2nd Media Monitor of the first class with two new bonus titles for additional choices

2nd Media Monitor of the first class with two new bonus titles for additional choices


The Second Media Monitor of the first class can be posted here, with deadline September 5 at 5pm, with additional new bonus topics/ bonus titles in addition to the eight listed previously (choose any bonus title provided no bonus title /no bonus topic can be repeated, i.e., a bonus topic or a bonus title cannot be used for commentary more than once; the second one would be considered a regular rather than a bonus)
As stated before, the media monitor may either be a regular or bonus post, provided only one media monitor post can be submitted per week.
Bonus posts earn double the points.

     The following are the two additional, new bonus topics/ bonus titles

     BONUS TITLE: #NEVERAGAIN . This would require advance reading: Just go to your FB Community Standards or Twitter Rules and use the provisions on: 1.hate speech; 2.commentaries on public figures. Evaluate the tweets/ FB posts/ and other social media “rants”/ criticism/ “condemnation” of the Imee Marcos-Kabataang-Barangay reunion party at the UP Bahay ng Alumni and comment on whether these violate any FB community standards or Twitter rules (embed or quote the tweet or FB post you are reviewing).


BONUS TITLE: ADVOCACY . This is for those who have attended any public assembly (forum/ media conference/ talk/ awarding/ any outdoor or indoor assembly: Evaluate and review any indoor or outdoor public assembly you have attended and observed first-hand since the start of the semester, using the following principles of ethics of advocacy work derived from a leading internationally known public relations society as applicable to advocacy work (quote the paragraph you are using as basis of your review/evaluation)
ADVOCACY
Strive to serve the public interest by acting responsibly for the sectors they represent.
Provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.
HONESTY
Adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of the sectors they represent and in communicating with the public.
EXPERTISE
Acquire and use responsibly all specialized knowledge and experience.
Advance one’s skills and work attitude through continued professional development, research, and education.
Build mutual understanding, credibility, and relationships among a wide array of institutions and audiences.
INDEPENDENCE
Provide objective advice to the sectors they represent.
Be accountable for one’s actions.
LOYALTY
Be faithful to the sectors they represent, while honoring the obligation to serve the public interest.
FAIRNESS
Deal fairly with the sectors they represent, with competitors, peers, the media, and the general public.
Respect all opinions and support the right of free expression.
Happy viewing/ reading/ walking!

(Photo from the UP archives, used here non-commercially for academic purposes)

24 thoughts on “2nd Media Monitor of the first class with two new bonus titles for additional choices

  1. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: Drug War

    The Philippine Press Institute Code of Ethics
    “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”

    The news report is about how the families of eight victims of the ongoing drug war by Duterte filed a complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in regards to the President’s violation against human rights which the government said would not prosper due to Duterte withdrawing from the ICC’s founding treaty.

    This article by Rie Takumi from GMA News abided by the Philippine Press Institute Code of Ethics, specifically the one stated above. This is because Takumi wrote and presented all sides of the story by getting the side of the families of the victims through their human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares, as well as the side of the government through presidential spokesman Harry Roque. GMA News did not manipulate or fabricate lies in order for the story to progress due to them revealing that the ICC has not responded yet by saying “The ICC prosecutor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment and could not be reached out of normal office hours.” Furthermore, Takumi gave evidence by showing pictures of the file of complaint without editing the pictures whatsoever.

