By Raïssa Robles
OK, I’m biting the bullet.
I will talk about media corruption as I’ve seen it and felt it and faced it.
If there are reporters who are corrupt, it is because the editors tolerate them or are on the take themselves. The industry is really quite small. Tongues are loose. Talk is cheap. The giver boasts and the taker often splurges.
Those who are on the take are known in the industry. And some are pretty big names.
Will I disclose who they are? No.
There is one main reason why readers do not get a complete understanding of the corruption in mass media – the people in the industry don’t want to talk about it. The reason? it involves colleagues, friends, people you see and work with everyday. Apart from this, it’s hard to give names for the simple reason that there is no documentary proof. It’s the kind of practice where people don’t keep records, for obvious reasons.
To understand what I’m talking about, let me explain first the process of producing news in newspapers.
News reporters are usually assigned “beats”. Sometimes the beat is topical like “justice” or “foreign affairs”. Many times it is locational. For instance, someone covers the Quezon Circle area – that would include the government agencies there like the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the Philippine Coconut Authority, sometimes even the Quezon City government.
The reporter is responsible for all the news in that beat. Every beat competes with all other beats for space on the newspaper front page. Sometimes, there are special pages devoted to that beat.
Now, this is something most people outside journalism NEVER understand. This work comes with a time constraint — a deadline. Stories have to be submitted by a certain time each day. This puts pressure on reporters — and correspondents (who are not full-time employees and are paid less than reporters, usually on a flat rate basis — to produce. This happens everyday. Nowadays most journalists get two days off. In my time we got one. And in my time you didn’t have a choice when that day off would be – it could be the weekend or the middle of the week.
And almost always, Christmas was a working day for me.
Why do people put up with that? I don’t know. Why do people become doctors? Or tax accountants? I guess part of the reason is that working to a frantic deadline creates a rush, which you become addicted to if you keep doing it long enough.
Anyway going back to the process of news writing: a reporter’s copy passes through an editor who has the complete license to edit, rewrite, re-angle, destroy and rebuild any story that is published. The editor also creates the title (the head)and is usually responsible for the first paragraph (the lead).
So even if a reporter is in the pocket of a politician, an editor’s eagle eyes would be able to spot the trend, the slant, the frequency of copy about a specific politician. Unless the editor is untrained or also in the pay of the same politician or told by “higher-ups”.
It is also an editor’s job to make sure all sides of the news are covered. When I was working at the Philippine Star desk, when an important side was missing in a story and the reporter could not be reached, I called up a source that would give me that side.
So if a side is missing, blame it on the reporter and on the editor who allowed that to be published. If the reporter or editor really made the effort to get an important missing side but the source was unavailable or would not talk, this information also has to be written into the story.
What I’m saying is, corruption is not just the problem. Lack of training and sloppiness are also problems that others might mistake for corruption.
Corruption in different kinds of media reporting
What I just outlined above pertains to reporters working full-time for newspapers and correspondents paid per piece writing for the “hard news” section.
A different set of rules is followed by newspaper columnists or opinion writers. Sometimes, columnists come from the ranks of reporters but oftentimes they don’t. They are contracted by the newspaper owner or by an editor to dish out opinion on mostly anything under the sun. Because of this, political and corporate strategists love to sit down with columnists, massage their egos and shower them with presents and favors. Some columnists are quite ethical in their dealings with news sources. Others are not.
I have been frequently told by colleagues in the industry the names of this or that columnist demanding freebies from hotels and airlines – just because they are columnists.
The point I’m trying to make is, please don’t blame reporters in general for what columnists write. Columnists are not writing hard news but their opinions and if they parrot word for word the stand of companies or corporate sectors on certain issues, then just stop reading them. For some, reading them is a hard habit to break because aside from writing news columnists are often the favorite venue for leaking news.
Newspapers also publish “soft news” – on entertainment, lifestyle and movies as well as feature stories on who’s hot in the news.
Personally, I have stopped reading much of the soft news published by local newspapers because most of them sound like advertorials – or advertisements dressed up like news reports. I might as well read the side of a box of cereal.
