The primary function of language, being a social fact, is communication, and it remains operative throughout whatever other uses language may be put. The communicative function of language takes on additional weight in journalism, because the currency of that particular trade is information, and the objective is the equal distribution of wealth thereof, as it were. Whether “straight” reportage—for lack of a better term—or opinion and editorial writing, the practice of journalism necessarily involves the use of power—the power to influence the way that people look at themselves, their respective societies, and the world at large, the power to help shape values and attitudes, and the power to combat ignorance and enable everyone to “exercise their sovereign human right to decide their destinies” [1].
Bearing the foregoing in mind, I would now like to begin an examination of the series on Hacienda Luisita that was published on the GMANews.TV web site and authored by Stephanie Dychiu. As of this writing, four out of the five parts of the series, which professes to be a thorough investigation of how Senator Benigno S. “Noynoy” Aquino III and the issue of Hacienda Luisita are intimately linked, have been made publicly available.
What I am particularly concerned with here is how Dychiu has used A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines [2], a book written by Professor James Putzel and published in 1992, in her development of the series, specifically in these articles: “Hacienda Luisita’s past haunts Noynoy’s future” [3] and “Cory’s land reform legacy to test Noynoy’s political will” [4], which are the first two parts of the series, as well as “The Garchitorena land scam” [5] and “How the Cojuangcos got majority control of Hacienda Luisita” [6], which are complementary articles to “Cory’s land reform legacy”. I last retrieved all these articles on March 22, 2010, and I have stored copies of these for reference, given the mutable nature of hypertexts.
My choice of focus is, in some respects, arbitrary, but, as I hope to show, not entirely without merit. A Captive Land seeks to present a historical overview of agrarian reform in the Philippines, and while it contains strong criticism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) that was begun during the administration of the late former President Corazon C. Aquino, it also offers a complex and finely nuanced discussion of agrarian reform.
Allow me to state, in the interest of transparency, that I support the bid of Senator Aquino for president, and that my decision to write this essay is partially motivated by such support. I readily admit that I do not have the necessary background to discuss agrarian reform in general or A Captive Land in particular with any scholarly competence, but that is not the intention here, in any case.
My concerns in this essay, such as they are, do not, in fact, include agrarian reform, Hacienda Luisita, or Senator Aquino and his family per se. Rather, my goal is to critique how Dychiu, herself no agrarian reform expert, as the ostensible writer of—and thus the one ultimately accountable for—the series, used the book in her work, though I do not dismiss her series wholesale.
This critique is animated primarily by the following questions:
- Has Dychiu used Putzel, a recognized development expert, responsibly, with due regard and care for what he is actually saying?
- Insofar as the Hacienda Luisita series is concerned, can Dychiu be said to have upheld the code of ethics of Philippine journalism that has been formulated by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) and the National Press Club (NPC)?
Responsible research?
As previously mentioned, Dychiu cites A Captive Land several times in the series.
In “Hacienda Luisita’s past” [7], she invokes Putzel in discussing the acquisition of Central Azucarera de Tarlac and Hacienda Luisita, as well as the conditions set by the Monetary Board with reference to how the Cojunagco family obtained Central Bank approval for the foreign loan that was secured in order to purchase the hacienda.
In “Cory’s land reform legacy” [8], while going over the stock distribution option (SDO), which is provided for in the CARP law, she quotes Putzel’s comment that the farmers of Hacienda Luisita, who favored the SDO, may not have really understood what it meant, and then refers to him to pinpoint the date for the formation of Hacienda Luisita. Linked to this article are “The Garchitorena land scam” [9] and “How the Cojuangcos got majority control” [10], which finds Dychiu citing Putzel yet again.
It must be conceded that Putzel, as earlier mentioned, is highly critical of how agrarian reform was undertaken during the Aquino administration, especially with regard to the SDO. In fact, Putzel seems to believe strongly in redistributive agrarian reform, and approves of peasant mobilization, saying in his conclusion that it is a key factor in ensuring that agrarian reform will at least remain on the development agenda [11].
