4th Media Monitor 1st class here (the 4th Bonus is on “fake news”) #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

       4th Media Monitor 1st class here

(the 4th Bonus is on “fake news”)


(ADVANCE NOTICE for all ethics students: Bonus points of 10-15pts in the form of an additional bonus portion of the first exam will be given (that is, based on the score the examinee gets) this week, in consideration of the difficulty of the first exam. This will be administered only once, and for 30 minutes of class time only. Please be prompt. Tnx. -marichu)

The 4th Media Monitor of the first class can be posted here, either regular or bonus but not both, with deadline next Tuesday.  

       Bonuses not yet posted by a student can be posted this week or in the succeeding weeks provided only one post per week would be credited.

             The 4th bonus is on “fake news” (any falsehood/ lie/ fabrication presented as news or as information) disseminated from January 19, 2017 (first day of classes) to April 25, 2017 (the last media monitor post), as follows: A student may describe any fake news item he or she has encountered, or read, or chanced upon in any media (newsprint, online, television, radio, etc.),  stating also what outlet or site disseminated the fake news but without embedding the link, and commenting on  it, with an explanation of:     

               1) how the student received or encountered or retrieved the fake news (either as FB news feeds or a shared post or a tweet or a re-tweet, a group email or individual email, a text message, etc.);

               2)  how he/she knew or determined it was fake news using the provisions taken up in class (cite and quote); and  

              3)what the student did, or did not do, about it.

      (For the full bonus points, items 1-3 must be included in the commentary. )

       In the alternative, a student may also comment on any falsity or inaccuracy  presented as fact by a public official or a news subject, and reported as news without simultaneous fact-checking  in the same news report, by any media organization. (do not use those i already used in the exams).

        Students are not allowed to copy each other’s work: Any material on fake news used here for commentary by a student may no longer be used by another student.

     The deadline of the 4th media monitor is on Tuesday, March 7. (as stated, any bonus not yet posted by a student can be submitted this week or in the succeeding weeks, provided only one post per week is allowed: no cramming 🙂 ).

      Happy catching!

25 thoughts on “4th Media Monitor 1st class here (the 4th Bonus is on “fake news”) #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman



    A recording of Kat Domingo for her segment, “In The Loop”, briefly states that amulets (anting-anting) as protection against bullet and knife wounds are becoming popular in Quiapo becuase of the Duterte administration’s Tokhang. The one named “Niyog na Bato” is the most popular, she says. Kat ends her report with a statistic of more than 7000 extrajudicial killing victims since the war on drugs was initiated.

    This poses a dilemma especially on the Article 13: SUPERSTITION AND THE OCCULT under the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) Code of Ethics which states that:

    Sec. 1. 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 pseudoscientific beliefs and practices.

    Sec. 2. Programs or program materials that promote or encourage occult practices, black magic, witchcraft, and similar activities are prohibited.

    The feature packages the information on the amulets as a news. Despite the use of “umano” on the recording and “allegedly” on the online article, it was not quite careful in not inducing belief in people who eventually might rely on these amulets to feel and stay safe under the war on drugs.

  2. [4th Regular Media Monitor]

    During a report in CNN Philippines on the recent earthquakes in Surigao, they were showing photos and videos of the aftermath, they did not indicate when these videos and photos were captured nor shot. This goes against the KBP code of 2008 Article 1 sec. 8 which states that Archived or file video, photo, and audio materials should be properly labeled as such when aired and must not be presented in a manner that may cause the public to mistake them as the broadcast of a live or more recent event. Given that the quake happened a day before when the news was aired, it gave the idea that the quake happened just during the day.

  3. [4th Regular Media Monitor]


    This article discusses an incident where a four-year-old child dies after she and her father were shot down by policemen meters from their house.

    The first five words of the article have already proven to be problematic. The article states the child’s name and even her family members’ names. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics says, under the Minimize Harm section, “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. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.”

  4. http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/07/17/4-drug-suspects-killed-as-pnp-resumes-drugs-war-operations

    The article reported about the first incident of drug suspects killing by the PNP after Chief Ronald Dela Rosa announced the relaunching of the “less bloody” anti-drugs operations. It has a section dedicated to providing previous data before halting the operations. It follows SPJ Code of Ethics 2014’s provision to “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.” It was also able to follow “Diligently seek subjects to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing” by getting the side of the involvement of the PNP.


    I came across on an article that compared crime statistics of the Duterte administration and the Aquino administration as it was shared to my feed by a distant cousin from my province on FB. The article was labeled as MONTHLY INDEX/NON-INDEX OF CRIME and contained multiple figures categorized under July, August and September of 2015 and 2016. With 2015’s numbers being much higher than 2016. According to the photo attached to the article, the source is from the PNP.