At the soft news section – the entertainment and lifestyle sections – of a number of newspapers, almost everyday is like Christmas. Gift baskets, party food and designer cakes arrive frequently with Thank you notes or invitations to future events.
At least one Lifestyle editor has told me her editorial choices aren’t swayed at all by the presents but she can’t discourage givers because they might feel hurt or insulted since this is an industry-wide practice. Others, by contrast, demand freebies as part of their job. I’ve heard stories of some writers who demand certain rooms and bed sizes for their free stays in resorts and hotels.
I don’t know if lifestyle and entertainment reporters are bound by the same Code of Ethics as news reporters. In newspapers, these two major sections are independent kingdoms with their own set of rules.
How newspapers I worked for handled corruption
Of course I’m only talking of the hard news section. I was fortunate to start my news career with Raul Locsin’s now-defunct Business Day newspaper. Raul and his wife Leticia (who started out as a movie reporter) had definite guidelines for reporters.
First, if we had to interview a source over lunch, the newspaper paid for it.
Second, no cash gifts of any amount were allowed. If someone still gave cash, this was to be turned over to the office which would then take care of getting in touch with the giver. You see, this was during Martial Law and if a government official were to give cash, turning it down to his face was a bad idea.
Third, during the month of December, all reporters were “grounded” – that is, we all covered from the office via telephone. This was to avoid any hint of a BD reporter asking gifts from sources. Bawal ang mamasko. But nothing barred a source from sending over gifts to the office.
The reporters were allowed to accept token gifts like calendars, diaries or umbrellas with logos. But nothing expensive.
In The Manila Chronicle where I worked next, the same guidelines were more or less observed, except that I don’t remember having to stay in the office in December.
When I worked in Philippine Star when Mrs. Betty Go-Belmonte was alive, I once received cash amounting to several thousand pesos as “coffee money” and as per editorial guideline, I turned it over to her office. She then wrote a very nice letter to the politician thanking him for his generous donation to Damayan, her charity project.
Why do some politicians give cash to media men?
Because often there are reporters who flat out ask them for money and they want to be democratic about it. Also, it was the practice long before Martial Law for politicians to give reporters cash. There is this revered icon of journalism who, before Martial Law, went around the House of Representatives with two wallets. One had money, the other was empty. It was his practice, I was told by his former colleague, to send around the empty wallet to lawmakers. It would be bulging with money by the time he got it back.
Of course, in our business there are very few secrets. Word of such unethical practices gets around. Politicians’ aides talk and before you know it, the gossip has spread around the journalism community.
But no one does anything about it – not the editors, publishers nor newspaper owners.
I asked my former Manila Chronicle editor Vergel Santos yesterday whether there was any law against government functionaries giving journalists cash.
“I don’t think there’s any law. Especially if it becomes a private arrangement,” Vergel, now BusinessWorld publisher, told me.
Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act punishes those who bribe government officials. But it does not punish government officials who bribe members of mass media.
Vergel told me that indeed, there are state officials who give journalists payoffs. He told me that one post-1986 senator used to meet media men every week. “It was always well-attended. He gave away money.”
Personally, punishing such a practice is one piece of legislation I would welcome because from my experience, government officials often use our tax money to bribe mass media in exchange for favorable coverage or to hush up stories about them.
I have been bribed with cash four times – twice by senators, once by a general and once by a local government executive. In all four instances, I believe tax money was used. In two of these incidents I flat out refused the money and angered the givers. In a third instance, I turned it over to the newspaper owner. In the fourth instance, I donated it to charity in the giver’s name and personally handed him the letter of thanks.
In the early 1990s, a reporter named Yvette Fernandez (now editor-in-chief of Town & Country magazine, Philippine edition), wrote an exhaustive piece called “Envelopmental Journalism in the Metro Manila Media” for the Philippine Press Institute. It was based on interviews with – among others – 18 beat reporters, two photographers, three editors-in-chief, six editors, and a public relations practitioners.
Reading the report, I realized with sadness how little has changed in my profession. Only the amounts involved have risen. Here’s an excerpt from Yvette’s piece regarding corruption in the police beat:
“Every week,” says one police reporter, “the anti-vice unit gives about P4,000 to the press club. We divide it and get about P200 each. that is only from one unit. Where do they get the money? From the gambling lords, drug lords, smuggling lords. From the prostitution kings and queens that they protect. How do you think those joints remain in business?”
