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 “Janitor” is one of those terms considered outdated together with labels like “stewardess”, “squatter”, “garbage man”, “maid”, etc.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
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”.
