Media Monitor of ethics class members: News reports one-sided in favor of the police. Free promo for presidentiables etc. PART ONE From Patrick: “xxx Aksyon reported that 99 police were injured in Kidapawan, whereas there were only 10 farmers injured. This was according to their source, the PNP. According to the PPI Code of Ethics, it states that journalists should “air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.” Obviously, this is not a very credible source because first of all, they didn’t get the side of the farmers or at least a report from the area. Secondly, these are reports coming from the very people that are inflicting the danger in Kidapawan so of course, they wouldn’t release a report where the “rebels” had more casualties than their own. “More over, it is frustrating enough that there were a number of sources and other news reports where it showed that the number of casualties and deaths of farmers were way larger than the ones with the police. TV5 Should’ve known that by getting the PNP as their source, that there would already be bias in the data as well as inaccuracy. It is outrageous that a news station would even report this in the first place.” XXXXXXXX From Yella: “ xxx (N)ews article by GMA News that contains a video footage (care of the Kilab Multimedia Facebook page) of the happenings on the day the farmers were met with bullets from the police, instead of the aid they have been asking for months since the state of calamity was implemented. The article describes the different points of view of the key persons in the issue: protesters and their supporters (i.e. the Methodist Church in Kidapawan through the Sisters Association), versus the local government and the Department of Interior and Local Government. The conflicting points that were raised were the difference in the reported number of casualties/injuries of the different camps, as well as the appeal of both camps as to the truth of what transpired during the rally. Another key player is the Commission of Human Rights who also gave a statement regarding the investigation they are conducting.
“I think the article displayed rather good practice because of the following reasons:
“As per the SPJ Code of Ethics and the Expanded Code of Ethics by PPI, sources were clearly identified, and the different parties involved were given the chance to explain themselves. Specifically, the Expanded Code stated that “Getting the other side is a must, especially for the most sensitive and critical stories,” which the article was able to achieve. The video released by Kilab Multimedia made rounds on the Internet very quickly, but through the article, the other side (government) was able to appeal to the public to hear their side of the story.” XXXXXXXXX From Iya Valenzuela: “xxxRappler used the Facebook status updates of Kilab Multimedia, a popular “news” page on Facebook, as the basis of their news article. This is problematic because first of all, Facebook updates/posts are arguably considered unverified sources of information. Moreover, Kilab Multimedia’s Facebook is not transparent on their identity as an “organization”, which means that they could be anything; perhaps a propaganda page of any interest group. By posting news based on Kilab Multimedia’s facebook post, Rappler could have spread false information that could mislead/ misinform the readers, which is irresponsible journalism. Also, in this news report, Rappler mainly relied on secondary information. This further decreases the reliability of the report. Responsible journalists should include primary sources of verified information in their news report, and Rappler failed in this aspect.” XXXXXXXXX From josefgacutan: “PNP: Kidapawan cop injured by gunshot. rappler.com police-injured-gunshot-kidapawan “The article talked about the Kidapawan clash between farmers and PNP, and it gave both sides of the story, but focused more on the PNP’s statements. There were no statements mentioned that were directly from the farmers. This goes against the first provision under the PPI Code of Ethics that states that you should air the other side of the story. In this case, the farmers’. “It also goes against the provision under PPI that states that you should avoid improper emphasis – the title, “Kidapawan cop injured by gunshot” focuses on the injured policeman, when in fact, there were injured (even dead) farmers, as well.” XXXXXXX From Joyce: “Kidapawan “shooting”/ “clash” / “bloodbath” “The struggle of the Kidapawan farmers had been exposed to the world by recent news circulating online and traditional media. The number of deaths, injured and missing people had been reported as well as the plight of starving farmers in the face of El Niño. Various accounts on government officials’ response to the situation had been covered. As indicated in the SPJ Code of Ethics 2014, it is indeed a part of the role of journalists to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and the government, as well as to give voice to the voiceless (which in this case are the Kidapawan farmers). “On the other hand, it appears that many of the accused to be responsible for the violent dispersal of the protesting farmers and the problem on starvation in the province had barely been given coverage for their responses on the allegations made about them. This includes the PNP officers, the Kidapawan mayor, the provincial governor, agriculture secretary and even the Philippine president. I believe that this is an important part of a balance reporting and that ultimately, the people will be the ones to decide whose account on the incident they will believe. “It is also noticeable that as the coverage on the incident continues, candidates for high posts (such as Miriam Santiago, Bongbong Marcos, Rodrigo Duterte, Allan Peter Cayetano) in the national government had been given the opportunity to have a free advertisement for their own benefit as they were interviewed on their opinion about the matter. While it is important to know the stance of the future leaders of the nation in such an issue, it is obvious that no candidate in his or her right mind will condone the incident. The attention of the audience will now tend to be diverted from the important issues concerning the Kidapawan shooting to the competition among the candidates.” XXXXXXXXXX From Micha: “PNP: Kidapawan cop injured by gunshot Published: April 4, 2016 “Source: rappler.com police-injured-gunshot-kidapawan “The article is basically about a cop being shot in the leg at the clash between the police and the local farmers in Kidapawan city. Mainly, the article sided with the PNP and there were no information retrieved from the opposing side. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, journalists must“Seek the truth and Report it” and in the PPI Code of Ethics, “All efforts must be exerted to make stories fair, accurate and balanced. Getting the other side is a must.” “However, Rappler has been able to “Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story (SPJ Code of Ethics: Seek Truth and Report It)” which is important prior to updating the public about the current events in Kidapawan city regarding this issue.”