“In the police beat,” claims another broadsheet former police reporter, “the lowliest sergeant and corporal would give you cash gifts of P50, P100, and P200 for you to write about their cases. Like when they would catch a robber, a car thief. They would treat you to a sumptuous merienda, or give you money. It’s a habit, and the beat is usually monopolized by tabloid reporters or veterans who do not care about ethics.”
President Benigno Aquino III was right when he said rank-and-file reporters and correspondents ought to be paid better. But I would like to challenge PNoy to issue an Executive Order banning employees and officials in the Executive Department, including the police and military from giving mass media personnel cash or ATM load. I wonder if he will.
I would also like to challenge both chambers of Congress to do the same, to ensure a level playing field among them as far as media coverage is concerned.
And as for all those “public service ads” now appearing on print, TV, and radio featuring this or that incumbent government official who is known to be running for office next year, I hope the Commission on Audit initiates a probe whether or not they are using our tax money for these ads.
I can confirm Raissa on BusinessDay’s (and BusinessWorld too) policy against accepting gifts especially those of value. Boss (Raul) and Misis (Leticia) were my beacons of journalistic integrity. The paper’s reporters were usually grounded – in the office – until after December 25 or thereabouts. But still, some reporters and editors managed to go around this prohibition. I recall a senior editor won a NEW CAR during one of Toyota’s Christmas party-cum-raffle event. The bottomline? The editor kept it.
Who was the editor?
Anyone I know?
I am not sure if you know the editor. But, the editor covered some beats when the editor was still a reporter. How do I give you the name? :-)
Hi Raissa, Greetings! I’ll be around from now on; mostly to read you, but also might contribute some things which I think sensible enough, ok? All my best!
thanks for joining in, Vincent.
Tomorrow is an earlier fight than Pacman v Marquez on Dec. 9 [ here ], it is the ‘fight’ in our Supreme Court! What happened? Re “faked” resolution by the CJ Sereno? The link is
SEVERAL justices of the Supreme Court (SC) are raring to confront Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno during their en banc session tomorrow, after the latter allegedly pulled a fast one on her colleagues when she ordered the issuance of a “fake and fraudulent” resolution on the creation of a new judicial office in Visayas.
At least six High Court justices reached by The Manila Times claimed that Sereno ordered the opening of a Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Cebu City without authority from the en banc.
All speaking on condition of anonymity, the magistrates were one in denying that they had ratified Sereno’s order for the revival and reopening of the RCAO.
They also belied claims that they allowed the chief justice to appoint Judge Geraldine Faith Econg to be the officer in charge of the regional office.
The six justices were fuming when interviewed by The Times, with one of them saying that the chief magistrate “made a fool out of them.”
“Niloloko niya ang en banc. This resolution never took place. Everything she stated is false. She is a liar,” an associate justice said.
Sereno went to Cebu City on Thursday for the re-launching and re-opening of RCAO. Her visit was made on the assumption that her order had been ratified. As it turned out, her colleagues even junked it.
Another High Court justice who learned about the document sent a text message to The Times saying that Sereno had “no authority from the Court.”
“Watch on Tuesday,” the magistrate said, in reference to the regular en banc session of the court on December 4.
“Humanda siya sa Martes [She must prepare herself on Tuesday],” another magistrate threatened.
One justice confirmed that Sereno will surely be “grilled” over the issue “because she exceeded her authority as chief justice.” The magistrate warned that the faking of the RCAO resolution was a clear violation of the 1987 Constitution and can be a ground for Sereno’s impeachment.
“Walang voting na nangyari. Paano niya maa-appoint si Econg [There was no voting. How can she appoint Econg]?,” the magistrate argued.
The two-page resolution, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, was dated November 27, 2012 and signed and promulgated by SC en banc clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal. The date jibed with the en banc session last week, where Sereno reportedly had a heated argument with some of her colleagues.
The document reads: “Administrative Matter No. 12-11-9-SC [Re: Opening of the Regional Trial Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Region 7].