Two basic tests that may be applied in order to determine how responsible a researcher has been are as follows: first, how correctly the researcher has quoted or paraphrased his or her source material; and second, how the source material so quoted or paraphrased has been deployed within the researcher’s work. To my mind, Dychiu fails both.
Note that A Captive Land is used as the source in the first article just to establish the bits of historical background for Hacienda Luisita—a version of the background, it must be underscored, that neither Dychiu nor GMANews.TV appears to have asked from Hacienda Luisita itself—while Putzel’s remark is simply repeated in the second article.
The absence of a counterpoint to Putzel, or any of the other authorities she cites, for that matter, in a piece that contrives itself as reportage, rather than opinion, is also curious, especially considering that, in the introduction preceding “After Luisita massacre, more killings linked to protest” [12], the fourth part of the series, the period over which the research for the series was conducted—three months—and the supervision that Dychiu received from GMANews.TV editor-in-chief Howie Severino are emphasized. Putzel himself, though obviously an advocate of a specific set of directions for agrarian reform, bolstered his position precisely by comparing and contrasting it with those of others.
Moreover, it does not seem unfair to say that Dychiu’s use of Putzel’s statements has less to do with the amplification of her points than with decoration: when she is not (merely) echoing his arguments, her use of Putzel is minimal, tokenistic, and, worst of all, distortive. But perhaps my charge against Dychiu is better illustrated with a few examples.
This is Dychiu explaining how the dictator Ferdinand Marcos dealt with Hacienda Luisita in “Hacienda Luisita’s past”, with key sections emphasized:
The Cojuangcos’ disputed hold over Hacienda Luisita had been tolerated by Marcos even at the height of his dictatorship. However, as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US, a case was filed on May 7, 1980 by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco company TADECO for the surrender of Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, so land could be distributed to the farmers at cost, in accordance with the terms of the government loans given in 1957-1958 to the late Jose Cojuangco, Sr., who died in 1976. (Republic of the Philippines vs. TADECO, Civil Case No. 131654, Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIII)
The Marcos government filed this case after written follow-ups sent to the Cojuangcos over a period of eleven years did not result in land distribution. (The Cojuangcos always replied that the loan terms were unenforceable because there were no tenants on the hacienda.) The government’s first follow-up letter was written by Conrado Estrella of the Land Authority on March 2, 1967. Another letter was written by Central Bank Governor Gregorio Licaros on May 5, 1977. Another letter was written by Agrarian Reform Deputy Minister Ernesto Valdez on May 23, 1978.
The government’s lawsuit was portrayed by the anti-Marcos bloc as an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family. Inside Hacienda Luisita, however, the farmers thought the wheels of justice were finally turning and land distribution was coming.
[…]
The government pursued its case against the Cojuangcos, and by December 2, 1985, the Manila Regional Trial Court ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. According to Putzel, this decision was rendered with unusual speed and was decried by the Cojuangcos as another act of harassment, because Cory Aquino, now a widow after the assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983, was set to run for President against Marcos in the February 7, 1986 snap elections. The Cojuangcos elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals G.R. 08634).
Cory Aquino officially announced her candidacy on December 3, 1985. Land reform was one of the pillars of her campaign. [13]
This is Putzel’s account in A Captive Land, again with important parts highlighted:
It became clear fairly early on that although Marcos claimed he would break the oligarchy through martial law, he needed the support of landowners and provincial political clans to enforce his rule throughout the country. Marcos’ refusal to challenge the landowners head-on was clear when he restricted reform to rice and corn lands. Even here he allowed phased implementation, which gave landowners time to take evasive measures.
[…]
What is more, Marcos himself was a large landowner and used martial law to increase his own landholdings as well as those of his extended family.
[…]
Thus, Marcos did not attempt to use the state to undermine the oligarchy as a whole, but to strike out at specific powerful opponents. Marcos’s rejection of the ‘Rules and Regulations’ for the implementation of the reform, which were drawn up by the DAR in 1972, left the programme vague and therefore more easily employed as a means to reward supporters and punish opponents.
[...]
