Section FWX Media Monitor 2nd w new bonus titles for more choices

     Section FWX (deadline Sept6, 5pm) Media Monitor Second, with additional new bonus titles to choose from

     The Section FWX Second Media Monitor can be posted here, with deadline September 6 at 5pm, with additional new bonus topics/ bonus titles to choose from 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 to choose from in addition to the eight earlier provided:

     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)
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.
Adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of the sectors they represent and in communicating with the public.
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.
Provide objective advice to the sectors they represent.
Be accountable for one’s actions.
Be faithful to the sectors they represent, while honoring the obligation to serve the public interest.
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 shows the models for the body of the U.P. Oblation, from the UP archives, used here non-commercially for academic purposes)

8 thoughts on “Section FWX Media Monitor 2nd w new bonus titles for more choices

  1. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS: Ben Tulfo

    The Commission on Audit (COA) suggests that Wanda Tulfo and Ben Tulfo may have committed graft and corruption when the Department of Tourism signed a contract with Ben Tulfo’s Bitag Media Unlimited to air tourism segments and advertisements in People’s Television Network (PTV4). The contract states that Tulfo’s Bitag Media will receive P89.878 million or 75% of the cut of the total airing cost that the DOT will pay PTV4 for tourism ads and segments to be aired in Tulfo’s show Kilos Pronto. COA’s 2017 audit report on DOT states that the contract with PTV4 may be a possible conflict of interest which is a violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The offense violates the provision of “giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative and judicial functions.” The possible conflict of interest is that the former DOT secretary at that time was Ben Tulfo’s sister, Wanda Tulfo-Teo. The contract also violates the Philippine Press Code of Ethics provision that states a journalist “shall not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties; nor shall I accept or offer any present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my professional integrity.” 
    The total contract cost to air tourism segments on PTV programs was P120 million but P89.878 million will be paid to Kilos Pronto which is a show owned by Tulfo’s Bitag Media according to COA’s 2017 audit report on DOT. A total net amount of P71.061 million has already been paid to Bitag in 4 tranches as obtained by Rappler from PTV. Additionally, it was revealed that Bitag will be paid P35.67 million for airing 157 tourism segments in Kilos Pronto and P54.208 million for 1,232 one minute advertisement conveniently placed again within Kilos Pronto. However, consistencies were found with the number of times that PTV has aired DOT’s tourism segments and advertisements which indicate a non-compliance with the agreement. Allegations have also been made accusing DOT of failing to conduct a proper bidding process for the DOT segments and ads. 
    Tulfo’s legal counsel, Ferdinand Topacio, said on May 7, 2018 that the money will be returned to the Department of Tourism. But on May 10, 2018, Mon Tulfo denied in his newspaper column that the Tulfo family approved of the statement of Topacio. In the caption of a video posted on June 25, Ben Tulfo, the host of Bitag, said, "Sa mga nagsasabing isauli ang pera at hinihintay daw ang 60-M, mamuti na mga mata niyo! Wala kaming isasauli! Sa mga nagsasabing ilegal at nangulimbat kami, e'di sampahan niyo kami ng kaso, tutal nandyan naman ang COA at Ombudsman!" Tulfo has clarified that all negotiations were done legally and followed the legal process. He also dared critics to prove their allegations in court instead of continuously ruining his reputation online. "Patunayan niyo ang sinasabi niyong conflict of interest sa hukuman!",Tulfo argued. Lastly, the questionable contract between DOT and Tulfo’s Bitag Media Unlimited breaches the provision in the SPJ Code of Ethics that states “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” Wanda Tulfo has claimed in a senate hearing that she wouldn’t have signed the contract if she only knew that Kilos Pronto was part of Bitag Media. Tulfo also violated the SPJ provision that journalists should “refuse gifts, favors, free travel and special treatment that may compromise integrity or impartiality or may damage credibility.” Another SPJ violation states that one should “deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or other special interests.” Ben Tulfo has tainted his integrity and credibility as a journalist when he signed the contract to air multiple tourism segments and ads in his blocktimer show in PTV4. Are these the type of journalists that we should listen to? 

    Ben Tulfo: I will not return ₱60-M to gov’t. (2018, July 29). Retrieved from

    Buan, L. (2018, July 12). COA sees graft: How Ben Tulfo earned from P120 million PTV-DOT deal. Retrieved from

    COA cites ‘possible conflict of interest’ in DOT deal with Tulfo brother. (2018, July 12). Retrieved from

  2. 2nd media monitor
    Bonus title: Ramon Tulfo
    As a person can be defined by his actions, the behavior exhibited by Ramon Tulfo in the emergency room of PGH clearly manifest unethical behavior from a person bounded by the field of journalism – the aforementioned failed to adhere to the provisions in the Philippine Press Code of Ethics and the SPJ Code of Ethics.

    The Philippine Press Code of Ethics posits that, “I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword”.
    By aggressively attempting to command the staff of the PGH ER, Tulfo not only failed to comport himself while performing his duty, but also neglected to act in such a manner that exemplifies a profession with dignity and ethical ideologies. Similarly, he failed to acknowledge the context the ER demands by being oblivious to the protocols of the health institution.