    Source:

    Takumi, R. (2018, August 28). Fresh ICC complaint filed vs. Duterte over drug war deaths. Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/665694/fresh-icc-complaint-filed-vs-duterte-over-drug-war-deaths/story/

  2. BONUS: Drug War

    When I first laid my eyes on this article, I was immediately appalled by the layout of
    the article “The Wrong Way To Fight A Drug War” by Miguel Syjuco. This is because
    it failed to protect newsreaders against the gore of the header photo. As a result,
    the layout designer responsible for this mistake failed to “balance the public’s need for information
    against potential harm or discomfort”. Thus, this New York Times staff member failed to follow the SPJ
    Code of Ethics in minimizing harm. If one were to place a photo of a person who passed away
    violently, then there should be a trigger warning before showing the photo. The trigger warning must explain the need for the photo to be published and caution others to see it at their own risk. If the person fails to
    post a trigger warning beforehand, then it is best that he should pixelate or blur the face of the victim.
    Unfortunately, none of these provisions were applied and could have harmed a lot of viewers. That is why we media practitioners have to be sensitive to the media consumers’ thoughts and follow these rules.

    Source:

    Syjuco, M. (2018, August 08). The Wrong Way to Fight a Drug War. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/opinion/philippines-drug-war-addiction-duterte.html

  3. 2nd Week Regular Media Monitor

    A video of a girl identified as Micha Anne Gabuten became viral on social media in the last month of August (see sources for the viral video). The video depicted her doing the “Kiki Dance Challenge” along EDSA. The video spurred much criticism from the public due to her violation of traffic laws on the said road. Negative public sentiments irked Gabuten to approach the MMDA office personally to issue a public apology. Her apology was covered by media outlets including a segment by GMAs Mark Salazar (see sources for the viral video).

    The SPJ Code of Ethics states that journalists must “[r]ealize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention…” I think the way GMA edited their coverage of Gabuten’s public apology demonstrates this provision well. GMA made a conscious effort to make sure that private citizen Gabuten’s face was concealed throughout the segment upon her request. And even when GMA showed the clip that Gabuten herself posted on social media, they made sure to blur her face in the video as well. Though it can be argued that Gabuten’s face is already recognizable due to her video going “viral”, we have to note that her original post was done through her social media account which is still something that news agencies are not automatically privy to unless given permission by Gabuten herself.

    Sources:
    Viral Kiki Dance Challenge Video by Gabuten from a 3rd Party Source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81zW4G5rYoQ)
    GMA coverage of Gabuten Public Apology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXHOj8tx08)
    SPJ Code of Ethics Provision on Minimizing Harm (https://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethicscode/?p=171)

  4. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: #NeverAgain: Imee Marcos-Kabataang-Barangay reunion party at the UP Bahay ng Alumni

    There’s a difference between welcoming different opinions and perspectives, and welcoming a plunderer, a thief, a liar, and a member of the explorative elite #MarcosNotWelcomeInUP— Lakan (@immanuellakant) August 25, 2018

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Twitter Rules on abuse and hateful conduct:
    “You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.”
    “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

    Embedded above are writer and UP Diliman alumnus Lakan Umali’s comments on the controversial reunion of Imee Marcos and former officials of Kabataang Barangay that was held in UP’s Bahay ng Alumni almost two weeks ago. In his tweets posted on Twitter, he condemns the appearance of a Marcos in UP; stating some of their crimes against the Filipino people as reasons why members of the family should not be welcomed in the university.

    I do not think he violated the rules imposed by Twitter on their site. Even though he calls Marcos “a plunderer, a thief, a liar, and a member of the explorative elite”, I do not think it can be considered harassment or hate speech as he is only stating facts, as proven by several courts and admitted by Imee herself, and is not throwing mere allegations. He calls out the disgraced public official on her misdeeds but does not target her on the basis of her race, gender, age, etc. The tweets also do not encourage other people to engage in abusive behavior in any way.

