Rumor of PNoy Collapse and Denial as News: Editors resort to tricks of the trade again: should be asked to account for their “editorial judgment”
News media giants such as the Inquirer bannered the rumor of PNoy’s “collapse” or fainting spell as news report by storifying the denial. In an earlier post at: https://marichulambino.com/2015/02/06/storifying-the-purisima-resignation-pnp-chief-tricks-of-the-trade/ , the practice of storifying a rumor was illustrated: That is: since news editors and news directors are not allowed to publish/ air/ post rumors as news reports, they simply get the government official’s denial of the rumor, and then, turn the denial into a news report. It’s one of the oldest trick in the news business. News editors know that they are not supposed to disseminate as news any unverified talk or text or tweet (a rumor) – but they want to use the unverified talk or text or tweet (rumor) in their news page, so they indirectly report the rumor in a frontpage news story by simply getting the denial and newspegging the rumors on that. Banner. Front page. Big letters. Rumor.
Normally, when fed with a rumor, the editor would ask the reporter: Look for a source. Then, he/ she would ask: Kailan daw nangyari (when did this happen?) What time? Where? Who saw it? If you have absolutely no information whatsoever, then, there is no story. Get a bit, a bite, a tip, a lead, a source who saw something — like the President’s knees slowly wobbling, until he was slumped on the staircase; or the President looking pale before wearily holding on to a railing, etc., — get sumthin’. If all you have is a denial of a rumor, just a denial, nothing more, why is that a story? A rumor is not a story. The denial of a rumor is also not a story. A denial simply means the news editor is back to square one. Square one (or square zero in this case) means you have no information whatsoever on whether he collapsed or not. Zero, zilch, nada, a blank. The effort of trying to get information is also not a story. A reporter interviewing the gardener, barber, waiter, driver, and Darla (Kris Aquino’s head writer) and not getting anything or getting a “wala naman akong napansin” (“I didn’t notice anything”), is not a story. (a reporter talking on the phone, working the keyboard, walking on the street, is not a story). Zero information is not a story.
Curiosity as to who started the rumor is not an element of news. The notion that there must be a group floating these rumors for “political objectives” is commonsensical — using that as news value is unbelievably inane and banal.
All those news organizations who used this rumor, or its denial, as news story should be held to account for their so-called “editorial judgment”.
Because Malacañang gave a rejoinder the other day.
Palace spokespersons stressed that : The President had already said (in an early speech, after he skipped the arrival honors) that he was responsible for the Mamasapano operation.
To be fair: Yes, he said something to the effect that “bilang ama ng bayan… dadalhin ko buong buhay ko ang nangyaring ito”, or some such statement (roughly, “i would carry with me throughout my life, with a heavy heart, the fact that many died in this operation…”).
Yes, he did say that.
In about three lines of his third prepared speech.
In contrast however, in ALL his other statements, messages, and speeches he blamed Napeñas (in a private meeting with legislators, he blamed Purisima).
About 80 per cent of the time, it was:
Napeñas, Napeñas, Napeñas,
and 10 per cent of the time:
Purisima.
If you want to be empirical about this, you could commission a couple of students to make a content- analysis, quantitative and qualitative, and pictograph the data for Malacañang’s appreciation. (Just give a mini-grant for the trouble of making a line-by-line analysis of all the nationwide televised addresses, dialogs, interviews, speeches.)
Or you could just examine the Pulse Asia poll where 8 out of 10 Filipinos said that they were not satisfied with PNoy’s explanation for the deadly and deathly Mamasapano operation.
Sure, the President could detail the operational mistakes of Purisima and Napeñas.
But the intent people are looking for, in words and in decisive action — a standard line of many world-class leaders who have the courage to own up to their decisions, is: “I take full responsibility for this…i take full responsibility ” (to begin and end every message he makes where he might detail the mistakes of his subordinates).
(my nephew is even more forthright when he corrects errors without being prodded by a Board of Inquiry: “My bad. Here it is.” ) That’s it, tapós, end of story.