The Court Resolved to:
[a] RATIFY the action of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno to revive the Regional Court Administration Office in Region 7, with Phase I on: [a] procurement; [b] approval of leave; and [c] payroll administration; and
[b] APPOINT Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, as Officer-in-charge of RCAO-Region 7, effective immediately and for a period of two  months.”
One of the six justices interviewed by The Times alleged that Sereno wanted Econg to be removed as the head of the Project Management Office (PMO) so that she can reinstate to the post former PMO head Evelyn Dumdum who served from the time of chief justice Hilario Davide Jr. up to the time of chief justice Artemio Panganiban.
Panganiban, it was further alleged, was pushing for the re-appointment of Dumdum to the PMO post. The former chief justice is one of Sereno’s advisers.
Dumdum left the PMO during the tenure of chief justice Reynato Puno after it was discovered that she had another job in Thailand, which was disallowed by the SC en banc.
Another magistrate said that the problem with a “junior” justice like Sereno is that she is not fully aware of the job and duties of the chief justice and how the court works.
“She was not a law practitioner. She has never been a judge in her entire life. Ang problema kay Meilou [Sereno’s nickname] ay wala talaga siyang alam! Hindi naman siya makapagtanong kay Tony [Justice Antonio Carpio] kasi nga hinakbangan niya eh dati lang siyang tao ni Tony [The problem with Sereno is that she doesn’t know anything. She could not ask for advice from Tony because she bypassed him when she was just his protégé],” the justice said.
During last Tuesday’s en banc session, the magistrates clarified that what was agreed upon was for Sereno to amend her Administrative Orders reopening RCAO and allowed Econg to study for a period of two months how the RCAO should operate and to later on submit a report to the SC en banc.
During the deliberation, Carpio said that “guidelines must be laid down in the creation of RCAO.”
Justice Presbitero Velasco, on the other hand, suggested that Econg “can only make a study because it is only the Office of the Court Administrator or his deputy” who can be assigned to do the job.
But Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez was put on a “floating status” by Sereno because he was identified with former chief justice Renato Corona.
When Sereno was appointed, Marquez was bypassed in court administration matters.
The first SC justice interviewed by The Times pointed out that the creation of a new or revival of an old government office is a job for Congress and not the chief justice.
“Any act of the chief justice in terms of creating an office must be submitted with the Court en banc for approval,” the justice said.
By law, Congress must enact the creation of a new government unit because it would involve the appropriation of funds.
Based on an 11-page Psychiatric and Psychological Report submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) by a group of two medical psychiatrists and two psychologists prior to her appointment, it was learned that Sereno has the tendency to make decisions based on her “mood.”
“She projects a happy mood but has depressive markers too. There is a strong tendency to make decisions based on current mood thus, outcome is highly subjective and self-righteous,” the report said.
Sereno reportedly got a low grade of four in the mental test.
On the first page of the report, it was explained that all of the candidates who applied for the position of chief justice shall be graded under the “Five Point Numerical Rating System.” A grade of 1 shall be considered as the highest or most superior, 3 shall be the median and 5 shall be the lowest or a failing mark.
Sereno was interviewed on July 18, 2012, but despite her low mark, the JBC included her in the shortlist of nominees after she got six votes.
Under the existing policy of the JBC, an applicant to any position in the judiciary who garnered a grade of 4 will no longer be recommended. A candidate who got a grade of 5 shall automatically be rejected for being “mentally disturbed.”
The justices are out to get the CJ. Whoa!
the link is
Tomas Gomez III says
Prudence is called for…..hinay hinay, as lolo Confucius would say. Manila Times has a record of bias against CJ Sereno. But nonetheless, it would be interesting to find out the results of the en banc as well as the veracity of the MT “news item.” An ax to grind when wielded by a media outlet can also be a disservice to democracy because truth is distorted.
Kudos to the justices. Ang gagaling nyo po. By the way, nasaan po ba kayo during the impeachment trial? You were so mum. Tapos ngayon you are so loud in saying na “niloloko niya ang en banc.” Sabagay nga naman, Corona was not “fooling them” that time when he was making all his palusot because they may be of the same ilk. Besides, the tone of the “news” article says it all. Notice how it dwells on Sereno being a neophyte, never a law practitioner, walang alam, “tao lang dati ni Tony”, mental test flunker, etc. instead on citing why these “at least six” judges disagree on re-opening RCAO.