    Sources:
    immanuellakant. (2018, August 25). There’s a difference between welcoming different opinions and perspectives, and welcoming a plunderer, a thief, a liar, and a member of the explorative elite #MarcosNotWelcomeInUP [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/immanuellakant/status/1033275529917431808
    The Twitter Rules. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
    Robles, R. (2016, November 16). OPINION: Imee Marcos told US court – yes, Archimedes Trajano was tortured and killed but it’s none of your business. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com/opinions/11/16/16/opinion-imee-marcos-told-us-court-yes-archimedes-trajano-was-tortured-and-killed-but-its-none-of-your-business
    Fonbuena, C. (2017, May 17). Ilocos Norte’s tobacco funds go to Imee Marcos’ pet projects. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/170072-imee-marcos-tobacco-excise-tax-misuse

  5. 2nd Regular Media Monitor

    There was a current conflict between the Mayor of Cebu City Tomas Osmena and the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte concerning the statement of Osmena towards the management of the war on illegal drugs of the President. Pres. Duterte made a statement against the Cebu City Mayor and Mayor Osmena cleared and justified his side of the story.

    Upon evaluating the article with the lens and light of The Philippine Press Insitute Code of Ethics, the report and interpretation of news complied to the ethical standards given by PPI especially the first one which is “to report and interpret news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by ommission or improper emphasis and to recognize the duty air the other side and the duty to correct substantve errors promptly.”

    This news article clearly followed this ethical standard by putting the two sides of the story and not emphasizing solely on the statement of the President towards Osmena. The journalist stated the previous statement of the Mayor then the President’s. He also showed the different arguments of both parties without omitting relevant information regarding the issue. Both sides are also presented, no biased, no favoritism.

    Source: https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/national/duterte-to-tomas-osme%c3%b1a-don%e2%80%99t-mess-with-me/ar-BBMI2co?ocid=spartanntp

  6. 2nd Media Monitor
    Bonus: #NeverAgain: Imee Marcos-Kabataang-Barangay reunion party at the UP Bahay ng Alumni

    Twitter post:

    Shame. More than shame, it is an insult to humanity for him to say “Tao lang po.” No real humans will cavort and laugh with murderers. That makes you and your friends…Inhuman.#NeverForget #NeverAgain https://t.co/KBUgF5p0Zy— Jhoanna Lynn Cruz (@JhoannaLynnCruz) August 30, 2018

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to the hateful conduct policy of Twitter,

    “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories”

    This comment or post from twitter complied to the rule given by the medium. Ms Cruz was just giving out her emotion and ideas regarding the appearance of the UP President to the KB reunion with Imee Marcos. It does not promote violence, she was giving a kind of comparative analysis, although almost a fallacy. It has given the substance of being a human and to be sensitive of the spheres one is involved in.

    Sources:
    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

  7. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: #NEVERAGAIN – Imee Marcos’ Kabataang Barangay reunion party at the Bahay ng Alumni

    Facebook post:

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D707463449590526%26id%3D368582650145276%26comment_id%3D707547279582143&include_parent=false

    In the Policy Rationale on Hate Speech in the Facebook Community Standards states that,

    “…we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.”

    After reading the comment of Floyd Gonda, there may be a few words that defy the rule on Hate Speech in the Facebook Community Standards that uses dehumanizing words. However, the intent of the author behind his comment is completely clear and understandable. The author wanted everyone to be briefly informed about the issues between the Marcoses and the UP Community. The author was writing with his emotions and feelings on the topic but he complied with the rule stated above that stating his/her intent on posting comments that are understandable.

    Sources:

    https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/

  8. BONUS: Hate Speech
    2nd Media Monitor

    “Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.”

    The article, in summary, talks about how the LGBTI Legal Service filed complaints against 25 people for “engaging in public acts of hate speech” during the same-sex marriage postal survey. The president of the service, Matilda Alexander, claimed that she did not want to publicly name the respondents that perpetrated hate speech until their service was confident that they were indeed the ones that perpetrated the hate speech. In addition, the perpetrators are given the opportunity to apologise for their acts and delete their posts. Those who refused to do so would be pursued under the anti-discrimination act.

    In line with the SPJ Code of Ethics stated above, the suspects’ names were not released in the article, considering they have not been faced with legal charges yet. This is an example of good practice since they followed the provisions under the code of ethics regarding minimizing harm.

