consequences of expressing one’s sentiment. The clear and present danger rule aims to prevent the substantive evil that the assembly can bring. Under the rule, therefore, words and mere advocacy of ideas cannot be punished unless there is a clear and present danger that the advocacy will result in illegal action. Danger must be present, or imminent in point of time that the rally was held for the clear and present danger rule to be applied. However, in the rally composed of student activists and unarmed minorities; people who are even asking for donations to fill their stomachs, let alone afford a weapon that is able to incur harm to police officers who are protected by vests, gas masks, metal shield, bats and other equipment, it is quite easy to identify who is on the more vulnerable side. The clear and present danger rule cannot justify the violent act of the police who almost killed the members of the minority group because the danger is on the Lumads’ life for standing up against foreign intervention and militarization.

  5. [5th bonus post: Supersition and the Occult]

    News article: http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/241649/is-it-morally-wrong-to-consult-a-fortuneteller/

    In the article, the author discusses fortune telling and whether it is morally wrong, not its consultation but the actual practice. The article is premised on the fact that the author can really tell the future and other people have this ability as well. It discusses how their abilities can be used to be greedy and to be too materialistic. It also claims that “mediumship”, the use of mediums to contact spirits is real. According to the KBP Broadcast Code, Article 13. Superstition and the Occult, “Programs featuring superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices, such as supernatural powers, foretelling of the future, astrology, phrenology, palm-reading, numerology, mind-reading, hypnotism, faith healing or similar subjects shall be careful not to induce belief in them. Care shall be taken to prevent the exploitation of people who may be easily swayed by such superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices.” This article, although made with good intentions– a warning against materialism– is good, the rest of the content can be interpreted as being written in a way that can induce belief in fortunetelling. It only really tells “other clairvoyants” to not be dependent on their abilities but people who read this can easily be led to believe that fortunetelling is real and themselves be dependent on it, nevermind those with the abilities.

  6. 9th Regular Media Monitor: TV Patrol’s viral ghost video

    TV Patrol aired a news report about the rape case and the death of an 8-year old girl from Cavite. The video screened in the news program went viral online after netizens claim that they saw the ghost of the victim in a form of a dark figure during the coverage. The video was viewed over 2 million times after netizens went crazy about it, even spreading it more online. The news program, TV Patrol immediately cleared that it is definitely not the ghost of the girl. “The mysterious figure is not the ghost of the 8-year old rape victim, but is actually a witness to the grisly crime,” ABS-CBN said.

    Making this information clear as soon as possible is a good practice. Journalists should tyake responsibility for the accuracy of information being delivered to the viewers. It is also their responsibility to respond quickly to questions especially in reports like this where people must be sensitive enough to the family of the dead victim.

    Source:

    SPJ Code of Ethics 2014
    youtube.com/watch?v=La2Lfe…
    news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/13/16/…

  7. [Sixth Bonus Post: Marcos Burial]

    This article is a very recent one about the latest news revolving around the controversial burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos. It states that the verdict on the Marcos burial will be on hold until November 8, 2016.

    After reading the article, the decision was so that the court justices had more time to take sides. The article then gave both sides a say in the matter, both the anti-Marcos and pro-Marcos camps, though the article didn’t clearly get an interview with them. This is a good practice to get both sides of the story and be unbiased. The article also abides by the SPJ Code of Ethics provision which states that journalists should “gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story,” which is relevant as this article is a continuing story in Rappler.

    The article also contains many hyperlinks that link out to statements and other news articles cited, which help the viewer catch up on past updates in this continuing story. This follows the provision wherein journalists must “provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.”

    Source: http://www.rappler.com/nation/149502-supreme-court-extends-hold-order-marcos-burial

comments are welcome anytime (the spam-catcher however detains without charges any post with many links, no bail recommended, blog admin has to approve release)

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