Hmmmm…I can smell something…..INGGIT. Hanapan natin ng butas si CJ. Tama po ba?
Sad to say that some members of the fourth estate, who don’t belong to the highly-paid columnists, are resorting to trash journalism or envelopmental journalism to make both ends meet.
Look at the numerous presscons at Malacañang and the big bags of some journalists, not to say the pestering presence of press members that frequent the BOC, Pagcor, etc. The worst is at the provincial level where local politicians have bagmen ready to hand out envelopes to media people.
As the saying goes “got to live guys.”
Vox Populi Est Suprema Lex…the voice of the people is the law… RH bill due for voting by 287 House members and 23 Senators soon…Let Us Be Heard On This!
I vote Yea…approved the RH bill !
What say YOU?…be counted! Let our Congress know here at CPM! The link of the news
jorge bernas says
Tama ka leona, Dapat nang ipasa ang RH Bill dahil malaking tuolong ito sa lahat….
Dapat ipasa na ang RH Bill sa taon na ito. Wag na patagalin!
Victin Luz says
@mam Leona @sir Johnny Lin………please read the editorial page of Phil. Star written by Jose Sison…….that PNOY and the PRO RH BILL ( MAMBABATAS and etc, ) were allowing FOREIGN INTRUSION for the approval of RH BILL.
Who is he SISON,…..is he a good and honest journalist?
Raissa, here is a link of the cases of Ambil, Jr. v Sandiganbayan/People of the Phil., and Apelado, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan/People of the Phil. dated July 6, 2011. The issue, among others, was SEC. 3 (e) of RA 3019, as Amended, Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act. As you wrote that “But it does not punish government officials who bribe members of mass media,” this cases as jointly decided by the SC, appears that it does punish as interpreted by the Court when the accused governor, Ambil, Jr., granted an unwarranted accused Mayor – a private party [ as interpreted by the Court ] benefits, etc. In short, a journalist who is “given” a bribe by a government official under RA 3019, as Amended, so as to “benefit” obviously the journalist or news reporter [ as also the briber gov’t official ] makes the briber gov’t official criminally liable under this law, RA 3019, as Amended.
An interesting topic that you brought out. Please check if you can say you agree to the ruling of the Court,
the link http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/175457.htm
What I mean “agree” is that a government official who “bribes” a journalist is criminally liable contrary to your belief in your article here that the briber is not.
Raissa, the same cases, but “Excerpts” as blog by Atty. Manule J. Laserna, Jr, blogspot.com is for a shorter reading. The link
Both links are interesting on your Article here. Thanks. I learned too!
Sorry, name misspelled – Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr.
The operative phrase is “a public officer discharging his official functions”. Example, a mayor discharging his function of issuing business permit to a person or entity. If unwarranted, etc., it is a corrupt act. The question is “Is giving cash to media, using his own money, a violation of anti-graft law? I don’t think so. Providing support or assistance to media thru cash incentives is not a function of public officers. But giving people’s money to media is, I believe, malversation of public fund at the least.
@Rene-Ipil…the SC in its reasoning as to the acts committed under Sec. 3(e) by the accused Ambil, Jr [ the governor] said, quote:
“Needless to state the resulting violation of the Anti-Graft Law did not proceed from the due performance of his duty or lawful exercise of his office.”
The Court found the governor Ambil, Jr. exceeded his authority in the acts committed. So, from my understanding, the Court did not say the officer’s act must be in “discharging his official functions.” The quoted portion above includes and can “cover” acts not “in the discharge of his official xxx functions” Sec. 3(e) of the Law. If “exceeding in authority” is understood as “not proceeding from due performance of a duty or lawful exercise of office” bribery to mass media people by a gov’t official, is not “in the performance of duty or lawful exercise thereof,” as stated in these cases, Sec. 3(e) is violated under this provision of the law.
The decision gives a sweeping reasoning for coverage of acts in violation under Sec. 3(e) on corruption through bribery in this law. My opinion. It is “Graft and Corrupt Act” as understood.