    Source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/31/lgbti-lawyers-lodge-complaint-over-hate-speech-during-same-sex-marriage-survey

  9. 2nd Media Coverage
    Bonus Title:#NEVERAGAIN

    Twitter post:

    “UP is open daw to all political views so they accommodated the SK reunion with Imee Marcos.
    FYI, the Marcoses are not just a ‘political view,’ they are the country’s worst historical nightmare!” – Ogie Rosa (@ogie_rosa) 29 August 2018

    Twitter has made a policy (Hateful conduct policy) that deals with any hate speech found or seen in the social media platform. Once reported to the site, they will instantly review the tweet and ask the individual to delete the offensive tweet immediately. In other cases, they can suspend the account of the user.

    Hateful Conduct Policy

    “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.”

    Reviewing the twitter commentary and policy about the hate speech, I see that there was no policy violated. There was no hate speech being done because there was no violence promoted or a direct attack to the person in the tweet but rather, it was just an expressive insight by the individual. He was not attacking Imee Marcos nor UP but he was stating his very strong opinion. There was nothing wrong in his tweet.

    Sources:

    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

  10. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: #NeverAgain

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fherbert.docena%2Fposts%2F2409406979075727&width=500

    FB Community Standards on Hate Speech:
    “We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

    Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. Similarly, in some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

    The commentary of the Facebook user does not violate the FB Community Standards in any way. Some may perceive the post as a direct attack because of the fact that the user likened Imee Marcos to misogynists and homophobes. He also mentioned how inviting Imee Marcos to UP is similar to calling for another holocaust. However, the FB Community Standards mention how hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others is allowed. It is also mentioned how hate speech that empowering is not considered a violation. The post follows both of these, since it allows people to understand further the implications of inviting Imee Marcos to UP, and it also empowers Filipinos to fight to make sure that history will not be repeated.

    SOURCE:
    https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

  11. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: #NeverAgain

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fherbert.docena%2Fposts%2F2409406979075727&width=500

    FB Community Standards on Hate Speech:
    “We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

    Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. Similarly, in some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

    The commentary of the Facebook user does not violate the FB Community Standards in any way. Some may perceive the post as a direct attack because of the fact that the user likened Imee Marcos to misogynists and homophobes. He also mentioned how inviting Imee Marcos to UP is similar to calling for another holocaust. However, the FB Community Standards mention how hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others is allowed. It is also mentioned how hate speech that empowering is not considered a violation. The post follows both of these, since it allows people to understand further the implications of inviting Imee Marcos to UP, and it also empowers Filipinos to stand their ground and make sure that history will not be repeated.

    SOURCE:
    https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

  12. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS POST: #NeverAgain

    (Ma’am, my previous post didn’t have the link embedded properly, so I’m re-commenting my submission and quoting the FB post instead. Thank you!)

    FB POST: https://www.facebook.com/herbert.docena/posts/2409406979075727

    Let’s allow neo-Nazis to meet in UP to call for another Holocaust to exterminate all the Jews once and for all. Let’s give permission to misogynists and homophobes to gather at the Sunken Garden to celebrate rape and call for the killing of all LGBTs. Let’s welcome white supremacists or other racists to assemble at the Film Center to call for the lynching of blacks or of all those of Chinese descent.

    This–pushed to its logical if absurd conclusion–is essentially the argument of all those who are now saying that the UP administration was right not to prevent the Marcoses from meeting in UP because ‘we shouldn’t deprive anyone of the “freedom of assembly” and the “freedom of expression.” It is problematic because it takes “freedom of assembly” and freedom of expression” outside their contexts–as though they could be separated from what those who are assembling are trying to do and what those who are expressing themselves are saying. And it is self-destructive because it actually endangers the very thing it seeks to sustain.