[The Cojuangcos] did not hear from the government again until Aquino was about to leave detention for a by-pass operation in the United States in May 1980. The day before he left, the government filed a case. The plaintiffs evidently included the Central Bank (or Monetary Board), the Government Service Insurance System and the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The case remained in its preliminary stages until August 1983 when Aquino was assassinated. It was only then that the government began to conduct hearings, but there was still no urgency to the case. However, the government’s attitude changed at the time of the snap elections in February 1986, when the Aquino-Cojuangco clan once more emerged as a major threat to Marcos. On 3 December 1985, one day after Cory Aquino filed her candidacy, Judge Pardo of the Regional Trial Court denied the appeal and ruled that the family had to transfer their lands. The judge made his ruling even before summary arguments were presented, suggesting that Marcos had intervened to ask for a quick decision. [14]
One has to wonder how Dychiu was able to say that the attitude of Marcos toward Hacienda Luisita was one of “tolerance”, considering that she does even not point to any persons or materials that could back up her claim—in sharp contrast to Putzel, who scrupulously cites his sources. It is worth noting that Putzel can hardly be said to belong to the “anti-Marcos bloc” that Dychiu claims portrayed the Marcos-initiated lawsuits as “harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family”, and yet he himself probably agrees with the assessment of that “anti-Marcos bloc”. Why Dychiu appears to disagree is not clear.
Furthermore, based on the dates, Dychiu provides a different—a reversed—sequence of events, saying that Cory Aquino filed her candidacy after the Regional Trial Court had ordered the transfer of Hacienda Luisita, while Putzel states that Cory had done it before.
It must be admitted that Putzel has the date wrong, as Cory did file her candidacy on December 3. The report that follows below, available on TIME.com, is just one of several identifying the date, although, as can be seen, the release of the order was timed to come after the filing.
[Corazon Aquino] also charged the President with “political harassment,” claiming that for years Marcos has tried to confiscate a sugar plantation owned by her family. Aquino revealed that on Dec. 3, the day she announced her candidacy, a regional court ordered the government to seize the property. [15]
Putzel does also say that the order to transfer “was actually dated 2 December 1985, the same day that General Fabian Ver, Marcos’ chief of staff, was cleared of all charges in connection with the assassination of Benigno Aquino” [16]. Could this be the reason for the disparity between the accounts of Dychiu and Putzel?
In “The Garchitorena land scam”, Dychiu refers to Putzel yet again. I have highlighted an interestingly worded sentence, which indicates another disparity:
In his 1992 book A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, American development studies expert Dr. James Putzel also mentioned that Father Bernas had informed President Aquino about the Garchitorena deal on April 1, 1989. Aquino then met with the DAR and Land Bank heads on April 5, 1989. Then, Sharp petitioned the Supreme Court to enforce the P62.7 million payment. Juico subsequently stopped the payment order, but the scam had already been exposed in Congress. [17]
This is Putzel’s account in A Captive Land, with my emphasis:
The President was informed about the deal on 1 April 1989 by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, and she met with [Land Bank of the Philippines President] Vistan and [Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary] Juico on 5 April. Sharp then had the audacity to petition the Supreme Court to order DAR to pay the P62.7 million for the land. Subsequently, Secretary Juico stopped the payment order and began an investigation of the deal. However, Vistan revealed the overpricing agreemtn to Congress and on 13 May 1989, Rep. Edcel Lagman told a joint House-Senate Committee the details, unleashing a scandal that brought the DAR’s work virtually to a halt. [18]
Observe that Dychiu states the scandal “had already been exposed” even as Juico stopped the payment order, which is very, very different from Putzel’s narration. Where Putzel shows one event following another, Dychiu claims that Putzel points to a confluence. Is this not a misrepresentation of Putzel? Why does Dychiu again change the timing of events—and, in this instance, purport to be simply repeating Putzel?