    Moreover, the SPJ Code of Ethics imposed the principle of “Minimizing Harm” as a journalist acts according to his duties. In the early releases of the footage depicting the Tulfo-inflicted situation, some faces of minors were not blurred – Tulfo and company failed to “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.”

    Furthermore, a report by Rappler ( documents how Tulfo refuses to apologize to PGH and the staff therein. Tulfo, again manifesting a violation and unethical behavior, refuses to hold himself accountable “[acknowledging] mistakes and [correcting] them promptly and prominently” – as posited in the SPJ Code of Ethics.

    Ultimately, the SPJ Code of Ethics’ Preamble dictates that “An ethical journalist acts with integrity” – a criteria Tulfo failed to uphold.


    History Revisionism is one of the great threats that our society faces today. Martial Law is one of the historical events that many of today’s youth do not know much about. Many of today’s text books go into the technicalities of martial law such as dates, times, events and places; but many young people still do not completely understand the gravity of bloodshed and torture the preceding generation faced in the Marcos era.

    Compared to text books, social media is such an open platform. Many people who have experienced and know about the pains of the Marcos regime look to these platforms to inform the public on the events and experiences at that time that could not be published in text books. One example of a Facebook post that rants to inform is this:

    It is a very civil statement of facts and of history, though as seen in the comments section, some apologists may see this as a direct attack to the Marcoses. I highly regard Facebook for upholding an “exception” to hate rants. Facebook Community Standards say “Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others”. These rants are genuine expressions and discussions of all the bodies buried and lost in that oppressive regime. Facebook today has become the voice of the silenced.

    One way or another, expression of Marcos Era experiences on social media is a double edged sword. While this could be an open platform to raise awareness on the things that happened in the era, it may also be an open platform for fake news. As users of social media, it is our responsibility to make the true stories surface. Let us use social media as a tool to protects us all from history revisionism. May we #NeverForget the lives sacrificed for our peace and freedom.

  4. 2nd Media Monitor
    BONUS TITLE: #NeverAgain

    Upon perusal of Facebook’s community standards on hate speech, bullying, harassment, and the like – especially in the case of public figures – I have read no Facebook post about the Imee Marcos’ Kabataang Baranggay (KB) reunion a week ago that could be deemed as a personal attack on her or any other public figure put into question (such as UP President Danilo Concepcion and UPD Chancellor Michael Tan). There was no symbolic violence whatsoever in which there could have been “dehumanizing speech” based on their “protected characteristics” (race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability), as set by the site’s guidelines. All of what I had seen so far were reasonable and valid critiques – just a public dutifully calling out involved – even detached – officials for justice and accountability. No ad hominems.

    One factor to this generalization may have been because of my limited number of Facebook friends who cared to write lengthy captions on their news article shares. Another may be because my online social circle mostly included my peers and professors whom I have met here in UP.

    Regardless, statements released by concerned faculty, student councils, and organizations have only drawn attention to inaction. For example, two separate responses to Chancellor Tan and his Inquirer article about the KB reunion wrote: “Neutrality pa more. Plurality pa more”; “Besides the use of Voltairean principles, the article does not give any justifiable points – it’s weak and peak liberal, which is surprising especially if coming from someone who known in the field of Philosophy and an expert on Kant.” Some even demanded concrete actions such as resignation of UP Pres. DaniCon after his public apology: “Your ‘Tao lang po’ excuse is so lame. Do not give UP to your BFFs, the Marcoses. Please resign.”

    An “extreme” or explicit case may only be this one post that I saw from a UP professor that chose to call out the public’s mixed reactions instead: “There are those who insist that allowing Imee Marcos and her KB posse to hold a homecoming inside UP campus is democratic, and that disallowing then from doing so would have been, in effect, emulating the repressive programs of her father during his dictatorship. I say to them: Fuck you.” Imee Marcos notoriously uses these types of statements, especially those that contain profanity, to defend herself, her family, and their loyal supporters and twist the words to appear as if they were personally vilifying them. However, I must insist that these types of posts – including the Facebook status I quoted in particular – are not unethical. The profanity “fuck you” was only used as a general expression and not a personal attack to be taken literally. Besides, do Imee and the rest of her family not deserve those set types of expressions to be directed at them? With a small note in their guidelines on hate speech that exempts “those described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses”, Facebook somehow begs to differ.

    Imee cannot argue that she or they are being bullied and harassed either. Facebook’s bullying policies are said to not apply on public figures for “[they] want to allow discourse, which often includes critical discussion of people who are featured in the news or who have a large public audience.” To end this once and for all, I shall fully quote the most critical and least “dehumanizing” reaction that I’ve encountered, from Prof. Gerry Lanuza no less:

    “To claim that the Marcoses are welcome at UP because UP is open to all political views is not even liberalism. It’s irrationalism. Liberalism can only be defended on reasoned argument. And welcoming the Marcoses at UP is surrendering our reason to mere subjective preferences and being indifferent to historical knowledge. It’s not just about Imee and the KB. It’s all about the historic judgment made by our people in 1986. It’s all about the historic struggle of UP against the Marcoses. Are we negating that as a University? Can the Nazis and ISIS also hold their reunion at Bahay ng Alumni?”

