No news is bad news

April 6, 2008

 

 

It’s been a while since I last visited here and I see that my entry about Jun Lozada struck a few nerves. It’s amazing how some people led credence to my earlier assumptions when they started to vilify the man, instead of addressing the issue.

 

And what’s the issue, really? It’s the allegations of corruption involving government officials and maybe all the way up to Malacañang. Didn’t the president once admitted that she knew the contract was flawed but she witnessed the signing anyway because at stake is the diplomatic relations we have with China? It’s interesting to note, however, that much later, she ordered the contract rescinded when the noise about the NBN-ZTE deal was too much.

 

I wonder which is better, diplomatically speaking, not going through the signing or revoking the contract on allegations of corruption while leaving ZTE officials hanging?

 

And stop using the argument that Lozada also profited from the systemic corruption in the government because it doesn’t lessen his credibility at all. The police know those are the best witnesses, even if they treat them like shit. In prison, they are derogatorily called snitch, rats, or worm not because their information is false but rather they disclosed what was supposed to stay as a secret in the first place.

 

Anyway, it doesn’t matter now. Lozada as a spectacle as lost his luster through no fault of his own. More than the machinery of the administration, he has fallen into a dangerous vortex where matter and light could not escape. Like so many others before him (Gudani, Balutan, Trillianes) he has become “yesterday’s news.”

 

The onset of the new media (Online news, journals, blogging, v-logs) has opened the floodgates of information that a nanosecond has been converted into a minute, a minute into a day, and four minutes a decade. One of the drawbacks of these new media is the volume of unverified information it churn out every second: from celebrities to politics (or the interchanging of the two words), from environment to economy, from neighbors to school, from ex-lovers to present squeeze.

 

Like this blog, for example, I haven’t written anything here and peddled it as gospel truth. That’s one of the reasons why I chose to remain anonymous because my entries, which contain my opinion, to run in conflict with my profession. In contrast, what constitute as news goes through a series of mechanisms and processes to ensure that the articles published has all the elements of accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness.  

 

The problem arises when people make no distinction between what’s news and what’s information. In one of the newspapers in Davao City, there’s a section which carries rumors and passing it off as more than a rumor and less than news. I don’t even know what the hell that means but the fact that it’s carried by a reputable big-name newspaper is very dangerous because it blurs the line between truth and gossip. 

 

Journalists should recognize their roles not only to give the public the whole and complete story so they could make informed choices, but also the right kind of story. I write that in the context of what some people are complaining about: that there’s not enough positive news in the media. I’m not saying, however, that we ignore the negative news but we make sure they are reported not at the exclusion of the other stories.

 

Though I draw the line when the government advises news organizations to forget politics and focus on reporting the positive economy instead. Are you kidding me? The new media is precisely the reason why journalists should be relentless in pursuing the issue to prevent the political machinery from taking advantage of the public’s shortening attention span.

 

Like the shortage of supply of rice, there’s no better “bad news” that came along the administration way in terms of its timing and scope because it achieved what its machinery could not: relegating Lozada into an afterthought.

 

I’d commend the government, however, for striking a balance between creating an atmosphere of near-panic, to assuaging the public that it’s actually doing something to address the problem.

 

The result is so beautiful that nobody is jumping on another issue of corruption in Quedancor, a government-financing institution under the Department of Agriculture, with 1.5 billion unaccounted funds for its swine program.

 

If you follow the porcine smell, where do you think it leads to?

 

Oink.