The 7th Media Monitor (or any of the bonuses including the 6th bonus which is a review of any media content on the Kidapawan shooting) can be posted here with deadline extended to Wednesday 2pm April 6.
The 6th bonus is a review of any media content on the Kidapawan shooting, whether in the traditional media or the social media. Happy viewing and reading!
Dear Inquirer editors: Thank you for your article today, “Janitor lectures bets on honesty ”, about NAIA contractual worker Ronald Gadayan and his exemplary service — returning valuables left by passengers such as cash of P2.4 million left by a Cebu businessman, jewelry and gadgets like iPad, iPhones, Apple Mac laptop of a doctor, $5,000 in cash left by an OFW), pouch with jewelry, etc.
By the way, regarding the text of your article which repeatedly referred to your news feature subject as “janitor”: In many modern countries such as the U.S. , the employee in charge of keeping the premises tidy is referred to as maintenance staff or utility worker or custodian (or “cleaners” in the UK). “Janitor” is one of those terms considered outdated together with labels like “stewardess”, “squatter”, “garbage man”, “maid”, etc. For example, we do not use the word “basurero” : the people who recycle garbage to earn money call themselves nangangalakal, which is somehow accurate because they sell what they pick up. In the Philippines, the Civil Service Law uses the term “utility workers” while many contractual personnel manpower agencies use the term “sanitation staff”.
In the numerous awards he received for honest service, his citation reads: “Kahanga-hangang Pinoy” (“admirable Filipino”) ( by the Manila Jaycee Senate); “outstanding alumnus of Caloocan High School”, “Spirit of Edsa awardee in 2013”, and “outstanding citizen” (by Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle); “Honesto” (from the Caloocan mayor); and in a play by Adamson University based on his life: ” #PopePUlar Pano kung Pinoy si Kiko: A Filipino musical”.
(Some leeway is allowed for language used in works of fiction, and I realize your news feature here tried to weave a narrative — but it’s a news feature, the subject is a real person with a real family).
More important than the use of labels however, is the compensation they should receive: the utility staff, being a vital component of the administrative services, should receive a living wage or adequate compensation and benefits, and their family, adequate social services. Yun lang po, maraming salamat. – mula kay manananggal, este, manananggol marichu
As expected, PR agencies of the candidates flood the news pages a day or two after the debate with press releases on who “won” the debate.
More insidious however are “polls” hosted by news organizations that purport to measure who “won” the debate by soliciting votes from their viewers or readers. This is called an open-access poll or a crowd-sourced poll. It is not scientific, and everybody knows that.
Well, maybe not everybody.
Many people still believe what they see or read in the news. And many more do not know that for the right price, a candidate can contract a PR agency to activate 10,000 unique isp numbers in his/her favor to vote in a non-scientific poll, and get away with it. He/she “won the debate”!
Would it be too much to ask the editors to at least put a small, teeny box beside their sidebar “poll” that states: “non-scientific poll”. Two words, one line. Or: “Not a scientific poll.” Four words (three words and an article). Or: “This is not a scientific poll.” Or: “not scientific”. Or: “non-scientific”. One word. Would that be too much to ask?
Otherwise, post-debate “polls”, like the opinions of “political analysts” on who “won” the debate” are just pieces of propaganda materials to repair the shattered performances of their clients.
⇒ ⇒⇒ From Sheldon R. Gawiser, Ph.D. and G. Evans Witt of the National Council on Public Polls (U.S.):“The only polls that should be reported are “scientific” polls.xxx Unscientific pseudo-polls are widespread and sometimes entertaining, but they never provide the kind of information that belongs in a serious report. Examples include xxx call-in polls, man-on-the-street surveys, many Internet polls, shopping mall polls xxx “One major distinguishing difference between scientific and unscientific polls is who picks the respondents for the survey. In a scientific poll, the pollster identifies and seeks out the people to be interviewed. In an unscientific poll, the respondents usually “volunteer” their opinions, selecting themselves for the poll. “In scientific polls, the pollster uses a specific statistical method for picking respondents. In unscientific polls, the person picks himself to participate” (open access: open to everyone interested) xxx The method pollsters use to pick interviewees relies on the bedrock of mathematical reality: when the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population. This is called a random sample or a probability sample. xxx” (at http://www.ncpp.org/ )
