This is the lede of Stephanie Dychiu's series on Hacienda Luisita:
Senator Noynoy Cojuangco Aquino has said he only owns 1% of Hacienda Luisita. Why is he being dragged into the hacienda’s issues?
This is one of the most common questions asked in the 2010 elections.
To find the answer, GMANews.TV traveled to Tarlac and spoke to Luisita’s farm workers and union leaders. A separate interview and review of court documents was then conducted with the lawyers representing the workers’ union in court. GMANews.TV also examined the Cojuangcos’ court defense and past media and legislative records on the Luisita issue.
The investigation yielded illuminating insights into Senator Noynoy Aquino’s involvement in Hacienda Luisita that have not been openly discussed since his presidential bid. Details are gradually explored in this series of special reports.
A background on the troubled history of Hacienda Luisita is essential to understanding why the issue is forever haunting Senator Noynoy Aquino and his family.
Jay Salazar, in his impressive analysis, says:
The use of phrases such as “being dragged”, “one of the most common”, “troubled history”, and “forever haunting” ... should have been excised from a piece of straight reportage. Not only are they tonally charged, they also pivot on undisclosed assumptions about how Senator Aquino is bound up with and implicated in the issue of Hacienda Luisita.
The announced intention of discovering why Senator Aquino is “being dragged” into the issue, for instance, is, at bottom, predicated on a spurious hyperbole: because the issue is supposed to be “forever haunting” him, though it was previously stated that this same issue is the root of “one of the most common questions asked in the 2010 elections."
"Why the issue is forever haunting" assumes that the issue is in fact haunting the senator. (Her report also shows she never talked to the senator, so how would she know if he is in fact being haunted? A silly but fundamental question. Journalism is, after all, concerned with facts and the fair interpretation thereof.)
The 5-part series, Jay concludes, is a lengthy report based on a question for which that writer already has a blueprint or outline of answers to. That is, Dychiu's search for answers was guided by a question she already, in her mind, had concluded. Her research, and thus reporting, process was flawed from the get-go.
This is what the legal community calls "begging the question," petitio principii, assuming the initial point. It is a logical fallacy. In journalism, it is called sloppy reporting.
This piece takes off where Jay ended: RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM?
Did GMA News do the justice to the truth, the public, and above all, the farmers of Hacienda Luisita?
Did GMA News do the justice to the truth, the public, and above all, the farmers of Hacienda Luisita?
***
The ongoing discussion of the standards employed in the NYT-Luisita piece is one I am contemplating with much interest and re-evaluation.
On the other hand, the case of Stephanie Dychiu/Howie Severino's Luisita series on the GMA News website is a glaring offense to the profession. What stands out is that the offended journalistic conventions are so basic.
Before I continue, in the interest of transparency, let me state I support Aquino's bid. But two things must be noted:
1. My interest in this subject is purely journalistic in nature, I would write this even if I did not support Aquino for president;
2. My support for Aquino is voluntary, and ends the moment I am convinced/ facts confirm, that Aquino has violated mine and the public's trust, and therefore, like all the others, should not serve in public office.
In any case, this entry is not about Aquino, but the practice of journalism in the specific case of Dychiu/Severino's GMA-HL series.
My purpose here is to flick on the lights.
The Society of Professional Journalists says this in its code of ethics:
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
I'm doing my bit. In so doing, I also hope to do my part in enlightening the news-consuming public of what they must expect and demand from the news media, an institution that is, in its ways, as powerful as the government (will explore this relationship in a later post).
***
Do you know whom you're getting your news from?
Journalism is the hallmark of democracy. As such, it must not be tainted, or cause itself to be cast in dubious light. Dychiu's piece could arguably be suspected of the first; it is guilty of the second. The GMA-HL series is an affront to Journalism, and to news consumers, a betrayal of public trust.
In late 2009, a "groundbreaking" (as per some blog entries/comments touting the series) report on one of the most volatile political issues of today was released. The importance of discussing the issue is unquestionable. But who wrote it?
The series was advertised heavily on Facebook, with about 8 million Filipino users, as "an investigative journalist reports."
According to Stephanie Dychiu's portfolio, she's a freelance arts, culture and lifestyle features writer who seems to have only recently been moving on to political matters (has a section in her site called "News Pundit"). She has also published a book profiling top CEOs. Her public LinkedIn profile shows a marketing, finance and business development background.
As a news consumer, I would have preferred if, on an issue as explosive as this, an established reporter with a solid record took the lead, as this person would be tried and tested in fact-gathering, interpretation, and resisting the human condition called opinion.
A colleague told me he had e-mailed Howie Severino about his reservations on the treatment of what is more like an essay or opinion piece (with the thesis statement disguised as a question), as a news report. The watchdog website Propinoy.net described the series as "wolf in sheep's clothing" in response to complaints that they did not repost the lengthy 5-parter. Severino stood by his writer (as any editor should). That casts the net of praise and liability not only over Dychiu, but on Severino as well.
***
"Journalism is a discipline of verification"
The news is "the first draft of history." It is a primary source, as it collects data on the ground, relaying information from verifiable witnesses to the event or issue being reported. Here is what GMA reveals to us about how they went about collecting data:
To find the answer, GMANews.TV traveled to Tarlac and spoke to Luisita’s farm workers and union leaders. A separate interview and review of court documents was then conducted with the lawyers representing the workers’ union in court. GMANews.TV also examined the Cojuangcos’ court defense and past media and legislative records on the Luisita issue.
(1)
I take exception, above all, to the gross violation of one fundamental rule, judging by the above statement and the subsequent report. News must be neutral. Both and all possible sides of the story must be aired. Every attempt must be made to contact varying sides, especially when they dissent; in the event that attempts failed, it is incumbent upon the journalist to let the public know that those attempts were made.
The farmers and their legal counsel were consulted in an interview. One side, check. What about the party accused of wrongdoing? When were the Cojuangcos or their legal counsel interviewed for their side of the story? Why rely on a court defense and "past media legislative records"? Why speak to human beings whom you can question and verify your understanding with on one side of the picket line, but on the other side of the barracks, consult pieces of paper?
According to the SPJ code of ethics:— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
And the Journalist's code of ethics (Philippines) says:— I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognise the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.
It must be noted that Aquino's campaign spokesman Atty. Edwin Lacierda was interviewed by Howie Severino, and quoted in one line (please correct me if I am wrong). However, according to Lacierda (I verified that it was indeed him who commented on Jay's blog): "I was interviewed by Howie Severino only for the purpose of verifying some personalities on the killings and the intention of Senator Aquino regarding land distribution."
This is Severino's response on the blog: "Regarding the lack of interviews with the Cojuangco family, Sen. Aquino’s staff referred our queries about Luisita to Atty. Edwin Lacierda his spokesman who, in addition to the quotes[sic.-should be singular] included in the reports, also conveyed to us the sentiments of certain members of the Cojuangco family which he asked be off the record."
It must also be noted that two statements coming from the Aquino camp were emailed to GMA News on Dec 7, 2009. But that's all it is -- an e-mail (in lieu of an in-person interview, as discussed above), and sidebarred at that, not even included in the body of the story.
In the sidebar of Part 2, the Aquino camp stated: "Those who are forcing us to speak on this matter are not after the welfare of my former constituents, but to advance their propaganda aims."
That's a big accusation. It behooves the inquisitive and responsible journalist to follow up on Aquino's claim. Does Aquino have basis for saying this is the work of propagandists? There was no effort to address Aquino's allegation. Dychiu, to use her own words, "dragged" Aquino into this story, so why didn't she address this claim?
The only remote reference to "propagandists" is one line, leaps of information later, in Part 3: "Concerned groups from out of town also sent contingents to help protect the strikers." An insufficient response to Aquino's serious allegation, to say the least; especially since my own interviews with farmers at the hacienda, as well as various reports both in public domain and sub judice, show that there are farmers who believe those "concerned groups" such as Bayan Muna and KMU, ignited, rather than helped, the dispute. In fact, several of those I interviewed at Hacienda Luisita (some of whom I name below) hold deep grudges against these groups.
***
Note that I use the qualification "many farmers" rather than "farmers" or "the farmers," as Dychiu does in her series. The latter two assume and give the impression that all farmers without exception share the belief. The use of qualifiers like "many" or "some" are, as in legal writing, standards in journalistic writing. The use of qualifiers is more accurate, unless you are certain there is 100% concurrence with the statement. See what a big difference it makes:
"...the farmworkers back then were protesting the construction of the Luisita interchange of the highway [SCTEx]..." -Dychiu, in Part 2
"Many/some farmworkers back then were protesting the construction.."