Let me now move on to how Putzel is used by Dychiu in “Cory’s land reform legacy”. His opinion regarding the SDO is presented toward the middle of the article:
In his 1992 book A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, American development studies expert James Putzel expressed doubt that the farmers understood the choice that was presented to them. “The outcome of the vote was entirely predictable,” he wrote. “The balance of power in the country favored families like the Cojuangcos. The problem was not really that the farm workers were denied the right to choose . . . it was rather that [they] were denied an environment that would allow them to identify what their choices were.” [19]
He is again cited by Dychiu a few paragraphs later in “Cory’s land reform legacy” this way:
In his book A Captive Land, Putzel also noted that Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI), the company formed by the Cojuangcos to operationalize Luisita’s SDO, was incorporated in August 1988—nine months before the farm workers were first asked to choose between stocks or land in May 1989.
This bred suspicion that the SDO was considered a done deal early on, and the two rounds of voting with the farmers were only organized to give an appearance of transparency. [20]
If the early incorporation of HLI indeed “bred suspicion”, the vague phrasing and the passive voice of Dychiu’s last paragraph in the immediately foregoing quotation should breed suspicion in turn: who were the ones doing the suspecting against the SDO, when the farmers concerned voted overwhelmingly in favor of it? Does this not seem to be a passive-aggressive attack on the Cojuangcos?
Such a sentiment is not expressed by Putzel—opining that “the farmworkers, tenants, and the landless rural poor continued to be denied an environment that would allow them to identify what their choices were” [21] is not the same as insinuating that there was a conspiracy within the Cojuangco family “to give an appearance of transparency”, as Dychiu does. In this regard, Dychiu’s stance actually seems closer to that of Assembliya ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng Hasyenda Luisita (AMBALUS), the peasant organization whose view on the SDO vote Putzel disagrees with [22].
Incidentally, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, himself an advocate of land redistribution, wrote that, with reference to the majority vote for the SDO, “It could be presumptuous of me to tell the farmers what is good for them […] It is not easy for a distant observer to question the wishes of the beneficiaries directly involved” [23]. Bernas, unlike Dychiu, maintained a specific position on the matter but acknowledged its complexity, especially with reference to the choice that over 90% of the farmers made.
As a final example, here are two paragraphs from Dychiu’s “How the Cojuangcos got majority control” [24]:
Those who have studied HLI’s books say the non-land assets seem to have been overvalued to increase the Cojuangcos’ share, while the land assets were undervalued to limit the farm workers’ share.
In his 1992 book A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, American development studies expert Dr. James Putzel showed how the non-land assets were inflated.
Just like the previous example, Dychiu appears to be making a disingenuous move: who, besides Putzel himself, are the parties (“those”) that have independently studied the books of HLI and believe that its non-land assets were inflated? Why are neither these persons nor their studies mentioned by name? Do they exist at all, or is Dychiu making a hasty generalization based on the statement of a single person—an authority, to be sure, but a single person nevertheless?
It could be argued, of course, that Dychiu must use her sources selectively, a fate that befalls any other writer, but, vis-à-vis the aforementioned excerpts, the judiciousness of her selections must be called into question.
Ethical journalism?
It is worth pointing out that, in his introduction to A Captive Land, Putzel acknowledges that there are advantages and disadvantages in writing about CARP so soon after its passage and early stages of implementation—ultimately, Putzel looks at his own book as a contribution to “what must be an on-going process of study about agrarian reform”, believing that it “will need to be amended, or even revised as other information becomes available” (xxiii) [25]. He certainly does not assert that his work is in any way definitive, which is indicative of his integrity as scholar.
A common practice among academicians is to avoid, as much as possible, invisibility—that is, the researcher generally takes it upon himself or herself to reveal his or her his or her interests and investments in a given project so as to establish not only the scope and limitations of the study itself, but also the scope and limitations of the specific subject-position from which the study is shaped. Claims to omniscience or absolute knowledge are recognized as acts of epistemic violence, and ought to be explicitly denounced and avoided.
Such an ethical stance finds equivalents in the realm of Philippine professional journalism. Two provisions from “Journalist’s Code of Ethics“, a code jointly formulated by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) and the National Press Club (NPC), seem especially germane: one is, “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”; and the other is, “I shall not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties; nor shall I accept or offer any present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my professional integrity” [26].
