You can condemn this to death until you’re blue in the face, and you can release tons of press releases on how many laws have been violated … but in the quiet of your situation room (i hope you are already working in your situation room and I hope it is orderly) you’ll still need to draw up scenarios and how to resolve each of them.
Just some notes:
ISA LANG ANG MAGSASALITA! [rough translation: there should only be one pointman as far as releasing the public statements are concerned – the English translation is more modulated]. Here, you have a local AFP spokesperson releasing info on hostages, a national AFP spokesperson talking about the captors, a local mayor talking about the instructions given by the President, a local governor talking about the peace talks, a Palace spokesperson talking about lawlessness, etc. etc.
Since lives are at stake here, it might be a good idea to assign only one spokesperson, and this policy should bind all officials. Pagsabihan mo yung mga nagsasalita nang hindi authorized.
This one pointman should clear whatever he/she will say with the crisis committee. Please. Hwag kayo bara-bara at magulo.
Second, for the flow of information, this situation can be considered as — to use the words of the Supreme Court in a case on prior restraint– “tantamount to war” , such that you are authorized to establish a liaison with the news media to ensure that… lives are not put at greater risk (i can’t use certain words so i hope you’ve caught on… ok, i hope you got this.) You need to appoint a pointman (another pointman for liaison aside from the crisis spokesperson) who is not stupid and who is respected by the news media. Liaison ito. The release and flow of information on the following can be controlled in a situation “tantamount to war”: number and location of troops, troop movements, oplan, details of talks, etc. etc., this is a list, you can ask media law students, i don’t want to be too talkative where hostages are involved.
The rest are operational and I probably should not write about them (like… you should not assign grandstanding politicians as negotiators, etc. etc…).
” ‘You wouldn’t like it when I’m angry…’ ” written by Mumster
“ I think Rappler’s report on the peace talks deadlock between the Philippine government and the Moro International Liberation Front (www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/peacetalks/31452-ph-milf-peace-talks-) covered both sides fairly. It made sure that both parties had their say in every issue that it raised about the delay on the peace pact.
“Although when I first saw the title of the article (MILF on stalled talks: ‘Frustrated, angry’) I expected another “demonization” of our Muslim brothers and sisters, I was quite relieved when I found this wasn’t so. I know coming up with an attention-grabbing title for a news article is tricky. But I was glad Rappler clearly stated the context of the MILF leadership’s frustration and anger on the progress (or should I say lack of it?) of the peace talks.
“Fair airing of the government and MILF’s accounts regarding the draft annexes for wealth and power-sharing and other related issues is a welcome change. For once, it didn’t seem like I was a reading a script of a telenovela where the government is the good guy and the rebels are the bad guys.”Posted by Mumster