The first one lends the impression they all did. The second one lends the impression some (which, in the language of logic, is equivalent to "at least one") did not. As it turns out, the second one is more accurate. In an interview by a colleague with Alfredo Laurente, current president of the CATLU [Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union], Laurente defended the construction of the SCTEx. I have excised the preceding sentence as someone kindly brought to my attention that Laurente, being from CATLU, is not technically a farmer. I welcome corrections and clarifications. ~FT 28 March, 9:15pm
(2)
That brings me to another issue: the number of sources.
"To find the answer, GMANews.TV traveled to Tarlac and spoke to Luisita’s farm workers and union leaders," reads Dychiu's lede. In the introduction she writes, "This is the story of the hacienda and its farmers."
This is their story, plural.
The only farmer that is quoted first-hand in this series is Lito Bais, "one of the present-day leaders of the ULWU."
One. Singular. And quoted in length.
How can this be the farmers' story, collective?
The only other inkling of the existence of other interviewed farmers (if any) in the rest of the series is when Dychiu editorializes. Take for example: "The farmers thought the wheels of justice were finally turning." Said who? Do you have a quote or identified source to prove it to the reader, that they in fact thought the wheels of justice were finally turning?
Another example: "Luisita farm workers that GMANews.TV spoke to believe that the Aquinos' abrupt withdrawal of support for Arroyo had something to do with the hacienda." Whom did you speak to?
***
Following is a statement quoted by John Nery (Inquirer) on the NYT-HL brouhaha, the "blockbuster quote" piece having itself raised questions on journalistic standards:
“...The story fell markedly short of the Times’ usually rigorous standards. We say this because the story purported to give an overall perspective on both agrarian reform and the Luisita estate, but depended chiefly on sources known, at least in the Philippines, to be unsympathetic to the Aquinos or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program itself.”
It applies to the GMA-HLI piece as well. Lito Bais is generally known as "makaliwa" (left-leaning) among the people in Hacienda Luisita, and according to his brother Manuel (whom I spoke to when I visited the hacienda this week), Lito frequents Manila to meet with Satur Ocampo and Paeng Mariano (left-leaning leaders), and disappears from the Hacienda for weeks.
Nery continues: “Nothing wrong with this per se, but both the gallant Mariano and the cerebral Simbulan are known in this country (but crucially, not by the story’s predominantly American audience) as unsympathetic to either the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or the owners of Hacienda Luisita or both. Many of us reading the story in the Philippines will get that; many American readers won’t.”
In the same vein, there is nothing wrong with quoting Lito Bais per se, but he is known in Luisita (but crucially, not by the story's predominantly non-Luisitan audience) as unsympathetic to either the CARP or the owners of Hacienda Luisita or both. Many of them reading the GMA-HL story inside the hacienda will get that; many of us outside won't.
That should have been clearly addressed.
(3)
| It is my hope that future journalists will adhere to the true principles of the profession and understand that they play a vital role in helping to keep democracy and the exchange of free ideas alive at home and abroad. ~ Helen Thomas |
Lito Bais exists, for sure, I've met him. He's amiable, talks fast, has a toothy smile, and is very used to the media and having cameras around. And he, being human, has his motives and opinions (which I discussed with him for about 45 minutes), which he is entitled to. And that, being a fact with any source, must be taken into consideration by the responsible reporter.
The SPJ code of ethics also states:— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
Sources, the glue that holds a news story together, have multiple view points. A story is not one-dimensional. A story is different to every single one who experiences it.
- Lito Bais is now an ULWU [United Luisita Workers' Union] leader (appointed, not elected, by his own admission). He was not present inside the negotiating room, and told me that before the strike, he was just a member and an adviser to Rene Galang, former ULWU leader and "hero" or "bad guy" of the striking saga, depending on your point of view. He disappeared during the shoot-out, and according to Bais, is in hiding in "Texas" inside Hacienda Luisita because their "katunggali" (enemies) will kill Galang. That's his side of the story.
- According to my own interview with Danilo "Boy" Santos, an engineer at the sugar mill and present during the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] negotiations as a CATLU officer, the ULWU was heavily infiltrated by extremist groups. Santos was among the group that were whisked to Manila to meet the press during the strike, which the GMA-HL article described as: "the union officers now believe the meeting in Makati was just a ruse to lure them away so the military could move in..." According to Santos, he wanted to go to Manila to let the public know what was going on. He told this story to me without my prompting (I had not read the GMA-HL series at this point), and sounded convinced to this day that the Manila trip was a good thing. That's his side of the story.
- Dychiu also quotes Bais' as saying that Ronaldo Alcantara was "used to mislead the media." Alcantara was not allowed to defend himself in her series, and he's not that hard to find, as I was able to interview him as well. Alcantara was third-in-command in the ULWU at the time of the negotiations, and according to him, ULWU members were divided whether to strike or to keep the peace. He said he was following the bylaws of the union, doing his job to present his union's case in the negotiating table, as negotiations were ongoing, and not in "deadlock," as Galang stated in his petition to strike. That's his side of the story.
- Rey Atienza, whom I also interviewed and was present in the negotiations on the ULWU side, said he was surprised the retrenched ULWU workers had gone on strike as early as 6 Nov 2004 (the notice of strike was signed on 22 Oct and filed on 25 Oct, but law mandates a 30-day cooling off period for a strike to be legal), because as far as he knew the workers were waiting for the results of the negotiations. And that's his side of the story.
Those are but four of the viewpoints that exist; only one of them was touched upon in at least four articles in the incredibly lengthy "well-researched" (as per blogs) series.
Also note that the three not quoted were all present at the negotiating table while Bais was not (we had an interesting exchange about this, Lito and I, but I will save this for another day). Bais gave us eyes on the outside. But what about the inside, where their fates were being negotiated?
***
Beyond the story of the farmers, the views of the political players in the saga were aired in an imbalanced manner as well. I already discussed this in point (1), but let me add briefly that the only other statements coming from Aquino were sourced from newspaper reports, and none from his supporters (except columnist Conrado de Quiros, but in critique; de Quiros has responded to this).
According to Lacierda, his 10-20-minute phone interview with Severino involved the post-massacre killings (Part 4), and nothing to confirm or deny the allegations the series make that Sen. Aquino had something to do with them.
"We have documents that can clarify some of the things they wrote, but they never bothered to ask for them, and we didn't know what they were going to talk about," Lacierda told me. "Did they bother to interview personalities involved in their reports?"
Lacierda was referring specifically to PARC hearings and DAR certificates, and brought up the same points in the comments section of Jay's exegesis into the matter; as of this posting, Severino has not replied. In a prior comment, however, Severino mentioned GMA News consulted (again) documents.
On the other hand, the Aquinos and Cojuangcos' detractors are heavily quoted (not directly, that is, via interview), including Danilo Ramos of the KMP, who is a leader of one of the groups accused of "infiltrating" the ranks of the workers (the problem here is explored in point (1)). It is known that the Aquino and Cojuangco families have many supporters as well. Why weren't any of them quoted defending the family?
Extensive quoting from secondary sources like Putzel's book (which Jay takes valid exception to) should be used only as support -- minimally -- and is not normally journalistic practice, as journalism is primarily concerned with first-hand accounts.
(4)
| Journalism may not dare too much. It can be gently humorous and ironic, very lightly touched by idiosyncrasy, but it must not repel readers by digging too deeply. This is especially true of its approach to language: the conventions are not questioned. ~ Anthony Burgess |
Why? Facts is the currency of the journalistic trade, and the interview is the gold standard. There is a different dynamic with reading a quote and talking to a person face-to-face. A published quotation is a selection from an entire conversation or statement you are most likely not privy to, therefore, your knowledge of the context of the statement is already removed, even if slightly. Using it again will further remove the next reader from the original context. Also, one can use a quote any way they want ("But that's what's written," one might argue.)
With an interview, there is a discussion between human beings, where tones of voices can be detected, where clarification can be sought and given. In an interview, you can tell who's lying, and who's telling the truth.
With an interview, there is a discussion between human beings, where tones of voices can be detected, where clarification can be sought and given. In an interview, you can tell who's lying, and who's telling the truth.
While referring to news reports and related literature are crucial to understand the situation, why rely almost entirely on them, as the GMA-HL series does? The massacre happened in 2004. That means any reporter seeking to uncover the truth about what truly happened five years ago has the luxury of going to Hacienda Luisita and speak to what should be about 3,000 witnesses who can give you a first-hand account, as well as the hundreds of lawyers and government officials involved in the complex case. And quote them. The news media must never assume the news consumer will take your word for it. In investigative journalism, especially: Prove It.
The SPJ Code of ethics continues:— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
and here's what the New York Times says in its code of ethics:— As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.
With 3,000 witnesses, was one quoted source in the "farmers' story" the best GMA News could learn it?
***
"Seek the truth and report it"
Dychiu prefaces the series with a claim that GMA News traveled to Luisita. They say they did it to "find answers," presumably there. But majority of the report was based on research that could be done from one's desk. It is apparent to me that they traveled to Luisita not to seek answers, but confirmation of their prejudgement. And a single farmer obliged.