#Kidapawan #KidapawanShooting SWAT shooters wore “ski masks” under the hot sun and hid nameplates, get the frame-by-frame photos here
Shooters can be identified thru freeze-frames of the following videos here:
For investigative agencies, news organizations, concerned parties: Here are two unadulterated video clips of the fatal five minutes of shooting in Kidapawan City four days ago. For evidentiary purposes, the following must be done:
first: authenticate by identifying the videographer (Kilab Multimedia cameraman and crew) and asking the videographer to confirm that he/she took these videos;
second: establish the context thru more visual information before and after and thru testimonial and object evidence.
Videos are in the category of documentary evidence; documentary evidence is superior to testimonial evidence (“he-said-she-said”).
The Kidapawan shooting is not a he-said-she-said incident: there were actual shooters and fatalities and the identity of the perpetrators can be established by video evidence. (In the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation, the FBI relied on video and photo evidence to narrow down the suspects. )
From these video clips, freeze-frame the following: 1)All persons who are armed; 2)All persons who fired their guns; 3)All persons who are reloading their guns; 4)All persons who are pulling back the slide of their firearms (cocking their guns), etc. Jive the freeze-frames with the audio. The President, being a gun-enthusiast himself (albeit in a very controlled environment) would be able to analyze from these videos the following:
1)who were firing their guns; 2) who were reloading their firearms; 3)who were aiming with their fingers inside the trigger guard; 4)who have disengaged the safety latch of their firearm; who were pulling back the slide of their firearms (cocking their guns), etc. etc., and jive these with the audio of shots being fired. Here they are:
Photo from a freeze-frame by Kilab, published in Bicol Today, used here non-commercially for academic purposes
#KidapawanShooting @inquirerdotnet @ABSCBNNews Paraffin Test Unreliable accdg to Supreme Court, see cases here #JeSuisKidapawan #NousSommesKidapawan
The Supreme Court has ruled in a line of cases that a paraffin test is unreliable in proving that a person had fired a gun. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the handling of fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes, urine, and other nitrogenous compounds, or the handling of leaves or sprouts with nitrites or nitrates such as leguminous plants like peas, beans, and alfalfa, or the use of tobacco, will each result in a positive paraffin test. In People vs. Julian Mendoza, G.R. No. 67858, June 29, 1989, the Supreme Court held: (Justice Sarmiento): “xxx With respect to the paraffin test undergone by the appellant which yielded positive results for nitrates, we hold that this fact alone, uncorroborated by any other evidence, is not sufficient to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant. The prosecution insists that the finding was due to the firing of the firearm which was employed to kill the victim. The defense on the other hand attributes the positive finding to the appellant’s having applied fertilizer to his plantings and manufactured fireworks thereafter. It is submitted that both these activities could produce the same positive finding: Authorities on this subject seem to support the submission of the defense. “The (Diphenylamine or Parrafin) test is not conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder because fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes, urine, and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrates and nitrates will give a positive reaction. (citing medico-legal expert Pedro Solis, Legal Medicine, 380) (Underscoring supplied) “This (Diphenylamine or Parrafin) test has proved extremely unreliable in use. The only thing that it can definitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrates on the hand. It cannot be definitely established from this test alone that the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The person may have handled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and leguminous plants such as peas beans and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of tobacco. As a result, the usefulness of this test as evidence is very small, although it does have some investigative value. (citing “American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts Annotated”, Volume 5, 119-120).(Underscoring supplied). “In case of doubt, we have to rule in favor of the appellant and adopt the interpretation consistent with his innocence. A vital finding of fact which negates the prosecution’s insistence on the guilt of the accused is that no firearm was presented by the prosecution to corroborate its claim that Mendoza was the person who had fired the gun xxx xxx “The trial court held that the contention of the appellant that the positive finding of the parrafin test was the result of the application of fertilizers to his corn crop and in making firecrackers hardly deserves any modicum of consideration. If it is true, the trial court said, that the powder burns found in the hands of the victim were the result of the application of fertilizers, how come the appellant’s brother-in-law, Mauricio Ilao, who also applied fertilizers on that same day, was found negative for nitrates? “From the records we find that this expressed doubt of the trial court had been sufficiently explained. The appellant testified as follows: “Q: What were you doing in that land of yours in the mountain while you were there? “A: I was applying fertilizer, sir. “Q:How about your brother-in-law, was he also applying fertilizer in his landholding? “A:He was plowing the field, sir. “Thus it is not surprising that only the appellant was found positive for nitrates because his brother-in-law did not apply fertilizer, but only plowed the field.”
In the reverse, in People vs. Cajumocan, G.R. No. 155023, May 28, 2004, the Supreme Court also held that a person who had fired a gun and had washed his/her hand thoroughly would have a negative paraffin test: “Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder. “Appellant’s argument that the negative result of gunpowder nitrates from the paraffin test conducted on him the day after the crime was committed, thereby showing an absence of physical evidence that he fired a gun, is untenable. In the case of People v. Manalo,16 we stressed: x x x even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test. The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol.” In People vs. Ilisan, G.R. No. 179487 November 15, 2010, the Supreme Court held: “(P)araffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun. Conversely, the absence of gunpowder nitrates on petitioners hands, the day after the incident, does not conclusively establish that he did not fire a gun; neither are the negative results yielded by the paraffin test an insurmountable proof of his innocence.”