    I determined that this was fake news as the source of the article was not accurately given, just stated as “PNP”, not stating what p. Also, upon further research on the page that produced the article, I determined that they violated the SPJ code of ethics 3rd provision of acting independant, as all the “news” that they report portrays the President in a very positive way, and denounces the previous administration. Another reason why I consider this to be fake news as it does not label all the EJKs and wrongful deaths in Police raids to be a “crime”, thus setting aside the Duterte administration’s biggest issue so far

    I commented on my cousin’s post to express its possible biased nature and lack of sourcing, yet he has yet to reply.

  6. [4th Bonus]

    Senator Leila de Lima has been detained at the PNP Custodial Center after being arrested on drug charges. Several “news”—legitimate and not—detailing the incident have been released, one of which is a fake news I chanced upon on the Internet. The fake report that was widely proliferated on Facebook narrates that the detained Senator had attempted to commit suicide inside her detention facility.

    I immediately knew this was fake news because: (1) the name of the website that published the report was unfamiliar to me and is highly questionable; (2) the source of the report was not named; and (3) the Senator immediately denied such reports of suicide attempt. Under the SPJ Code of Ethics 2014, members of news organizations shall verify information before releasing it, and that original sources shall be used whenever possible. Such provision entails gathering and reporting accurate and correct information.

    Meanwhile, in response to the news, I tried “reporting” the post on Facebook.

    I had recently encountered an article from a website entitled BalitangPinas.net which is basically a propaganda video against the Liberal Party, specifically the Robredos. The article was labeled “Butch Robredo, Filipino version ng Colombian drug lord na si Paolo Escobar”. It talked about how Butch Robredo, brother of the late Jesse Robredo, was secretly a drug lord despite his being visually-impaired. The writer accused him of making illegal transactions and claimed that they have a list of Robredo’s connections with syndicates.

    I saw this article circulating in my FB feed. When I checked, it was shared by a page named “Duterte Balita” which was almost a giveaway that it was a fake article. It was also posted with a sensationalized caption.

    I realized that it was fake news because it violated some provisions from the SPJ Code of Ethics, namely the following:

    “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in presenting, previewing or summarizing a story.” (The article was obviously propaganda on the title alone.)
    “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” (Robredo’s side was not taken.)
    “Label advocacy and commentary.”
    “Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.” (The writer does not give any concrete proof in his claims.)
    “Avoid conflicts of interest.” (because the FB page and BalitangPinas.net are both pro-Duterte)

    Lastly, upon seeing this article, I sent a message to my friend in Facebook to tell him about the article so we could laugh at it. However, I feel like I should have commented on the Facebook post to tell the others about the validity of the article, since a lot of people believed it.

  8. [4th MEDIA MONITOR]

    In this news video, it was reported that a man died because of encountering an assault with a group of friends in a bar.

    In the video, the reporters labeled ALL members of the group as the suspects of the crime. The police officer that was interviewed have stated that the members of the group are all “considered suspects” and he is inviting the group to report to the police office to give their statement to shed light on what happened. Meaning, there is still no confirmation of case but the news video had stated the real names and even showed pictures of the members of the group who are persons of interest of the case.

    The news video of GMA News Online, clearly disregarded one of the provisions of SPJ Code of ethics, which stated: Minimize Harm: Balance suspect’s right to fair trial vs. Public’s right to know.

  9. Media Monitor March 07, 2017
    This article entitled “The judge who doesn’t know” describes a happening in court wherein a judge allowed 12 policemen to post bail for the ambush and murder of 13 men in the province of Quezon.
    The article continues to discuss at length, and with many side comments, the corruption in the government. And although it is only proper to be calling into question those in authority for their possible misdeeds (as stated in the SPJ Code of Ethics: “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those in power accountable”) the title, as well as the content of the article are highly misleading and sensationalized.
    The article, being placed under the News/Headlines section on Inquirer.net, states every part as a fact and not an opinion, as well as calling the judge out in a manner that can be considered outright degrading. This is a form of bad journalism, as the SPJ Code of Ethics states: “Avoid improper emphasis and distortion of truth by omissions” – which in this case refers to the lack of exposition and explanation in the title of the article. Moreover, the article never even attempts to probe into the judge’s statement on the issue. This is in direct violation of the PPI Extended Code which states that: “Ensure fair, accurate and balanced reporting.”


    It was a news that spread on Facebook which indicated that there will be an earthquake between Feb 24, 2017 – March 8, 2017. I saw this article circulated not only in Facebook but also on MSN News which features trending news on social media.

    It was describe in the article that a man who studied seismology and planetary movements found out that there will be “The Big One” which will hit the West Valley fault within the indicated dates. But I was already sceptic on the parts that the other planets are the one who will trigger the earthquake but then I waited for the official statement of Philvols. So they issued a statement on which they denied the predicted date on which “The Big One” will hit the west valley fault but urge us to be prepared.

    I did not share the “fake news” since it was already sketchy in my views but many of my friends on social media got alarmed by this news and shared it for cautionary purposes, I think. I just wanted to be sure that is why I waited on the official news of the Phivolcs.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

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 )

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.