# # #
Final word:
The SPJ also says:
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
And the Code of Ethics for Philippine Journalists says:
— I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.
I will discuss these ideas in a future post.
For now, I must hand it to Dychiu for taking on this incredibly difficult task, and, being someone Severino touts as having a "keen understanding of corporate finance, thus her ability to process complex information on the stock distribution option," for taking up the chops to wade through dense legal information and impart to us with certainty what for decades legal eagles, agrarian reform experts, and judges of the highest courts, could not put a definite finger on, and continue to deliberate.
If there's anything I learned from Ms Dychiu, it's to be even more scrupulous in my own work and to raise the bar.
82 comments:
philippine election is always heated, always polarizing, always testing even the fairness factor of journalists sworn to abide by some journalistic rules. but i know one who is a rabid anti-noynoy who would even write completely erroneous articles like when she wrote about danding's daughter in australia hehehe
i'm sensing from the article that howie severino is biased?! (i have no clue who's he rooting for and it doesn't matter to me)
anyway, i'm lost in the journalistic semantics here. but i must say that for a non-journalist like me, your arguments were presented very clearly and convincing.
Kudos Felicity! Very well presented and argued! I long been distressed by the lack of adherence to journalistic ethics by some Philippine writers. The points you raised certainly hit he nail in the head, complete with cites!
Here is a reader's comment Mr Severino posted in Part 3 of the series:
"Thank you for this detailed report.
I haven't chosen any Presidential candidate for now. Your report is helping me in choosing the next leader of the land. I would appreciate it more if you could have a documentary that will be shown in one of your top and best news and current affairs program. This might help the Filipino people examine the darker side of Ninoy. I hope you could also feature other Presidentiables.
I always share this report to my friends here in Davao and they liked it so much not because they hate Ninoy but because they see the truth and substance in your reporting. God bless you!
Anonymous
Davao"
Mr Severino, you just betrayed this person, and everyone who saw the "truth and substance" in your reporting.
Thanks Felicity for the lessons on the ethics of journalism. It only takes some common sense however to distinguish between a factual news report, the purpose of which is to inform, from an imaginatively recounted tale based on a true story, where the hero and villain are decided by the writer's point of view. Clearly in the Dychiu/Severino series of articles, one thing stands out---the leading presidentiable, Sen. Noynoy Aquino, is the villain that needs to be crucified even before the crowd can decide his fate. The denouement long determined, the writer embarked on a three month investigative work to create the convenient plot for an anticlimactic ending.
We need more journalists like you to keep your profession respected and relevant, and to remind those who have wittingly or unwittingly strayed from the ethical path of journalistic reporting that truth can't be compromised.
@Eric, thanks! :)
I don't purport here to dictate who wear the white hats or the black hats, as the series does. The winners do write history, no? If there was anyone who has so far "won," it would the Satur Ocampo, whom the people I interviewed hate with a vengeance. According to one of my sources, after the tubo was burned, the ULWU members were entitled to 11 million pesos and 6 million was paid to Ocampo for his "support services." If this is true, where is the fairness in that?
And more on the bad guys and the good guys: Bais says Alcantara was "used to mislead the media." Did it occur to Dychiu that Mariano and Ocampo used Bais to mislead the media as well?
I wonder who is telling the truth, although I have my suspicions.
You should be wary of people who take advantage of the democratic space to pursue their goal of perverting the essence of freedom in which they currently operate and enjoy, with immunity to boot!
Well, they are after all communists and you can trust them to be so.
That's why I don't believe everything I read these days... some "journalists" are just so freaking obvious.
As soon as I read the "investigative report", I removed it from my Facebook page immediately...though not a Nonoy supporter but of Gordon, i saw right away the "wolf behind the sheep's clothing" type of "journalism" designed not to inform but to mislead....am very much disappointed with Mr. Severino!
for SEn.Aquino..
Always do the right thing,Dont mind what other people might says or any writes up they print out..cause wheather you do it or not verybody has something to say..!
for SEn.Aquino..
Always do the right thing,Dont mind what other people might says or any writes up they print out..cause wheather you do it or not everybody has something to say..!
from Zamboanga City!
nakaligo ka na ba sa daget ng busura
the first time i saw that story i knew it was left leaning. there is even an entry pushing aquino as mastermind of the killings.
It was the ABSCBN that was Bias.
Stupid network.
Stupid NoyNoy. i may not be at the philippines but i know wats happening.
aquinos cnt be trusted
masyadong mataas ang argumento dito. pang "learned". ngunit, datapwat, subalit, klaro naman ang pag ka presenta ni felicity.
na mention si satur ocampo- hindi ko na siya gusto, nilunok ang pride (at nambulsa din siguro) at tumakbo sa isang tiket kasama si bong bong marcos. duh na agad yun.
si liza masa, minsan na akong humingi ng tulong para sa isang babaeng kaibigan na pinakulong ng chief of police (wala namang kaso, trip lang). sabi ni liza masa sa akin: "we only extend assistance to high profile cases" (i was in radio that time, so i have access to her line).
meron pa rin naman akong respeto sa kakayahan ni mr severino. ngunit, pagkatapos kong mabasa ang report, hindi ko maiwasang magduda sa kanyang hangarin.
di ko rin alam ang totoong intensyon sa nangyari sa luisita. ngunit buo ang aking paniniwala na hindi kayang dungisan ni noynoy ang napakagandang "legacy" na iniwan ng kaynag mga magulang.
siya ang tapat sa lahat.
siya lang ang aking pinaniniwalaang may tapat na hangarin.
at salamat felicity sa napakagandang argumento at pag papahalaga sa "katotohanan".
stupid anonymous
i am not a journalist or a writer, i don't even understand some terms used in this article, but i could understand fully and clearly, they are paid by Noynoy's rival!
Naman..
If there's error to GMA7's report, ba't hindi kaagad umangal ang camp ni Noynoy? That was a SERIES of reports (4 parts)...they had all the time in the world to cry-out "foul!" and tell GMA7 their side but they DID NOT. At least they could have sent their comments but they DID NOT....the Cojuangcos were quiet about it - I was actually waiting for them to react.
Suggestion: write/ email GMA 7 about your concerns and let them comment on it...
For me, kung meron mang biased na network, ABiaSed-CBN yon!! Sila ang may kinikilingan at prenoprotektahan (obvious ba na si Noy?)...
Bravo, Felicity! Thanks for being a vanguard of truth and fairness in journalism! You are an asset to the profession and should replace howie severino any time of the day!
Just a thought, have you given this to his superiors? maybe they could give a sterner, and more lasting, lecture to mr. severino on how to be a good journalist.
Can you also make a review/analysis/report like this regarding ABSCBN news? And the way they handle/report news regarding certain candidates?
Para lang hindi rin masabi na 'biased' ka, right?
ano ini-expect mo? gumawa sila ng ingay?
ang may utak at pinagaralan..maiintindiahan ang bawat himaymay ng report na ito.. after reading the article and all the comments things came into my mind..fortunate people..people who had the chance to go into a higher form of schooling were mislead by trusted personalities..paano pa kaya ang MASA?this is not about noynoy.. it is about how journalists abuse their power to control what their audience should think..so clever people will find a hard time to idenify what REAl or what's TRUE to what's NOT.. RESPONSIBLE??I DON'T THINK SO! PERA PERA NA LANG NGA YATA TALAGA!
(cont'd)
..Since I think, there are more people who say that ABS CBN is more biased
Thanks F for writing this piece. Faux-investigative journalist Dychiu really wrote with a glaring bias against Noy.
If ever, for argument's sake, Dychiu didn't have a bias against Noynoy Aquino, I would then conclude that she was either so irresponsible and too lazy to interview people; or she just didn't know what journalism really means.
I'll post a link to your piece in my Facebook profile.
The first time I saw links to that biased report going around Facebook, my immediate thought was "I wonder how much was the writer paid to do this looooooong article that is obviously out to malign the name of Sen. Aquino?!"
It is saddening how some politicians can stoop down so low just to win their coveted positions :(
Thank you for this comprehensive analysis Felicity. Kudos to you! I hope the supporters of other candidates would be open-minded enough to accept the valid points you raised about Dychiu and Severino.
ok, Granting that you are not leaning towards Noynoy though you spend so much time and effort in journalistic acrobatics just to highlight GMA repprter's biases, let me ask you this... can you also show us a recent article you wrote about how much each candidate for President has spent for the vampaign whether direct or by sponsorship? I believe that is just as important an issue that would deserve the kin of attention and expertise from you? Thanks.
Why are the articles regarding Hacienda Luisita only directed against Noynoy Aquino when Gibo Teodoro is likewise a member of the clan owning Hacienda Luisita. This alone indicate an intention to mislead readers and to destroy solely the reputation of Sen Aquino.