As regards these provisions, of course, an admission must be registered: to the extent that journalism requires arranging data in particular ways, at particular times, for particular purposes, under the auspices of particular actors both within and without the profession—editors and publishers on the one hand, for example, and advertisers and readers on the other—and given that facts themselves are inherently value-laden, non-distortion and the elision of personal motives or interests are, at best, nearly impossible tasks.
Nevertheless, the importance of clarity, completeness, and contextualization in the presentation of information cannot be emphasized enough. While the 1987 Philippine Constitution certainly protects the freedoms of expression, of speech, and of the press from abrogation, laws against obscenity, libel, slander, intellectual theft, and sedition, among others, also exist in order to ensure that such freedoms are exercised with responsibility.
The “Journalist’s Code of Ethics” [27] is but an extension of or complement to such laws, and its very existence indicates a recognition within the field of professional journalism that words, because they are capable of material effect, can be dangerous. This is not a newly discovered or recognized property of words. Even the most cursory examination of history will show that many reputations, relationships, and regimes have been reared and razed by words. In Christian theology, the world was brought about with words, and later saved by the Word. And of course, just waiting to be summoned is the platitudinous comparison between the pen and the sword. Therefore, it behooves anyone who uses words to be ever aware of—and to be equal to—the great burden he or she bears—even the most reclusive diarist must realize that he or she is writing for someone else, if only someone other than his or her present self.
On the GMANews.TV web site, the Hacienda Luisita series by Dychiu is classified under “Special Reports”, a section of the site that contains what appear to be specimens of that could be called straight reportage. The “specialness” of the reports collected under this rubric probably derives largely from their sustained length and relative depth. At the level of categorization alone, Dychiu’s series is already problematic. Consider how the first part of the series, “Hacienda Luisita’s past”, opens:
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. [28]
The use of phrases such as “being dragged”, “one of the most common”, “troubled history”, and “forever haunting” [29] would seem to be inappropriate and 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” [30]. The pentapartite series, then, seems to be based on a question for which the author already had a kind of blueprint or outline of answers before even beginning the research process, which may explain why it is seriously flawed, as I have already shown.
What is most significant about the excerpt above, however, is the third paragraph: GMANews.TV pointedly did not interview anyone from the Cojuangco family or any Hacienda Luisita official, preferring instead to consult old court documents, media reports, and legislative records, despite, as earlier mentioned, the fact that three months’ worth of research was supposedly put into the series.
This is a strange decision for at least two reasons: first, farm workers, union leaders, and union lawyers were directly consulted; and second, Dychiu does not make the conventional statement that the Cojuangcos or the officials of Hacienda Luisita refused to be interviewed, which implies that they may have been willing, had they been asked. Did Dychiu, or anyone from the GMANews.TV team, even attempt to interview these people? If so, how did they respond? Why are their responses not noted?
Moreover, after three months of research—research that was conducted under the supervision of Severino, a veteran journalist, to boot—it is unbelievable that Dychiu could only find one scholarly tome on the subject—a tome, I might add, that is nearly two decades old. Equally unbelievable is her seeming lack of initiative or interest to investigate the extensive list of references at the end of A Captive Land, when the list could have pointed her toward resources with which her study could have been deepened and enriched.
What is most difficult to accept about Dychiu’s work is that it presents itself as reportage—a type of journalistic writing that ideally seeks to put forward facts corroborated by reliable primary and secondary sources, as well as a balance of multiple viewpoints—when, upon close examination, it deliberately imparts only one perspective.
That nothing can or should stop Dychiu from taking up and defending a position that is at odds with CARP, with the SDO, with the handling of Hacienda Luisita, or with Senator Aquino and his family should be obvious enough. This, however, does not give her, or GMANews.TV, for that matter, the liberty—at least from a professional, ethical perspective—to declare that her work is reportage when, from the very beginning, it is obvious that she is determined to be one-sided, even at the cost of distorting and misrepresenting her sources, such as Putzel’s book.
What is the purpose behind her insidious insinuations? Why, when she could come clean about her biases instead—a move that would indicate an openness to dialogue, a willingness to be challenged—does Dychiu avoid showing her true face?
While I do not think that this piece will be met with unanimous agreement, I believe that I have given the astute reader enough material such that he or she will at least entertain a healthy skepticism about the work of Dychiu and the standards of GMANews.TV sets for itself as a media organization.