    Imee Marcos and her supporters were not defending our right to organise and to express ourselves–they were glorifying and building support for a regime in which we wouldn’t have the freedom that they themselves are enjoying today. To condemn the UP administration’s decision to let them meet in UP is therefore not to undermine but to defend freedom from those who seek to use it in order to destroy it.

    FB Community Standards on Hate Speech:
    “We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

    Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. Similarly, in some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

    The commentary of the Facebook user does not violate the FB Community Standards in any way. Some may perceive the post as a direct attack because of the fact that the user likened Imee Marcos to misogynists and homophobes. He also mentioned how inviting Imee Marcos to UP is similar to calling for another holocaust. However, the FB Community Standards mention how hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others is allowed. It is also mentioned how hate speech that empowering is not considered a violation. The post follows both of these, since it allows people to understand further the implications of inviting Imee Marcos to UP, and it also empowers Filipinos to stand their ground and make sure that history will not be repeated.

    SOURCE:
    https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

  13. 2nd Media Monitor
    Bonus: Drug War

    The Philippine Press Institute Code of Ethics:
    “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”

    An article by the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled, “Priest bares threat from ‘death squad’,” focuses on Fr. Amado Picardal who claims that motorcycle-riding men were targeting to kill him. According to the article, Picardal was also one of the earliest critics of Duterte’s ongoing war on drugs.

    While the news and his claims could be true, I found that the article’s framing was very one-sided and lacked information and responses from other sources. I feel that the news article failed to uphold the provision stated above for it mainly revolved around Picardal, citing his claims and statements without providing perhaps the government’s response to his claims or any verification of information. Inquirer wrote that “Picardal said he had been receiving information since last year that the death squad was going to target priests and that he was at the top of the hit list.” For a more credible news report, I feel that Inquirer could have provided more details on what kind of information Picardal received, as well as more evidence to prove his claims as mentioned earlier.

    Source:
    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1025505/priest-bares-threat-from-death-squad
    http://www.campusjourn.com/mgt/54-legal/11-ppi-code-of-ethics-journalists

  14. 2nd Media Monitor
    Bonus: Drug War

    The Philippine Press Institute Code of Ethics:
    “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”

    An article by the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled, “Priest bares threat from ‘death squad’,” focuses on Fr. Amado Picardal who claims that motorcycle-riding men were targeting to kill him. According to the article, Picardal was also one of the earliest critics of Duterte’s ongoing war on drugs.

    While the news and his claims could be true, I found that the article’s framing was very one-sided and lacked information and responses from other sources. I feel that the news article failed to uphold the provision stated above for it mainly revolved around Picardal, citing his claims and statements without providing perhaps the government’s response to his claims or any verification of information. Inquirer wrote that “Picardal said he had been receiving information since last year that the death squad was going to target priests and that he was at the top of the hit list.” For a more credible news report, I feel that Inquirer could have provided more details on what kind of information Picardal received, as well as more evidence to prove his claims as mentioned earlier.

    Source:
    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1025505/priest-bares-threat-from-death-squad
    http://www.campusjourn.com/mgt/54-legal/11-ppi-code-of-ethics-journalists

  15. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: Hate Speech

    “Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.”

    This SPJ provision is highly relevant to the recent news article posted on Inquirer, regarding a domestic Filipina helper based in Hongkong who is sueing her employer who forced her to resign due to her being pregnant (Matriano, 2018).

    According to the article, hate speech and discrimination against Pia Sanchez, the claimant, was directly observed since her employer allegedly called her “horrible” and accused her of scheming alongside her boyfriend to get pregnant on purpose, most probably in order to avail of the mandatory ten weeks paid maternity leave entitled to pregnant working mothers in Hongkong.