Felicity,
Wow. I've noticed that most of those who couldn't argue against you have decided to attack your character without the courage to put their names. Congratulations, it means you did something right. Great article, by the way. Expect the haters and floggers to come soon and since they are not smart enough to counter your arguments they will resort to character assassination, mudslinging and empty words.
malaki ang tiwala ng masa kay noynoy dahil isa syang totoong tao!!
Ginang Felicity,
Mabuhay po kayo! Malinaw po ang puna ninyo sa sinulat ni Ginang Dychiu. Nakakabahala ang pagsulat niya at napaka-iresponsable na hindi siya nag-interbyu ng kabilang panig habang ang panig ng kabila ay na-interbyu niya. Kayo ho ba? Madali niyo ba na-interbyu ang dalawang panig sa hacienda?
Nawala po ang aking respeto kay Ginoong Severino. Akala po namin na siya ay isang matinong manunulat. Hindi ho pala, hinayaan niya sumulat si Ginang Dychiu ng maraming palamuting paninira kay Senador Aquino. Sana man lang sana, hinasa na muna niya si Ginang Dychiu, hindi ho sana siya sinabak agad sa seryosong pag-uusap tulad ng Luisita. Galing siya sa pagpupuna ng "fine arts", kaya siguro ang uri ng kanyang kasulatan ay pagpupuna rin.
Naniniwala ako sa sinabi ninyo, hindi patas ang ginawang pagsusulat ni Ginang Dychiu. Sana matuto ang GMA-7 at si Ginoong Severino. Malaking dagok sa kanila ang seryeng sinulat nila. Hindi po dapat tinawag itong "investigative report", siguro mas tuwid na tawaging "opinionated report" ang sinulat.
Nakakadismaya. Gayunpaman, maraming salamat po at mabuhay kayo!
The camp of noynoy aquino is PATHETIC. Instead of directly answering the gma report, they just relied on the blog of someone who just criticized the "GRAMMAR" instead of the facts.
hey noynoy aquino, why not just present a counter argument instead on the report's points instead of relying on some amateur and "biased" blogger. I bet gma7 people will just laugh at this piece :-P
thank you felicity for enlightening us with the hacienda luisita issues. a lot of those who are non-supporters of the Aquino's have been badgering about this issue for the longest of time probably because they can't find any fault that could extirpate the benign reputation of the Aquino family. Honestly it's becoming such a bore...
Ang sabi mo dapat patas ang tingin sa isyu. Bakit ngayon mukhang galit ka kay Satur Ocampo at kay Paeng Mariano? Bakit galit ka sa Bayan Muna at sa KMU? Bakit galit ka sa mga tinatawag mong maka-kaliwa? Bakit parang ang laki ng duda mo kay Lito Bais? Tignan mo kung gaano kadaming pahayagan ang pumupunta kay Lito Bais tuwing may isyu tungkol sa Hacienda Luisita na kailangang linawin.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=554418
http://www.philstar.com/ArticlePrinterFriendly.aspx?articleId=559557
http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/agrarianreform/view.php?db=1&article=20080122-113905
http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/agrarianreform/view.php?db=1&article=20080419-131318
http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/agrarianreform/view.php?db=1&article=20090914-225118
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/228314/farmer
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2010/february/11/news1.isx&d=2010/february/11
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2010/march/16/news1.isx&d=2010/march/16
http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/in-every-issue/2903-gasgas-na-yan.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/world/asia/15phils.html
Ang gusto mo bang sabihin mali silang lahat? Ang Philippine Star, ang Inquirer, ang Manila Bulletin, ang Manila Standard Today, ang People’s Journal, ang GMA News, ang New York Times lahat mali, pero ikaw tama? Sino ka ba? Nasaan yang mga taong binabanggit mo noong nagkakagulo sa Hacienda Luisita? Bakit hindi sila ang mga pinatawag ng kongreso at senado sa mga hearing? Bakit ni minsan hindi sila nakapanayam ng media? Kung meron mang isa sa kanila na nakapanayam ng media ng isang beses, ito ay dahil inareglo ng mga Cojuangco. Pinili mo lang ang mga tao na hawak ng mga Cojuangco. Alam mo ba na ang Danilo Santos na sinasabi mong natuwa sa pagpunta sa miting sa bahay ng mga Cojuangco sa Manila ay CATLU hindi ULWU? Alam mo ba na hindi CATLU ang may habol sa lupa kundi ULWU? Alam mo ba na ang ULWU ay hindi nagkaayos sa management sa miting na iyon? Kung ang sinasabi mo naging maayos ang meeting na iyon sa Manila, bakit noong mismong hapon din na yon naganap ang massacre? Bakit ilan sa mga tao na nandun sa miting na iyon ay pinatay mga ilang buwan ang nakalipas? Ang galing mong magbintang ng bias, pero ikaw, hindi ka ba bias? Ang iniisip mo lang gusto mong ipagtanggol si Noynoy Aquino. Wala kang pakialam sa mga inagawan ng lupa at sa mga pinatay. Bulag ka sa paghihirap ng tao.
she's criticizing a piece because of its violation of journalist code of conduct. and yet, she is very biased for noynoy aquino. what an IDIOT
I agree with Maria Ester. Why put all the blame on Sen. Noynoy Aquino, who owns only 1% of HL when Mr. Gibo Teodoro is also a member of the Cojuangco family. It only proves that the so-called "investigative report" is out to destroy the candidacy of Sen. Aquino. Whoever is behind this is probably afraid of having Sen. Aquino wins the presidential race.
Bravo Ms Felicity! our journalistic world needs more people like you and more honest people to govern our country......
yep. been to Luisita myself. It's really so much different than the way the media camp paint it to be. Great work felicity. we need more journalists like you who really investigate and interview people and not merely mimic press releases. Hope to read more posts. Cheerz. =)
@felicity
nice dissection of the issues. the first time i read the 'investigative' report, i know at once that something was amiss. it's too biased and entirely designed to put aquino on a bad light.
@raymundryan
liza maza told you that they handle only high-profile cases? no wonder we see her frowning and fawning face in most cases that are well-covered by media! but to be frank, i don't trust her and satur ocampo at all. my mistrust stems not for their leaf-leaning ways but for their clearly opportunistic views.
Hello Herox, yes, I know! I was expecting to be disappointed with Sen Aquino when I went there (I was thinking, OK, ito na 'to, baka bawas boto).
Then everything was yellow!! I thought at first baka pinilit, and then I asked random people on the streets, talagang solid Noynoy sila... they say they expect about a 90% vote for Aquino there in May.
Any journalist who has seen the hacienda will see that there is truly more than one side to the story. I wonder why they never considered that when they saw more baller IDs and yellow stickers than in all of Manila combined, lol!
It was really surprising. I never asked about the elections during my interviews. I always ask "May gusto pa ho ba kayong idagdag sa mga sinabi ninyo?" at the end of my interview. They all talked about Noynoy and how they're rooting for him. I was very, very surprised.
Thanks again :)
Hi Felicity,
Talagang nainis ako sa ads na yun, news reports on facebook ads? Obvious kaagad na merong nagbayad ng malaki para mapost yun sa facebook.
As a former journalism student, I was really itching to write something as a reaction to those biased reports, and thanks to you, I've been given a voice. Almost EVERYTHING I was taught as a student was violated by that report, at talagang uminit ulo ko sa ads na yun.
At sayang rin si Howie Severino. my respect for him has somewhat diminished. Thanks again, and write more awesome stuff.
and btw... i believe it is the only GMA News article extensively being advertised in Facebook... with misleading and out-of-context blurbs at that (Who Silence Hello Garci?)... i wonder who funded this well-orchestrated vilification campaign.
Hi Lala,
Thanks for the suggestion on ABS-CBN. To be honest, there are some articles/broadcasts by the network that I do find biased, but none has deceived the public to the extent that this one has. Consider the following:
1. It is a lengthy four(five) parter that purports to examine the issue in depth (it did, but on one side of the coin)
2. It is being used as ammunition against the Aquino campaign without warrant because people take it as if gospel truth, when it is but one side of the story. If it was a fair piece and people would be able to judge FOR THEMSELVES which side to believe, then I would not have written about it, and let people do what they want with it, even if it's bawas boto for Aquino (I'm all for democracy, and informed voting). But upon reading it, I kept waiting for the Aquino camp response but never got it even to the end of the series, and noticed only one farmer was interviewed. I had talked to some HL farmers before and they didn't seem aggrieved by Aquino. So I decided to get a larger, more random sampling of the residents of HL and discovered that Bais was the minority opinion. That is why I wrote the piece. I was also very saddened by the fact that the people who will be affected by the outcome of Luisita (it's not you or me) are asking the people politicizing the issue to back off.