Leona @ 39.2
In the SC decision you cited he Supreme Court said in regard to elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
“In order to hold a person liable under this provision, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
“As to the first element, there is no question that petitioners are public officers discharging official functions x x x.”
The Supreme Court also said in regard to the justifying circumstances cited by the accused:
“Needless to state, the resulting violation of the Anti-Graft Law did not proceed from the due performance of his duty or lawful exercise of his office.”
It is clear that the above statement of the SC refers to the justifying circumstance on the commission of a crime. But I think you have a good point in saying that an exceeded authority is no authority at all. However, the SC already emphasized beforehand that the accused were public officers discharging official functions.
Johnny Lin says
Reality evolution of newspapers:
Long time ago in the nineteenth century, Thomas Jefferson said: “Advertisements contain the only truth to be relied on in a newspaper”
Currently, truth in advertising is even wanting!
Success is evident in the fourth estate, From Lying to Bribery/ Extortion
Or is it progress?
He he he!
ed celis says
News for Sale
The Corruption and Commercialization of the Philippine Media, 2004 Edition
BY CHAY FLORENTINO-HOFILEÑA
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2004 · SHARE THIS STORY
No one in journalism will deny that media corruption exists. There is contention only in the extent of the corruption and the damage it causes. This book, a sequel to the 1998 publication, which is also entitled News for Sale, documents corruption as it takes place in the single most important political exercise in a democracy: elections.
This study shows both the remarkable continuity of the forms of media corruption as well as the new types of malfeasance that emerged in the 2004 campaign. As in the 1998 edition, this version of News for Sale relies heavily on documentation (such as rate cards of broadcast networks and solicitation letters sent by radio stations to politicians) and in-depth interviews with journalists, candidates, and the media handlers of politicians and political parties.
All the information that has been used here has been counter-checked with at least one other source. Moreover, the author used only information that her sources knew first hand. Some interviewees, however, refused to be identified by name, but in citing them, the author tried as much as possible to describe in what capacity the source was talking to her.
Chay Florentino-Hofileña, a veteran journalist and journalism educator, wrote both the 1998 and 2004 editions of News for Sale. This new edition was spurred by the realization that even as a large chunk of campaign budgets were going to political advertising, significant amounts of money were also being allocated to pay off journalists. Florentino-Hofileña also noted that because more and more celebrities entered politics, the entertainment press also strayed into political reporting. The forms of corruption that are the norm in the entertainment press were therefore introduced to the field of political coverage.
This book discusses outright corruption as well as more subtle conflict-of-interest situations that confront journalists and news executives. It is our hope that by bringing these problems out into the open, the media, the public, and the politicians can take steps to do something about them.
The media have emerged as probably the most important influence on how people vote. If the media do not perform well and if their coverage is skewed because of money and other considerations, then they do a disservice to citizens. They also stunt the development of electoral politics—and this could have tragic consequences on Philippine democracy.
The book is available at the PCIJ office. For more information, email [email protected] or call (+632) 4319204.
Posted in: Bookshop, Journalism/Media
Theres money in lying and any form of cover up…journalists somehow are similar to attorneys with respect to the client…
during my college days, i only read the sports, comic page and horoscopes….he he he occasionally contents of headlines…where ever truth is evident and amusing…
First step towards changing the behavior is by naming those who take bribes. Even more is to name those who do AC/DC journalism. We’ve heard there are some big names involved in this racket.
Johnny Lin says
Naming names not necessary.
Initial step must come from publishers/editors in chief. They know who they are. Must pledge and forge a covenant among each others not to employ or utilize the services of the culprits. Nobody is indispensable.
Tricky part is, will the owners cooperate? Publishing is a cutthroat business!
Who is willing to sacrifice business for integrity and honesty in the profession?
How many will be left considering Marites Vitug claims 80-90% are guilty?
What a monster nurtured by greed!
@Johnny lin..I call that corruption within corruption…like Taal Lake … a lake within a lake. A monster…that has no dimensions…limitless – farther more than the mind can think!
Greed! 5th Commandment…Thou shalt no steal! This covers all forms of stealing one of which is greed!
