The Agony and Crucifixion of Jarius Bondoc

Apparently, there is unanimity in anonymity, at least among some journalists in the Phlippines. (According to an obscure theorem in set theory, one can always find a set small enough to discover homogeneity.) In The Big Picture last Thursday, Ricky Carandang featured an exclusive with Jarius Bondoc, followed by a forum with Juliet Javellana and John Nery of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Vergel Santos of Business Day. At first, they all said they had no right to pass moral judgment on Bondoc for ‘ratting’ on Romulo Neri in the NBN scandal. Then. near the end of the show, they all agreed that what Bondoc did was ‘unethical.’ They would not do what he did, they said self-righteously and apparently satisfied with themselves.

So a fine thin line must be drawn between ethics and morality. Where that line is and with what pen it is drawn escapes me, and probably all the rest of you not familiar with the workings of the press, whether in the Philippines and elsewhere, populated in the main by innumerate high school graduates accepted by journalism departments teaching kids arithmetic and algebra are instruments of repression.

I do not contest the assertion that, owing to special circumstances, some news sources need to have their identities protected. Especially if their ‘outing’ would threaten their physical survival. What I’m uncomfortable with is that continued institutional protection of anonymity encourages cowardice and fiction in newspapers. I think that if we phase out that protection, we will eventually be braver and stop tolerating scandalous behavior.

Let me mention three cases, if memory serves.

The first, on a Dr. Kelly, one of the weapons inspectors in Iraq before the invasion. A BBC radio reporter was fired after it was determined that he molested and abused the facts and his notebook in his story on Kelly, who lent credence to suspicions that the alleged threat was ‘sexed up.”

The second, Deep Throat, in the Watergate scandal which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. The sore throat’s family eventually decided to identify him. In that case, however, Woodward and Bernstein had other sources whom they followed up from the Throat’s leads.

And there is a third instance, one that Carandang mentioned in his program but of which he had no clear grasp. An American woman reporter (J. Miller) was ordered by a court to identify her source on the ‘outing’ of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose husband had earlier been sent to Niger and whose report dismissed or dissed reports of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. She was detained for contempt but was eventually released. (Scooter Libby was convicted by the court but was pardoned by George W.).

I’m trying to recall a lesson on the vision and aspirations of my favorite philosopher. He said that if we value our humanity, we have to reclaim our ‘wholeness’ and integrity. If we continue with specialization as capitalism suggests, we will eventually end up being mushrooms, believing wholeness and integrity are concepts alien to the other. That to me is The Real Picture, big and small.

Who will set limits on Sky?

I recently read a news item that the dominant CATV company in the Philippines, Skycable, will replace the content of six channels starting next year. In an news report, the cable company's spokesman exhuded confidence that consumers would not switch to other providers because of the company's decision. What is the source of his confidence? Simple. As the dominant player in the field, the company just doesn't care. As far as I know, cable rates are not regulated and quality of service is not in their vocabulary. In the United States CATV rates are regulated in areas where there is no sufficient competition. But who is minding the store in regard to CATV? The simple answer: No one!

Earlier today, I visited the website of the National Telecommunications Commission and the only information that was returned in response to my queries were on potential regulations in regard to 'chatrooms' on cable channels.

In retrospect, I remember why I decided to subscribe to cable back in October or November of 2000, and that was because of Erap's impeachment trial. The coverage by the free networks were simply unsatisfactory. Also, that was also the time of the mesmerizing saga of the US elections, Gore vs. Bush and the related court battles. But at the time, Sky rates were nowhere near the clouds. Now, almost eight years later, there is not enough competition in CATV services, and we have to contend with the bad taste of the country's leading network.

One of the channels which will be axed starting next year is Jack tv, which carries The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, one of the best comedy shows providing incomparable international political commentary. One of the guests last week was Bolivia's Evo Morales, who showed Stewart the extent of his dumbness.