As discussed in my other blog entry "Freedom of the Press," the New York Times employs a Public Editor, who serves as a news ombudsman for the New York Times, on behalf of the public, and Hoyt (current p.ed) has on many occasions chastised the Times. In a way, that's what I did in this piece. If I did it for everyone that would be a full time job :p
Although I do hope that what I started would also send a message to all other news media that they have a responsibility to the public, and they would apply more rigorous standards to their work.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks! I wonder why you did not pursue it. It is so rewarding (although I do have my I hate the newsbiz days lol). Same here, those were all the basics na viniolate e noh? A freshman journalism student could spot those errors by a mile :(
Hello everyone,
Just went through all the comments. First of all, salamat sa lahat ng mga puri ninyo :-)
To my (mostly) anonymous detractors, first of all let me remind you that this is my personal blog, and therefore I am entitled to say what I think.
Secondly, everything I stated above is not something I made up. I went to Luisita and interviewed farmers, including Lito Bais, on what the issue is, TO THEM. to those who will gain or lose from whatever the results are. and this piece is not for noynoy aquino, it's for the people I met at the hacienda who are crying out for their side of the story to be heard and are asking "mga hindi tiga-dito, tigilan niyo na, buhay namin ito."
Thirdly, no one in the Aquino camp knew I was going to write this. I wrote this overnight. When I talked to Lacierda, he did not know I was writing about this. I just asked him the circumstances of his interview with Howie Severino.
Fourthly, I have nothing personal against Mr Ocampo or Mr Mariano, or the "Left." I am just stating what the farmers I interviewed imparted to me -- after all, that was the problem with the GMA-HL series, above all: the lack of airing the other side. Why must we silence them when the rest of the news media is doing the same? Their story has every right to be heard as well.
Fifth, you are right, I am criticizing a piece because of the violation of journalist code of conduct. and my "bias," if any (i do not believe i even mention aquino or politics apart from my disclaimer -- as this piece is a critique of journalistic practice), would be perfectly legitimate as this is, I repeat, a personal blog, and as such I do not carry the name of a news publication that must be neutral.
Sixth, have any of you even been to Hacienda Luisita? Go there. Go door to door. Hear their story.
Seventh, I am not here to argue the facts of the SDO/CARP/law, as I am not qualified to do so. Nor did I discuss it. I am just reporting what I gathered from my interviews.
>>>
>>>
Eighth, I do not represent the news media here. I represent one critique backed by several interviews and similar arguments. Therefore, there is no betrayal of public trust, which is, at the core, the issue here. In the case of GMA News, may nakasalalay po na tiwalang publiko. Ayan ang inilabag.
Ninth, you missed the point. The point of this piece is to let you know that there is more than one version of the story out there. Not just yours.
Tenth, I would be satisfied if Howie Severino did not change anything in the five part series if, like one of the commenters above, her qualified the series under Opinion, or Thesis, or an Investigation into one side of the Matter (but they must then also investigate into the other side). All he needs to do is put a disclaimer (for instance, like the one i have above). That way, readers, such as you, can judge for yourselves whether to take it at face value or as gospel truth. By not putting a disclaimer, Mr Severino denied the public that opportunity, the opportunity you enjoy here as taking my word or my word with a grain of salt, or not at all.
Eleventh, I do not argue about Grammar. Grammar is syntax. While I touch on this briefly, the entry above is primarily concerned with long-standing journalistic conventions that were violated by among the most trusted name in Philippine news.
Twelfth, meron po ako pakialam sa mga "inagawan ng lupa." Kinausap ko po sila. Iniyakan pa ho ako. Hinihingi na nila ang lupa nila, ngunit hindi ang lupa mismo, kungdi ang lupa na pwede nila itrabaho muli, tulad ng dati. para sa kanila, ang nag-agaw ng lupa ang mga nanggulo, at hindi ang mga Cojuangco.
Thirteenth, to those calling me an idiot, or questioning my credentials, that's alright, you are entitled to your opinions. But let me just state that those arguments are variations of "argumentum ad hominem," also a logical fallacy.
Fourteenth, all of the above now just makes me incredibly excited to put together my tapes (I did these interviews on camera.. I am sorting through them as I have more than 6 hours worth), at ipakita sa inyo ang tinig ng mga tiga-Hacienda Luisita.
Maraming salamat po muli, keep fighting for what you believe, whatever they may be.
Is this GMA News connected with GMA Channel 7? After reading through about 20% of the article I stopped coz i'm really confused if this really came from the GMA News I knew or a new outfit called GMA as in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. I can,t believe they classified this article as 'investigative journalism'. To GMA News: you just lost somebody who puts you in high regard. If the article came out from a tabloid then that would have been understable.
@edwin, GMA News is GMA Channel 7 (Kapuso network) indeed. They didn't classify this as "investigative journalism" per se, they classified it as under "special reports" but those who have been paying for ads on Facebook and other networks to lead people to the articles (which I assume, based on internet habits of the news consuming public -- largely non-organic) have touted it as "investigative journalism."
that aside, as part of a news website, it should not have been classified under their news reports, if they really wanted to publish it, forthe sake of prudence they should have posted it in their blogs. If they did I would not have written this at all, as Ms Dychiu would be entitled to her opinion there. But not in news.
interestingly, someone mentioned at some point here or in a repost of my blog, that theyhope GMA News would make a docu out of it (good idea, since the text is quite long). They probably did not because they would be forced to explain why Hacienda Luisita is draped in yellow -- and, the answer, I found, was because they love Aquino there. Maybe they should have done a documentary, they would probably have been less biased. And I would not have been compelled to write any of this.
Hi Felicity,
Has GMA News given their official word on Dychiu's article?
"....to put together my tapes (I did these interviews on camera.. I am sorting through them as I have more than 6 hours worth), at ipakita sa inyo ang tinig ng mga tiga-Hacienda Luisita."
Sana matapos mo agad ito. God speed Felicity and thanks!!!!!!
What Felicity has done is to reveal how GMA News has failed to even attempt to provide an objective report by deliberate omission of a fundamental duty of a journalist--the duty to air the other side.
As a journalist, Felicity took it upon herself to find and gather missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that were left out by Dychiu but nonetheless are essential parts to make out the whole picture. While these snippets may not tell the entire story of Hacienda Luisita, they already paint a much different narrative to what GMA News is leading us to believe.
Much kudos to your work and courage!
Congratulations on a well-written and relatively unbiased evaluation of the GMA-HLI article.
I only recently encountered the article myself and was surprised by the shoddy application of journalism principles. Quite honestly, it read more like an Op-Ed piece than a piece of investigative journalism; and a poor Op-Ed at that.
By the way, I hope the ad hominem attacks do not bother you. I have frequently encountered them as well when trying to discuss substantive issues with supporters of certain candidates (specifically one). The first time I called him out for using that type of argument, I was told I was using "Noynoy words."
The sad thing is, the continued publishing of these types of biased and shoddily researched articles (on both sides of the political aisle) only further diminish the already tarnished reputation of Philippine mainstream and investigative journalism.
Despite the criticisms of your being just a "blogger" this entry at least represents some of the higher ideals of journalistic integrity that should be more widespread in our media. By this token, some of our journalists and columnists could only be so lucky to be called a "blogger."
Thanks.
@Ronan, no I haven't heard from them personally, and I am not really waiting for a response for my own sake. I am happy only to have done my part in sharing the untold side of the story, However, I think it would be best for them and the public if they made adjustments.
On the video, yes I'll be spending Holy Week (and my birthday lol) slugging away in the editing room to piece together their side of the story -- and yes, including Bais' side of the story.
@Nik - no, I am not bothered by ad hominem attacks at all. There is not point arguing something when the argument is baseless to begin with. I would happily discuss the points I make above, civilly. It is possible, in future discussions, my stand will not be so hard line because I'm not narrow-minded and I enjoy argument for the sake of mutual enlightenment.
I think that's what we must take from here: there's no one definitive answer to many things in life, and definitely, as I hope I have proven above, in the case of the farmers of Hacienda Luisita :)
@Nik -- oh and Nik, thanks for acknowledging it is relatively unbiased. Since this is a blog, I never purported to be completely unbiased (and though i tried my utmost, this is not a news publication anyway), but the topic of solid neutrality is, like the topic of "does altruism exist," a gray area. you just gave me an idea for another blog entry :-)
Whatever it is in the issue I remain for Noynoy. I know and I feel Noynoy deserves to win. He will serve the people for the country not for his personal interest. He wants to continue what his parents started. Stop that crab mentality. If Noynoy will not win we still support the new president by working together for the good of the country. Mabuhay tayong lahat and more power Noynoy!