Name another one…and another one…and so on and on…
Victin Luz says
in engineering term ma’[email protected] ………infinite corruption ( infinity ) I just don’t know how to post the engng. sign of INFINITY here. Yes an unlimited corruption, it can not be quantified or if you are going to integrate journalist corruption’s the exponent raises from 0 to INFINITY. ” walang hanggan “
Eh paano kung yun publisher/editor in chief ay corrupt din? Paano kung yun business niya ay dishonesty at lack of integrity, binibenta nga?
Johnny Lin says
Sabi ko nga willingness ng owners at spelled sa covenant or treaty nila. They have to police themselves, do not accept the suspect as member of their group, scout honor. Example, there is a publisher in Central Luzon foreigner married to pampanguena, they publish their paper featuring politicians, praising them, print their good deeds at the same time inform and get consent of the subject beforehand in order for him/her to purchase wholesale the publication before printing who will distribute them for free in his jurisdiction. It is a legitimate business proposition, legal extortion/ bribery whatever. Profit of publisher is assured. The group of publishers could filter this rotten kind, if they have a honest manifesto. bottom line is integrity and honesty of legitimate owners/ publishers, even if there are only 3 or 4 of them. Public at netizens dapat sumo ports sa kanila. Same process we are doing with Rappler now because we the public trust their leaders. Interaksyon TV 5 online seems to be in right direction too. I can talk of the big 5 widely circulated morning newspapers but that is another story, in my personal analysis.
Victin Luz says
@Josephf………..PARA SA IYO ITO ………. Other meaning or interpretation of DARK SIDE that doesn’t directly or automatically means DIRTY DEALS.
If you JOSEPHF were a journalist your job/rule ( job description ) is to write EVENT’s righteously and truthfully , no MORE no LESS , ON TIME……I will repeat ON TIME especially if against ANY PERSON criminal acts ( with evidence but be careful of subjudice ) …..as a journalist like [email protected] and in your hands are evidences then you have no right to be SILENT or SILENCE is not afforded to you at that moment.
Now, since you were employed directly or indirectly to any person who had been charged of GRAFT and under investigation ( wala pa sa court ha ) and then you keep SILENT by not writing or broadcasting the same ,………. [email protected] their is no DIRTY DEALS to speak of but. ” mayroong DARK SIDE ”
Hindi naman kayo nag usap o nag plano na wag mo siyang ilathala sa mga pahayagan ,pero dahil mga sa ikaw ay natanaw ng utang na loob sa gumawa ng KRIMEN at dahil na din na sya ang nagpapasahod sa iyo o marahil nahihiya kang kalabanin mo sya dahil natural sasama ang loob nya sa iyo kung isusulat mo nga sya…. at umiwas ka at hindi muna ilinagay sa dyaryo………..that was the DARK SIDE coming from Conflict of Interest @Josephf which has nothing to do with DIRTY DEAL’s barok.
@comment # 4 @arsenio reyes @ Josephf
Victin Luz says
@Josephf …….pahabol in your country as you said at comment#4 ” dark side was something not nice ”
I agree with you……pangit talaga , kaya nga Confict of Interest diba.
Upon the declaration of LUCI TAN that he was the majority stock holder of PAL and being investigated of TAX EVASION ,,,,, @arsenio’s IDOL , MAX SOLIVEN should have resigned as editor/publisher of PAL MABUHAY magazines. SILENCE is not a defense of MAX for not condemning in writing the TAX cases of LUCI….fer.
Ergo, sin of omission and keeping quiet knowing fully well something fishy is happening that will cause the madlang public a huge price tag.
Victin Luz says
@polpot….. Tama ka dyan…….. Evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined to you being a journalist is wrong and much more if you were a multi – awarded journalist .
he he he narito ka pala he he he musta na po.
Yan ang hirap sa mga malakas kumita, nandadaya pa, di naman madadala sa hukay ang yaman…during question and answer sa judgment day ruled by the Almighty God, hindi tatanggapin anumang suhol kahit kasinlaki ng universe…paala ala sa mga sakim…
kung ayaw nila magbayad ng tax, pede naman gastusin nila yun sa charity or share sa poor development program, then include in taxdeductions, then yun iba, pambayad sa writer…pede nyang pasulat mga good news without hesitation dahil positive act…
Victin Luz says
@mcspeed…. Mabuti naman po….iyon na mga sir, kung sino ang malaki ang kinikita iyon naman ang ayaw o kakaunti kung magbayad ng BUWIS . Sa aking pananaw kasi pag pinalusut mo ang isa at nalaman ng iba, iyong iba na dating nagbabayad ng tama, kulang na o ayaw na din MAGBAYAD.