Our right to rate government: XXX

Featured last week in The Big Picture were guests discussing the MTRCB rating of the documentary ‘Rights’ which should have been screened in time for the 35^th commemoration of Martial Law. The film, according to its producers (I have yet to see it) deals with recent human rights violations in the country. Kiri Dalena, one of the two in the first segment of the show, had to defend the intent of the film. In my book, she shouldn’t have had to. Movie-making is not journalism and is not bound by rules of fairness, because that is for viewers, with all their pre-dispositions, to judge. But in the next segment, A certain Erik F. Mallonga, who chaired the MTRCB’s second review committee for the film, sounded reasonable but the subtext of his message was: I have the power, and I deem the film not subversive at all, so let it be shown to the public above 13.

I must admit I was disappointed at the host Ricky Carandang who had kid gloves on, tolerating Mallonga’s power trip during the show. In his column in Manila Times Monday (October 1), the power-tripping censor states:

I found the documentary to be a finely crafted and aesthetically appealing 30-minute collage of human-rights violations; it was a riveting mix of actual video footages and dramatic reenact­ments on this subject matter. The First Review Committee ruled that the film’s scenes were allegedly “presented unfairly, one-sided, and undermines the faith and confidence in the government and duly constituted authorities, thus not for public exhibition.” As the filmmakers were absent during the first review, they forfeited the opportunity to defend or justify their position that “Rights” be given a “General Audience [G]” or “Parental Guidance [PG]” rating. The filmmakers came in full force during the second review...

What struck both filmmakers and the Second Review Committee members, however, was the earlier judgment that the film “undermines the faith and confidence in the government and duly constituted authorities.” We, in the Second Review Committee, honestly thought otherwise. There was nothing in the movie that called for a revolution, rebellion, overthrow, armed uprising or insurgency against the government. There was no incitement to sedition. There was no “clear and present danger” to the stability of the government that the military and police have to respond with armed might. (In contrast, the board found the Erap’s account of his overthrow seditious, and Mallonga did not elaborate further).

Mr. Mallonga, if you were not a censor, only one or two people would actually care for your opinion and since I don’t know you, I have no right to rate your intellect, especially in regard to evaluating artistic merit. But people like you, who pretend to know better than us viewers, in modern civilization, should have been kept in your mother’s womb, if it could still accept you.

There have been a number of ‘artists’ who have accepted posts in the MTRCB. They probably rationalized to themselves that “better me than them’ and you should be thankful “I’m more intelligent and liberal.” Sorry Mr. Mallonga, but I protest being one of your subjects. The right thing to do, for anyone who sees herself/himself as an intellectual, is to simply reject the nomination. You also do not appreciate that it is innately wrong for government to ban material on the basis that such might “ undermine faith in government.” If the public uses all its senses it might realize that government undermines faith in itself, in the most indecent ways.

If I were you Mr. Mallonga, find a more decent job, and let’s see if you deserve more than the minimum wage. Otherwise, I recommend that you seek the advise of Rep. Teddyboy Locsin on how to make yourself happy alone, and start to grow hair on the back of your palms.

New Inquirer columnists

I’m really glad the Inquirer continually upgrades its slate of columnists. Readers, at least those whom I interact with, had and have been complaining about the dominance of legal ‘experts’ and know it alls, including former justices of the high court with their sanctimonious and annoying catholic religiosity (I dare say that the Philippines cannot modernize without a fully secular Supreme Court).

The recent additions (never mind those whose space allocations have been diminished) are Mahar Mangahas of the Social Weather Stations and the Inquirer blogger John Nery. Both can attract more readers because they have more intelligent commentary and don’t insult readers with their laziness and outright dumbness.

Unfortunately, Mangahas could have been more circumspect and ethical instead of featuring what could easily be misinterpreted as a self-serving column in his inaugural column. (Disclosure: SWS is just a few hundred steps from my place and I have used its services in the past). Still, a more grounded analysis of social opinion is needed and Mangahas’s column will hopefully provide that. Also, his outfit can also probably provide more insights on how social opinions are shaped...

As for John Nery, all I can say is that he is diligent and provides a much-needed short-term institutional memory, sorely lacking in the country’s political scene.

I hope the Inquirer succeeds in stopping the decline of newspaper readership bedeviling all newspapers worldwide.

Also, I hope the producers of Manolo Quezon’s ANC program do something to spruce up the format of his ‘Explainer.’ It is easy to see the effort put into it but they should get more feedback and adjust. Otherwise, all the effort will be wasted. Last night’s on scams was useful but could have been designed much better.