Hi, Felicity,
You know, before i dont bother about this issue about Hacienda Luisita. I'm an Alipayan our Superiors are convencing us not to support Noynoy. My heart was their, bout what was happened to those victims. But then i I'm still facing a blank wall.How can u judge a person who never been there during the incident?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE BLOG. I CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE MASTERED YOUR PROFESSION VERY WELL AND THAT YOUR USE OF WORDS DO NOT ONLY MIRROR THE DEPTH OF YOUR MIND BUT EMBODIES AS WELL THE BROAD COMPREHENSION OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE CURRENT FIASCO JOURNALISTS, RESPECTED AND FAMOUS ALIKE ARE PRACTICING. I AM AN AQUINO SUPPORTER AND I HAVE SEEN THESE ADS IN MY FB ACCOUNT.
I GUESS NOY'S CAMP WAS SILENT FOR THE LONGEST TIME BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS ANOTHER WELL-OILED BLACK MACHINE WORKING AGAINST THEM AND THAT COUNTERING IT WOULD ONLY MEAN A WASTE OF TIME.
I MUST SAY TO THE READERS, ALWAYS HAVE AN OPEN MIND ON EVERYTHING, DO NOT TAKE EVERYTHING YOU SEE OR HEAR OR READ AT FACE VALUE. ALWAYS HAVE AN INQUISITIVE MIND, ALWAYS QUESTION THE MOTIVE, THE AGENDA. TRULY WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WILL NOT HURT YOU BUT WHO KNOWS, WHAT YOU WILL DISCOVER WILL ENLIGHTEN YOU RIGHT?
TO THE ANONYMOUS WRITERS WHO ARE AFRAID TO INDICATE THEIR NAMES AND CRUCIFY FELICITY for doing the right thing, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS I HOPE YOU CAN ANSWER; 1. WHY ARE YOU SAYING FELICITY IS BIASED, OR ABSCBN? AND BY YOUR MERE SHALLOW HOLLOW STATEMENTS WERE YOU NOT SAYING YOU ARE ALSO ONE?HOW MUCH WERE YOU PAID FOR DOING SUCH ACTS?TSKTSKTSK.SENDING IN THE TROLLS WOULD JUST MAKE THIS EVEN MORE FUN FUN FUN.
FELICITY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU HAVE NEVER FAILED YOUR PARENTS FOR ENDING YOU TO A GOOD SCHOOL, YOUR TEACHERS FOR LIVING OUT THEIR TEACHINGS, YOUR PROFESSION BY BEING TRUE AND HONEST WITH YOURSELF, THE PHILIPPINES BY SHOWING THAT YOUR CONCERN AND EFFORT CAN HELP OUR BELOVED NATION IMPROVE ITS PEOPLE THROUGH INFORMED AND RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO GOD BECAUSE YOU HAVE SERVED THE PURPOSE HE CREATED YOU TO BE. KEEP IT UP!
@hackingsage - i am humbled by your words. thank you :)
(ps- I am not abscbn, i actually like kapuso shows better hehe i can't believe they've turned this into a network war, lol!)
ang hirap sa mga negative comments dito masyadong nagpapaniwala sa mga propaganda ni satur. pumunta kayo mismo sa tarlac at tanungin nyo isa-isa ang mga magsasakang involve para kayo mismo "straight from the horse's mouth" ika nga, malaman nyo ang katotohanan.
asan na ba si satur ngayon? ah.. kasama na pala ni bongbong marcos sa ticket ni villar.
iboto nyo na lang ang kandidato nyo at huwag nyo nang dagdagan pa ang kasinungalingan na gawa-gawa ng ibang may pansariling interes.
ito panoorin nyo ang totoong nangyari sa HL:
http://noypi-ako.com/ang-totoong-nangyari-sa-hacienda-luisita-video/
Kudos, Felicity! The sheer number of comments alone (meritorious or otherwise) indicates that a you hit a (very hit-worthy) nerve.
Clark Hoyt has written an insightful piece that touches upon many of the points that you've brought up in your equally insightful post: "The Blur Between Analysis and Opinion".
For those readers who are interested in seeing what Howie Severino has had to say so far, you may view them here or here. I'm sure he'll weigh in here as well.
It is understood that all the adverse comments against Noynoy Aquino could be a deceitful scheme made by journalist, who is being financed by his political rival and who look only after his pecuniary interest, as long as the price is right, undermining the principle of fair reporting, devoid of biases. How much a billionaire could afford to give to journalist that sell their principle? Willy Maglaslang
Good work Felicity and advanced happy birthday... =)
As for the "special reports" am trying to find a way to quickly explain that dychiu's essay / propaganda material is a "special report" and is not part of "investigative" journalism -- i hope through a couple of links.
if gma 7 won't put a disclaimer on dychiu's report then I'll have to do it for them; as replies to trolls who use dychiu's link to attack Noy.
God speed!!
you realize, of course, that here you are, a hotshot journalist lecturing others on ethics in journalism but, because you yourself admitted that you are partisan for noynoy, you are violating the same ethical standards that you preach. (for instance, did you verify that the thing you claimed people told you, that satur ocampo got 6 million, is true? if you did, how?)
anyway, you seem to have an issue with gmanews.tv not getting the side of the cojuangcos but you have not demolished the accuracy of what dychiu and the others had written.
as to neutrality in journalism, what planet are you from?
ms felicity i wished ikinorek mo ang maling paniniwala ng ilan sa mga nag post sa blog mo regarding the exclusive ownership of Hacienda luisita na hindi kasali ang pamilya ni Gibo teodoro, tanging ang mga magulang at kapatid ni Pres Cory ang may-ari ng luisita kabilang of course ang third generation descendants kasama si Noynoy. walang kinalaman ang mga pinsan ni Pres Cory kabilang ang magkakapatid na sina danding at henry cojuangco at mercedes cojuangco teodoro, ang nanay ni gibo, fairness and truth lang sana, anyway siguro nakalimutan mo lang, i give you the benefit of the doubt.
@emcee Hello, sorry I did not even see that comment sa dami about Gibo Teodoro. Anyway, I hope your comment will stand testimony that Mr Teodoro's side is not in the side of the family involved in this issue. As far as I know, you are correct. Thank you!
@jonas
Thanks for your comment. First of all, I have nothing against GMAnews per se, just this one article. I actually subscribe to GMA News RSS alerts and their daily newsletter. If ABS or Inquirer published this story, then it's all a matter of changing the name GMA News to whatever other publication, no? he arguments will remain the same. I do not know why people are painting this as a network war.
also, being human, every journalist has their own opinion, it is just that when conveying information to the public in pieces that are part of the realm of news, those opinions have no place in them. many newspeople have their own blogs where they express their opinions. even ricky carandang has a blog, basta the point is -- those opinions should stay where they are allowed, which is not in the news.
on the 6 million on satur, the reason it is not in the body of my blog is because i have not verified it (however i have had some people attesting to it). "... 6 million was paid to Ocampo for his 'support services.' If this is true, where is the fairness in that?" IF this is true. Doesn't mean it is. IF. ie, i have yet to conclusively verify this. i may not even be able to. and thus, it is not part of body of the argument.
no, my purpose here is not to demolish the accuracy of dychiu's finds. again, i am not qualified to speak on the law; my purpose here is to shed light to the newsconsuming public that there is more than one side to the story. that's all it is.
as for neutrality in journalism, you are right, as i mention in a comment above, it is like asking if altruism exists. however, journalists are bound to uphold that in the best way they can, and i am not convinced (see arguments in body) that they did their best in getting both sides of the story out. also, on that note, just because pure neutrality doesn't exist, does that mean we should not strive for it? it's like saying, eh, corrupt na ang government, bakit ko pa lalabanin.
we are nothing if we do not fight for the principles we strive for. otherwise, we are just zombies in the masses, accepting everything that is thrown at us, without questioning it.
may paninidigan ho ako at alam ko may maling nagawa ang manunulat ng series na iyon (nagkataon lang ho na GMA iyon), kaya sinikap kong kausapin ang mga tiga-hacienda luisita upang malaman kung ang opinyon ni bais ay ang opinyon ng mayorya sa hacienda. turns out, it's not. if i found out that bais's stand on the issue is the majority, then ano ang magagawa ko?
no amount of qualifiers can hide the malicious position you have on satur. you claim to be a journalist. if you haven't verified the alleged 6 million allegeldy given to satur ocampo, why even refer to it in any posts or comment? that you did only exposes your bias and malice toward satur.
as to bais, you cannot demolish a contrary position by dropping them the "majority-minority" card, as if the majority is always right. granting that bais's position and opinion are the minority, does that make them wrong? in your research, can you honestly, objectively and ethically say that what bais and the other unionists have been saying are false or incorrect? i mean, honestly. set aside your pro-noynoy bias. honestly. would you bet your life or your mother's on it?