    Although the situation did involved hate speech and is seemingly very unjust, this article failed to take into consideration the aforementioned provision regarding knowing when to draw the line between respecting the privacy of an individual and exposing his or her identity to the public. The author had included the complete name of Sanchez’ foreign employer in the article, therefore exposing his identity to all the readers of this report. In my opinion, although what he did was undoubtedly wrong, as a journalist, the author should have considered that exposing the name of the employer would cause that individual more harm than the possible good that could come from doing so for the claimant. By exposing the offender, he is now also more vulnerable to getting attacked, whether online or in real life, and the issue which can be resolved privately may end up being blown up into proportion.

    Sources:
    Matriano, K. (2018, September 2). Filipino domestic helper sues HK employer for forcing her to resign due to pregnancy. Retrieved September 4, 2018, from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/169467/p2fb-filipino-domestic-helper-sues-hk-employer-for-forcing-her-to-resign-due-to-pregnancy

  16. 2ND MEDIA MONITOR
    BONUS TOPIC: DRUG WAR

    Cebu cops face raps over boy’s death
    4-year-old kid hit, killed by stray bullet in botched drug operation in Carbon
    05:16 AM September 05, 201

    SPJ CODE OF ETHICS:
    (1) 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.

    (2) Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

    This news article is yet another story about the war on drugs. It talks about the NBI filing criminal and administrative charges against PO1 Wilbert Perez and PO1 Rey Van Dadula for the death of a four-year old boy named Bladen Skyler Abatayo. According to the news, the cause of the boy’s death was a stray bullet during an anti-drug operation last July. The PNP claimed that the bullet that killed Bladen Abatayo came from the the subject of the drug operation or the suspect’s gun. However, the NBI, through thorough investigation was able to establish that the direction of the bullet that hit the boy came from the position of PO1 Perez. The father of the child also expressed his gratitude to the NBI for filing a case against the involved policemen.

    The article is somewhat problematic because if we were to take into consideration, the victim, which was a minor, was named bluntly in the article. Although the reporter can argue (basing also from other journalists’ practice) that the victim is already dead, I think we should still consider that the fact that he is a minor.
    Nevertheless, the article shows a good example of an ethical way to identify sources especially in a case where there are two opposing statements. Identifying clearly who said what that makes the audience understand better the context of the crime and the charges that came with it. This practice shows us unbiased and objective reporting.

    Sources:
    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1028488/cebu-cops-face-raps-over-boys-death
    https://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethicscode/?p=44
    https://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethicscode/?p=16

  17. BONUS: Marcos Dictatorship
    2nd Media Monitor

    The following provisions of SPJ Code of Ethics were followed:
    (1) Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story.

    (2) Gather, update, and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

    (3) Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

    This provision of the PPI Code of Ethics was followed:
    (1) I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.

    News: LOOK BACK: The Aquino Assassination
    https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/143594-look-back-ninoy-aquino-assassination

    The news feature is about the surrounding events on Ninoy Aquino’s assasination. It deals with Ninoy’s return to the Philippines after his self-exile, the day of the assassination, and the several investigations on his death.

    The history feature article is very objective in reporting the timeline of events. It is also careful in discussing the different versions of the investigation, which report was able to clear suspects or accuse a new one. It also maintains a clear sequence of the events. Asides from reporting it honestly, the article also has sources indicated at the end of the article; this also goes for the photos used in the report.

  18. Bonus Title: “HATE SPEECH”
    2nd Media Monitor

    Laura Ingraham sparked controversy on her Fox News show, the Ingraham Angle, following her anti-immigrant comment. She accused the immigrants of the country’s “massive demographic changes”, one that “none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like”.

    Laura Ingraham says that “The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like … this is related to both illegal and legal immigration.”

    Her speech, as well as her diction, is characterized by a derogatory manner based on race and ethnic origin. This neglected both the PPI Code of Ethics under no. 7, which says that “I shall not, in any manner, ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin”, as well as the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics provisions under “Avoid Stereotyping.”

    “Demographic changes” pertain to the immigrants whose struggle to fight continues to this day. Putting the statement “love doesn’t exist anymore” because of them insinuates stereotypes. Further, Ingraham didn’t have to mention “both illegal and in some cases legal immigration” when pertaining to the immigrants.