Maganda at napunta tayo sa blog na Ito sir, at least on our free time we can exchange the same views and sentiments and sometimes opposite with each others and a healthy exercise for us rather than playing games in the neighborhood ” na walang katuturan ” he he. see u friend always here.
vander anievas says
all those years, phil. star lang ang binabasa ko dahil kay max. although i stopped reading it nang yumao siya.
kung totoo ang kwento sa mabuhay magazine nang mabili ni Luci ang PAL, para sa akin, conflict of interest iyon, maliwanag yun.
sayang na impression.
hindi ba delicadeza dictates a resignation right away he learned such a fact?
kung nanahimik lang siya, ano ang maganda niyang dahilan?
tama lang sigurong sabihing “dark side” iyan.
It’s only here I heard of such Mabuhay Magazine, etc. My gross ig…nce.
…like the moon landing phrase…’one small dark side a great deep dive into by …
Mabuhay magazine. I think that is the magazine available while travelling via PAL.
The in-flight magazine
When C.Pacific came to fly I flew in it…not pal anymore. So, I missed reading the magazine talaga!
andrew lim says
Just got back and got to read your SCMP piece while having coffee in Times Square, HK. Brilliant. You write daily for them?
My comments on this issue:
1. Asking govt to intervene here will be more problematic- issues on press freedom, etc. Better to have a self-regulating culture of integrity among the press.
2. The market readership votes with their eyeballs and clicks or fingers anyway, and paid hacks are easily identified – and are treated accordingly. (or am I wrong? do some paid hacks get to achieve their objectives and maintain an image of integrity ?)
What I mean to say is that (and these are my views) the likes of Tiglao, Magno, et al are outed already and are treated accordingly.
Who reads Ninez Olivarez, for instance? Or Jojo Robles? Who respects them?
@Andrew lim…it is not working in that self-regulating body they have.On your No. 2, completely yes! They achieve their objectives and able to maintain their integrity.
sorry raissa i got now. my name would be then josephf. let me know if there are other with the same spelling. again im sorry.
All your comments are now posted under your handle – josephf.
…when i was still working for a DPWH contractor in Quezon City during 90’s…may mga sikat na broadcasters na ang trabaho ay umarbor ng mga projects sa mga district engineers…kapalit ng hindi pag-batikos sa kanilang mga proyekto…ipina-pasa naman nila sa mga kakilala nilang contractor yung project kapalit ng 2-3% ng contract amount…although sa isang broadcaster lang ako nagkaroon ng personal na experience dahil ako mismo ang nagdadala ng pera sa opisina nya…pero kalat sa DPWH ang mga pangalan nila…ang iba ay sumubok sa pulitika…may nanalo, may natalo…di ko lang alam kung hanggang ngayon may mga kalakaran pa ding ganito…
I asked you before to please change your handle or name because another commenter named Joseph arrived here before you and the others would be confused if there are two Josephs here.
Please change your handle and then I will post all your comments under the new handle.
I am not censoring you.
I’m just avoiding any confusion.
this is yhe first time you said that to me. can you give a sample of his blog. if thats me i will change my name
PNoy need not issue such executive order prohibiting public officers from doing “cash for coverage” act.
R.A. 6713, the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees” provides:
Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. – (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
c. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.
Section 11. Penalties. – (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months’ salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, with public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.
“Cash for coverage” is definitely contrary to good morals, good customs, public policy and public interest. Of course, PNoy does not have to remind public officers that “bribing” media is against government policy, although may not be punishable under the Revised Penal Code if the money given comes from their own pockets. But would anyone believe that money source?
It is interesting that CIMA (Center for International Media Assistance) released on September 28, 2010 a report entitled “Cash for Coverage: Bribery of Journalists Around the World”.
Please see the link on CIMA.
Thanks for this.