@jonas
thanks again for your comment.
i am not demolishing a contrary position. i have spoken to bias, and i believe that he truly believes in what he is saying. there are things he said, especially, that i have never even considered before, but are beyond the scope of my critique on journalistic practices. rest assured that they are coming together in my piece.
my only purpose here is to show that only one side was aired. and i know only one side was aired because i have 6 hours of tape showing that there are multiple sides to the story.
did i ever say that lito bais is wrong? i'm just saying he is one farmer out of many, and each of them has their own opinion. i am simply airing that there is more than one side to the story, which the series I critiqued is imparting.
you decide for yourself whom to believe. i believe bais has a very good case. but i also believe the other farmers do too.
i will repeat what i mentioned above: "my purpose here is to shed light to the newsconsuming public that there is more than one side to the story. that's all it is."
there is more than one side to the story. i hope the mainstream airs their side of the story soon. these farmers want their story to be told too.
and i know sympathizers of these outside groups will continue to crucify me. i will stand by my stance. there is more than one side to the story. i encourage you to go to luisita yourself.
thanks for the patience to reply, ms. tan. but the case of hacienda luisita is never about one side of the farmers and another side. it's always been the farmers and the luisita owners/management.
you see, you are falling into the dichotomizing that the luisita owners have been doing. they always insist that it's about one farmers group against another. they always say its one union against anohter. they always say that "outside groups" (tagalabas) were the ones complicating the issue.
but the issue here are the luisita owners: why have they been using all sorts of methods to skirt agrarian reform? if they really believe, as cory was always telling us, in agrarian reform as a form of social justice, why are the cojuangcos holding on to luisita as if their life depended on it?
they are pitting the farmers against each other, the workers against each other. in the process, they are spared of the blame. your critique of the gamnews.tv series only reinforces their position, not the farmers'.
nobody is crucifying you. if you are a true journalist as you claim you are, get out of your comfort zone, set aside your anti-left biases, set aside your admiration of noynoy and really, really look into the case of luisita. you'd be surprised to discover many things, among them:
1) that there's more to the SDO than meets the eye; that there's a reason why in 2 referendumns, majority of the farmers voted yes. ask the farmers about the "yellow army" (supervisors and OICs of luisita) who went around houses fooling the farmers into accepting the SDO. those who resisted were told that they would not be given mandays -- work days in the hacienda -- if they did not agree to the SDO. i did not make this up. but go check this yourself. talk to other people aside from your friends in luisita or noynoy's camps, even aside from bais.
2) investigate as well the killings AFTER the massacre. why were there more people killed after the massacre? and why practically all of them are leaders or supporters of ULWU and CATLU?
3) investigate as well the management's systematic attempt to convert luisita lands from agricultural to industrial. begin with the city ordinance passed by the city council converting hundreds of hectares into industrial use. if the cojuangcos really want the lfarmers to benefit from the land, why would they have the lands converted?
4) investigate too whether the farmers were given their fair share of the proceeds of the sale of these lands to several companies, as well as to the SCTEX.
5) investigate, too, why hundreds of farmers have cultivated luisita lands and planted these to rice and vegetables.
it seems to me that you have been misled into thinking that the media have not presented the side of the other farmers or the cojuangcos -- and you based this on one series of report by gmanews.tv. the cojuangcos and their supporters have always presented their side to the mainstream press. it is the farmers who should own luisita who have not been given enough space and time to be heard. here's hoping that you will do right by them and not fall into the trap of swallowing everything the cojuangcos and their supporters feed you.
Really you're not biased??? How come i am not surprised not to find any single piece of criticism against noynoy aquino's worthy legislative work.
Noynoy aquino's sins are worse since we elected him as congressman for 9 years and a senator for almost 3 years, and yet not a single law is made. Still his "service" is not free since he is collecting millions of pork barrel which is our money.
it really makes you wonder why there are many poor farmers in tarlac esp in hacienda luisita. Maybe noynoy aquino's slogan "walang mahirap kung walang corrupt" is very true
also i noticed that you're comment space is not open to everyone anymore. you have the guts to criticize someone else' work but you yourself can't take one. what an &^8%$
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that some more ad hominem (Noynoy words!) attacks and straw man (more Noynoy words!) attacks are forth coming. Your blog on the neutrality (big Noynoy word!) should be really interesting.
I almost feel like making a bias/bais joke, but I'm not that witty.
@claud the reason i took out the anonymous option is because it's difficult to address @anonymous each time when there are so many! how does one address that i wonder. i thought, like wordpress, you needed to put your name on anoynmous, but apparently not, so i've been speaking to unnamed persons. give me naman the opportunity to address names directly, ano. like @claud. at least u know im talking to you.
i haven't not approved anything. there are 3 still pending but am on shoddy inet right now, will do so when i can get back on computer.
and please people, seriously, stick to the argument. res ipsa loquitur.
@claud
on noynoy aquino's legislative record, it is not even in the scope of the blog entry above. i'm not here to discuss noynoy's legislative record. dude, stick to the argument, yeah? but if you're really curious, truthaboutnoynoy.com has a really good answer to that. it also discusses that noynoy has not received pork barrel since 2005.
so either you're the one who's starting disinformation online or you are gullible enough to believe disinformation online. whatever the case, pls do not waste my time with arguments and attacks that do not pertain to the discussion above.
NOTE TO EVERYONE -- claud's response on items NOT within the scope of the exposition above will be the last one I will approve that doesn't even discuss the argument above, as this is a waste of everyone's time. i will approve any and all comments that DO relate to the discussion above.
@claud
Please try to read and understand what is presented and proffer your arguments based on the issues--the matter in question being the failure of GMA News to air the other side--a basic precept in the code of ethics of journalists to deliver balance news. Whether such was a deliberate omission, negligence or oversight, it calls into question the objectivity and impartiality, and therefore, the truthfulness of GMA's special report. No amount of evidence presented can ever stand as the whole truth if the other party isn't given the chance to present counterarguments or let alone speak. For the casual reader, it could mean taking what was said hook, line and sinker; causing unnecessary and unjustifiable harm or damage to the silent accused.
That, in essence, is the gist of the article written by Felicity. And for fairness sake, she took on the task of hearing for herself the testimonies of neglected witnesses--afraid and unsure of what she'll find out, but nonetheless is necessary in the light of GMA News' one-sided reporting.
It is now up to us to judge her on the basis of her claims. We can even verify her story by going to Hacienda Luisita ourselves; but nothing can be achieved by attacking her person especially if her claims are based on evidence independent of her own credibility.
@jonas, thanks first of all for toning down your rhetoric, I appreciate that. Now we can have a more level-headed conversation.
I will preface this by saying that before going to the hacienda, I sat down and talked to former DAR secretaries and some lawyers. My folks themselves are corporate lawyers who specialize in land, labor and other issues seminal to the complexities of the CARP, SDO and the case of Hacienda Luisita. I will not deign to talk about those, as I’ve said before, I am not qualified to speak about that. But what I learned from them was crucial to how I went about seeking farmers to interview and what to ask.
Suffice it to say, to say that the two sides are management on one side and the farmers on the other is to oversimplify the complexities of the situation. It is difficult to describe this, I hope you can wait for my video to come out (I am piecing it together on my free time, which is not a lot, so it’s taking a while). I hope you have the openness of mind to listen to what they say. As a pre-note, I made sure to interview farmers who are no longer employed by the hacienda, so they do not feel beholden to protect the interests of the management or the family. And what I found out is what I have been saying: many of them just want us to leave them alone because we do not know what’s going on at the Hacienda, and that they do not all agree with the position of Bais.
So it is not that I am dichotomizing it into what the Luisita owners have been doing; it could also very well be that we are dichotomizing it into what the ‘outside groups’ have been saying. So you see, there really are two main sides to the story, and it is the duty of the media, as a middle ground, to air both sides. I will say it again, that’s all it is. You may believe whichever side you choose to believe, and I am not here to proselytize/convert, but it is only fair we hear both sides out. After all, experts say that relatively few people consider the Luisita issue in their choice; competency, it seems is the most pressing concern to voters. But I will not get into that, as it is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Why are the cojuangcos holding on to luisita? I don’t know why, but someone had shared with me what Atty Lacierda told Mr Severino was “off the record” (see main blog entry), and as such, I cannot share this information. But I do know they are not pitting the farmers against each other (and you will say I am biased for saying this), but I say that based on what I found out speaking to the people directly affected by this mess, in ground zero.
Also, if you want to hear Bais’ side, he is heavily quoted on the GMA piece and elsewhere. You may google it. I wanted to air the unheard side.
I hope you take your own advise as well and get out of your comfort zone and see what you discover as well. My interview with Bais was the longest, because I know he had much to say. Plus, there’s the GMA piece, which I consulted myself, because for all its faults, it still did have a wealth on information. I do not dispute their facts, they seem in order. It was simply the lack of the other side being aired that I take issue with. Res ipsa loquitur.