    Cornelio, Richard Calayeg. Caption on shared link to news article. Facebook. 30 August 2018, 3:00 pm, Accessed 5 September 2018
    Facebook. “Community Standards”. Facebook. 2018, Accessed 5 September 2018.

    Lanuza, Gerardo. Caption on shared link to news article. Facebook. 29 August 2018, 8:08 pm, Accessed 5 September 2018.

    Los Banos, Gerry. Personal status. Facebook. 30 August 2018, 9:24 pm, Accessed 5 September 2018.

    Mendoza, Ivy Lisa F. Caption on shared statement photo. Facebook. 29 August 2018, 11:34 pm, Accessed 5 September 2018.

    Navanred, Leroy. Caption on shared link to news article. Facebook. 3 September 2018, 7:50 am, Accessed 5 September 2018.

    REGULAR: Underground Abortion in the Philippines

    The three-part article explores underground abortion in the Philippines. It mostly presented case studies of several users from an online abortion forum who’ve had the procedure through backstreet abortionists and a group of anonymous professional doctos.

    The SPG Code of Ethics states that we should “diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticisms or allegations of wrongdoing.” Since there are also negative comments left in the forum that “criticizes the services of the abortionists”, it would only be fair to get their opinion on the matter, as well, so it was good that the reporters from Rappler tried reaching out to the abortionists advertised on the site.

    Rappler also respected the requested anonymity of the doctor they interviewed, but didn’t the introduce the interviewee vaguely but rather as “a medical doctor who believes in the need for safe abortion options” as not to remove their credibility on the matter.

    Rappler also didn’t disguised themselves as potential patients when trying to reach to the abortionists for an interview so they could have their scoop. The SPG Code of Ethics says, “Avoid undercover or other surreptious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.” Rappler didn’t get the full details on the procedure but at least they were entertained by the secretary who treated them to the introduction letter they send to people who are interested.


  6. 2nd Media Monitor
    Bonus Title: Ramon Tulfo

    Ramon Tulfo’s intentions for taking the video of the child still remains questionable for me. He claims to be taking the video for legal purposes, but why is he, so concerned about this? Does he really care about the condition of the child or does he only care about his own welfare?

    After seeing how agitated Tulfo was, I can’t help but think that this might be a preemptive move to divert people’s perception of the tissue towards how “incompetent” PGH people are, instead of focusing on how Tulfo’s driver hit a child on the road. It can clearly be seen that Tulfo as well as his staff were already on the defensive. While taking the video, they were claiming that it’s only for personal use. Later on, according to a news article released by Philippine Star, Tulfo claimed that the reason why they took the video was for legal purposes only, but he also said that people should judge the video on their own. Here lies the problem, because if the only took the video for personal use, why would they want the public to judge the video? Wouldn’t this require disclosing the video to the public, contradicting their initial, supposed intention for taking the video? Wouldn’t this also mean that Tulfo was already guilty for hitting a child on the road, and he is already taking drastic measures to ensure that he won’t face any legal sanctions by taking a video of a child and putting the blame on the doctors? Maybe he thinks that this might be a good defense, because if something happens to the child, the doctors would be liable and it would appear that he has done everything to ensure that child’s welfare was his primary concern. With this we can say that Tulfo has violated the SPJ’s code of ethics, because he was majorly influenced by his personal interest in framing the situation.

    Furthermore, regardless of his intention, I still think that Tulfo, as a journalist, should havl considered to minimize the harm his video may have done. According to the SPJ’s Code of Ethics, “pusruit of news is not a license for arrogance and undue intrusiveness”. This principle clearly contradicts what Tulfo has done. Because, not only did he took a video without due permission, but he also said derogatory words to the hospital staff, this isn’t just intrusive, but it can also be considered as beyond arrogant. Second, they actually violated the no video-taking policy being implemented inside the hospital. They also exposed the face of the child, a minor, who should not have been seen in the video. They also bypassed the child’s guardian, by not asking for permission to take a video. Regardless of use, may it be personal or public, taking a video of a minor’s face is not allowed unless it was permitted by the child’s legal guardian. In this case they should have opted to not take a video, because there is a serious issue at hand. Lastly, they failed to show compassion to those affected by their coverage as well as realizing that private people have greater power to control information about them. It can be seen in the video that people were already telling Tulfo and his staff to stop the commotion because it’s making the child uncomfortable, but they ignored the plea and continue to take the video. Tulfo doesn’t only show his true intentions, but he also made several ethical violations with what he did.

    – Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ehtics
    – Ramon Tulfo won’t apologize to PGH over video. (August 21, 2018). r=Retrieved from:

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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.