    Sources:

    CampusJourn University (2014, August 12). Philippine Press Institute: The Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.campusjourn.com/mgt/54-legal/11-ppi-code-of-ethics-journalists

    Fox News. (2018, August 08). Ingraham: The left’s effort to remake America. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llhFZOw6Sss

    SPJ. (2014, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  19. 2nd Media Monitor
    Regular: “Scavenger finds corpse stuffed inside a drum in Tondo river”

    This news article speaks of a graphic incident wherein a scavenger found a body inside a drum while going about his daily business. Upon discovery, the man informed authorities immediately, and local officials were quick in trying to identify the body and starting an investigation.

    Though the story is concise, the journalist violated this particular provision from the Code of Ethics of the SJP, “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and mptivations of sources.” The news story was vague in its depiction of the incident and hardly cited any original sources. There were many uses of “it was said” or “in initial reports”, and no particular names or officials were invoked. Sources were very generic and unreliable. The fact that this story was posted quickly without a concrete context and with a serious lack of sources calls for its careful revision. It violates the readers’ right to a well-documented and accurate news story.

    Source: Gonzalez, Cathrine. “Scavenger finds corpse stuffed inside a drum in Tondo river”, The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Sept. 5, 2018. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1028634/scavenger-finds-corpse-stuffed-inside-a-drum-in-tondo-river

  20. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: #NeverAgain

    UP is open daw to all political views so they accommodated the SK reunion with Imee Marcos.FYI, the Marcoses are not just a 'political view,' they are the country's worst historical nightmare!— Ogie Rosa (@ogie_rosa) August 29, 2018

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Twitter’s Hateful Conduct Policy

    “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.”

    The tweet embedded above is Ogie Rosa’s comment on the controversial Kabataang Barangay Reunion Party with Gov. Imee Marcos held in UP Bahay ng Alumni last August 27, 2018. In the said tweet, he sarcastically questions UP on being “open to all political view” upon welcoming the “country’s worst historical nightmare” Gov. Imee Marcos in its premises.

    With regards to Twitter’s Hateful Conduct Policy, I don’t think he violated the rules with his tweet. Calling the Marcoses as the “country’s worst historical nightmare” wasn’t based on any of those categories mentioned above (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc), but on Ferdinand Marcos’ historical atrocities.

    In addition, it is also stated on Twitter’s Hateful Conduct Policy that:

    “Context matters. Some Tweets may seem to be abusive when viewed in isolation, but may not be when viewed in the context of a larger conversation. While we accept reports of violations from anyone, sometimes we also need to hear directly from the target to ensure that we have proper context.”

    Ogie Rosa’s tweet, when viewed in isolation, may seem offensive towards the Marcoses. But not when given context on the historical background that is associated with the family. Hence, the tweet doesn’t violate Twitter Rules on hate speech.

    Sources:
    Ogie Rosa’s Tweet (https://twitter.com/ogie_rosa/status/1034713922740269056)
    Twitter’s Hateful Conduct Policy (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy)

  21. BONUS TITLE: HATE SPEECH
    2nd Media Monitor

    The KB event that took place in the Bahay ng Alumni incited a lot of anger from the community. May took to Twitter to express their hatred and disgust. One of these tweets was from twitter user @cededream who tweeted: “So, UP President Danilo Concepcion reportedly attended the Marcos event held at the UP Bahay ng Alumni last Saturday. Nakakadiri.”

    According to the Twitter terms of services, speech is considered hateful when it threatens danger, death, or hurt to the recipient of the speech; acts that promotes fear of a “protected group;” tweets that refer to a traumatic event for a population like “mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence;” or degrading tweets.

    With this in mind, readers can discern that the tweet written by @cededream is not considered hate speech. Though he called Danilo Concepcion “disgusting” the lack of a threat of immediate violence and the lack of a protected person or minority makes it fall under freedom of speech.