Yes, it is indeed the farmers whose voices have not been aired, I agree with you, not the Cojuangcos (but not in the specific case of the GMA series, which was the case study above). I hope that the video I am piecing together will do its part in correcting the sorry case of their voices going unheard.
Thanks, and have a blessed holy week!
the farmers dont have the capability to develop the land so they went for the sdo. thats what they say
hi felicity.
ive been closely following this blog, and jay's blog for comments and updates. hearing you putting up a video of some sort, elated me. it is not a demand though :) the sooner it comes out, the better. :) hehe
your effort to go to HLI to get to the root and further shred GMA7's unbalanced article is very much appreciated by people like me who does not have the means to get first hand info on this very issue that is being thrown at noynoy. more power.
Hi there Felicity!
Am I so relieved to read your blog on GMA-HL! I am not even an Aquino supporter, not made up mind yet who to vote for come May, but when I was led to the GMA7 website by clicking on the Facebook ad on Noynoy re Garci, the thought that it was financed by anti-Noynoy popped to mind first!
Immediately I searched for information to vouch the credibility of Ms. Dychiu and was a bit surprised that she's a freelance writer! For the first time in a longggg time, I was disappointed on this GMA piece!
I do not claim kapuso or kapamilya fanaticism, but I find more shows in GMA worth watching. And this GMA-HL saddened me to the core =( I hope GMA Admin will look into this. sigh.
Mabuhay ka Felicity! You've done us readers a good - a very good - favor by enlightening us on this. Keep up the good work!
hi felicity,
i have no problem airing the voices of the unheard. journalists should do that. but surely you'll agree with me that you have to have some sense of proportion here: which is more important -- to air the story of those you think are unheard (this is debatable still) or air the story of those who've been victims of injustice? (that is if you agree that the farmers and farm workers of hacienda luisita are victims of injustice. if not, that's another story.) if you think it's the former, then your sense of proportion and justice is skewed. the only ones who raise the issue of the other unheard farmers are those who want to demolish the position of the farmers who have been victims of injustice in luisita.
if you concede that an injustice was done against the farmers of luisita, it would be great of you to denounce that injustice first, denounce those you think perpetrated it, even use your talent and resources to help expose it. then you start talking about the unheard farmers. but here you are, barging into luisita and taking the management's and noynoy's position immediately. that betrays your bias, partisanship and -- since you were the one who raised it first -- lack of journalistic ethics.
Ano ba ang mas matimbang? Katotohanan o katarungan? Ano ba ang tunay mong hinahanap no'ng dumayo ka sa Hacienda Luisita? Katotohanan ba? Owz. Pumunta ka sa Luisita dahil “journalist” ka na nailathala na sa iba't-ibang banyagang pahayagan? At dahil dito may karapatan kang husgahan ang mga manunulat na ilang taon na naming binabasa dito sa Pilipinas? Alam mo na ngang may kinikilingan ka dahil sinusuportahan mo si Noynoy Aquino pero may mukha ka pa ring pumunta sa Luisita, guluhin ang mga tao doon, at sabihin katotohanan ang iyong hinahanap.
Madame, nagkakamali ka yata sa iyong sukatan ng tunay na makabayang manunulat. Dito sa Pilipinas, nirerespeto namin ang mga manunulat na hindi lang basta nasa panig ng katotohonan. Sila ay nakikipaglaban para sa katarungan.
May pa-disclaimer2 ka pang nalalaman. At dahil dito pwede mong husgahan ang mga news site na nirerespeto namin. Ngunit ang ginagawa mo lang ay pagyurak sa pangalan ng mga manunulat na matagal nang nakikipagsapalaran para sa katotohanan at katarungan. Si Ser Howie Severino po kaya ay nakulong noong panahon ni Marcos dahil kahit sa dilim, lamig, at lungkot ng bilanguan, hindi niya binitawan ang mga prinsipyo ng makabayang manunulat, mga prinsipyong hindi mo maiintindihan ilang beses mo mang basahin yang pinagmamalaki mong The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
At ano ba ang katotohanang nakita mo sa Luisita? Na tinanggap na ng mga nakatira doon ang buhay alipin sa ilalim ng mga panginoong may lupa? Na masaya na silang isang kahig, isang tuka, walang lupa, at wala ng aasahan sa buhay kung hindi ang limos ng mga idolo mong Cojuangco-Aquino.
Hindi ganyang buhay ang nais namin para sa mga magsasaka at manggagawa ng Hacienda Luisita. Hindi lang dapat ganyan ang buhay nila. Sana'y dumating ang araw kung kailang sila'y magiging panginoon ng sarili nilang lupa, panginoon ng sarili nilang buhay. Para sa kanila, imbis na lasapin ang simple at mapayapang buhay, pinili ang buhay-digma para sa paglaya ng mga kapwa alipin.
Sa iyong pagsalungat sa artikulo si Stephanie Dychiu, hindi lang pananaw niya ang iyong tinatanggihan. Tinatapakan mo rin ang mga opinyon ng lahat ng naniniwalang hindi sapat ang pagtugon ng Cojuangco-Aquino sa hinaing ng mga taga-Luisita para sa katarungan. Katarungan para sa mga napaslang. Katarungan para sa mga magsasakang nagtitiis sa init ng araw at nagtutubo sa lupang hindi maaring maging kanilang pag-aari.
Kung sa tingin mo may hustisya sa Luisita, patunayan mo. Ipakita mo sa amin kung ilang pulis at sundalo ang napakulong upang panagutan ang pamamaril nila noong Nobyembre 16, 2004.
Patunayan mo. Ilan bang hektarya ng lupa ang naiambag ng Cojuangco-Aquino para maranasan naman ng taumbayan ang pagbabago sa buhay-magsasaka?
Bilangin mo sa kamay mo, Madame. Bilangin mo ang kawalan. Kapag isinirado mo ang iyong kamay, kapag isinarado mo ito nang madiin, mararamdaman mo ang lawak ng sukat ng katarungan sa Hacienda Luisita.
Unawain mo sana kung bakit nanatili kami sa panig ng mga makabayang pagsusulat. Tinimbang ka Madame Felicity Tan. Ngunit kulang na kulang ang iyong pagpapahalaga sa katarungan at katotohanan.
Anong kinalaman ng experience ni Dychiu as an arts, culture or lifestyles writer sa integrity ng article niya? Naiintindihan ko yung ibang sinasabi mo tungkol sa pagprint ng both sides sa isang storya pero parang low-blow yung parteng yun. Ikaw na freelance journalist should know na all forms of journalist, mapa-"fluff" piece man ang isulat, all seek to follow the same ethical standards, regardless kung ano mang subject matter ang nireresearch nila.
Another thing:
"Another example: "Luisita farm workers that GMANews.TV spoke to believe that the Aquinos' abrupt withdrawal of support for Arroyo had something to do with the hacienda." Whom did you speak to?"
You speak of unnamed sources as if they're a terrible offense to your profession. I realize it's not the best reportage if you don't get the name published, but it's not completely unheard of in the industry para maging evidence of sloppy journalism on Dychiu's part. We didn't know who Deep Throat was until 2005!
I don't know why this special report is garnering so much criticism. As far as I'm concerned, the Aquinos/Cojuangcos are fair game dahil ang tagal na nilang nabubuhay sa public spectrum. Ganun ba talaga kalaki ang onus na makuha ang side nila over historical matters na pwedeng maresearch sa mga court/legal documents? Di ako media practitioner pero as a consumer, mas maniniwala ako sa historical accounts and documents na sinulat ng isang third party kaysa sa statement ng spokesperson o relative ng government official na involved dun sa issue. Pero maybe you were right that they should've inquired din.
Onga pala, may story ang PCIJ about the wealth of the Ampatuans. Not a single Ampatuan was quoted. Ibig sabihin ba Malou Mangahas went wrong? I don't think Nixon's side was also published sa Watergate Scandal. This is an honest question. I'm just confused when publication of both sides is absolutely necessary, lalo na kung matter of public interest and politician ang involved.
on the other hand, I guess it would've been easy on the reporters' part to just ask the other side's take on the events especially if the Aquino side was really accessible. which i realize is the case now because of eric's comments.
this is a really complicated issue isn't it? you should ignore me, i'm having an internal debate with myself.
i've found this site a bit late, but i was curious anyways. i have a number of issues with this, and i'll ask one at a time:
the farmers VS some farmers
about the pronoun, the GMA piece talked to the head of the union, which represents the farmers (as a group).
if you are talking to a collection of people represented by a group/union, they get to be the collective voice of said people.
the union speaks for the laborers, in a sense.
now, its almost obvious that there will never be unanimity among members of the group.
however, that doesnt mean you cant use the collective "the" or just "farmers", because the group/union's position is the position of the farmers as a group.
isnt that the purpose of having a union? representation? i.e congressmen represents "the people" in the district VS "some" people?
Post a Comment