    Link to the tweet: https://twitter.com/cededream/status/1034013739966582785
    Twitter hate speech policy source: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

  22. “Imee Marcos claims na “bata” palang daw siya during the time of Martial Law. Bata pero president lang ng Kabataang Barangay. 22 years old ka na nung pinapatay mo si Archimedes Trajano. Hindi kami tanga, Imee.

    #NeverAgain
    #NoToAnyMarcos”

    In this tweet by at @LuisEiram, he challenges Imee’s claim to have been a child during his Father’s regime. Citing also that during her presidency in the Kabataang Baranggay, Mapua student named Archimedes Trajano was tortured and killed for questioning her ability to lead. Following that is this article that states that Imee Marcos confirms Trajano’s suspected fate and confirms her knowledge of it.

    https://news.abs-cbn.com/opinions/11/16/16/opinion-imee-marcos-told-us-court-yes-archimedes-trajano-was-tortured-and-killed-but-its-none-of-your-business

    While the tweet was intent on condemning Imee for her insensitivity by participating in the Kabataang Baranggay reunion in UP(considering UP’s context involving the Marcoses) it does not violate Twitter’s policies as it states only things which are facts that expose Imee’s involvement. The only thing slightly problematic here is the accusation of her “killing” Trajano but all things considered, it’s only fair to suspect her level of involvement given the fact that she is admittedly involved.

    Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

  23. BONUS TITLE: #NEVERAGAIN
    1st Media Monitor
    *I forgot to put the bonus title in the first comment so this is a copy of the comment

    “Imee Marcos claims na “bata” palang daw siya during the time of Martial Law. Bata pero president lang ng Kabataang Barangay. 22 years old ka na nung pinapatay mo si Archimedes Trajano. Hindi kami tanga, Imee.

    #NeverAgain
    #NoToAnyMarcos”

    In this tweet by at @LuisEiram, he challenges Imee’s claim to have been a child during his Father’s regime. Citing also that during her presidency in the Kabataang Baranggay, Mapua student named Archimedes Trajano was tortured and killed for questioning her ability to lead. Following that is this article that states that Imee Marcos confirms Trajano’s suspected fate and confirms her knowledge of it.

    https://news.abs-cbn.com/opinions/11/16/16/opinion-imee-marcos-told-us-court-yes-archimedes-trajano-was-tortured-and-killed-but-its-none-of-your-business

    While the tweet was intent on condemning Imee for her insensitivity by participating in the Kabataang Baranggay reunion in UP(considering UP’s context involving the Marcoses) it does not violate Twitter’s policies as it states only things which are facts that expose Imee’s involvement. The only thing slightly problematic here is the accusation of her “killing” Trajano but all things considered, it’s only fair to suspect her level of involvement given the fact that she is admittedly involved.

    Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

  24. Bonus Title: #NeverAgain
    1st Media Monitor

    The much talked about Kabataang Baranggay reunion sent social media into a flurry as Imee Marcos was present in the venue where the event was being held: The Bahay ng Alumi in UP. Being that UP was huge part of activism during the days of Martial Law it comes as no surprise that condemnation was coming her way from the UP community. What was even more shocking was the presence of no other than the UP President himself, Danilo Concepcion. Concepcion, the chairman of the then “KB” even stated his neutrality in the matter as he cites his “pagkatao”.

    The tweet from Ix Cepeda calls out the UP president. The tweet itself does not violate any of twitter’s policy on hate speech because it serves merely to state fact and call out the mishandling of the reunion at the politically neutral gaze of the UP President. This comes at the utmost shock of the UP community as the President must be completely aware of the context that intertwines UP and the Marcoses.

    https://www.rappler.com/nation/210724-danilo-concepcion-apology-imee-marcos-kabataang-barangay-reunion-up-diliman

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.