If, as I mentioned earlier, the currency of the trade of journalism is information, dare any critical, ethical reader have faith in and use the information that has Dychiu provided, particularly when she cannot even report the smallest details accurately? How can her larger claims be trusted when she cannot perform the simple act of quotation properly, instead willfully warping data—including data from her chosen expert—to suit her prejudices, which she has conveniently failed to disclose?
I began this essay with two questions, which I will repeat here:
- Has Dychiu used Putzel, a recognized development expert, responsibly, with due regard and care for what he is actually saying?
- Insofar as the Hacienda Luisita series is concerned, can Dychiu be said to have upheld the code of ethics of Philippine journalism that has been formulated by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) and the National Press Club (NPC)?
I am sorry to say that my answer to both questions is a resounding, “No”.
*
Notes
- Luis V. Teodoro, ed., “About the Site”, Eye on Ethics, n.d., Center for Media Responsibility and Asia Media Forum, http://www.eyeonethics.org/about, accessed 18 March. 2010.
- James Putzel, A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila U P, 1992.
- Stephanie Dychiu, “Hacienda Luisita’s past haunts Noynoy’s future”, GMANews.TV, 18 January 2010, GMA Network, Inc., http://www.gmanews.tv/story/181877/hacienda-luisitas-past-haunts-noynoys-future, accessed 22 March 2010.
- Stephanie Dychiu, “Cory’s land reform legacy to test Noynoy’s political will”, GMANews.TV, 22 January 2010, GMA Network, Inc., http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182195/corys-land-reform-legacy-to-test-noynoys-political-will, accessed 22 March 2010.
- Stephanie Dychiu, “The Garchitorena land scam”, GMANews.TV 22 January 2010, GMA Network, Inc, http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182211/the-garchitorena-land-scam, accessed 22 March 2010.
- Stephanie Dychiu, “How the Cojuangcos got majority control of Hacienda Luisita”, GMANews.TV, 22 January 2010, GMA Network, Inc., http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182212/how-the-cojuangcos-got-majority-control-of-hacienda-luisita-under-carp, accessed 22 March 2010.
- Dychiu, “Hacienda Luisita’s past haunts Noynoy’s future”, op. cit.
- Dychiu, “Cory’s land reform legacy to test Noynoy’s political will”, op. cit.
- Dychiu, “The Garchitorena land scam”, op. cit.
- Dychiu, “How the Cojuangcos got majority control of Hacienda Luisita”, op. cit.
- Putzel, op. cit., p. 382.
- Stephanie Dychiu, “After Luisita massacre, more killings linked to protest”, GMANews.TV, 11 February 2010, GMA Network, Inc., http://www.gmanews.tv/story/183662/after-luisita-massacre-more-killings-linked-to-protest, accessed 22 March 2010.
- Dychiu, “Hacienda Luisita’s past haunts Noynoy’s future”, op. cit.
- Putzel, op. cit., pp. 146-8.
- “World Notes: Jan. 13, 1986″, TIME.com, 21 June 2005, Time Inc., http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074933,00.html, accessed 18 March 2010.
- Putzel, op. cit., p. 148n222.
- Dychiu, “The Garchitorena land scam”, op. cit.
- Putzel, op. cit., p. 315.
- Dychiu, “Cory’s land reform legacy to test Noynoy’s political will”, op. cit.
- Ibid.
- Putzel, op. cit., p. 335.
- Ibid., p. 335n119.
- Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, “More on Hacienda Luisita”, A Living Constitution: The Cory Aquino Presidency, Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2000, pp. 215; 218.
- Dychiu, “How the Cojuangcos got majority control of Hacienda Luisita”, op. cit.
- Putzel, op. cit., p. xxiii.
- Philippine Press Institute and National Press Club, “Journalist’s Code of Ethics”, Eye on Ethics, n.d., Center for Media Responsibility and Asia Media Forum. http://www.eyeonethics.org/journalist-code-of-ethics-in-asia/journalists-code-of-ethics-philippines, accessed 18 March 2010.
- Ibid.
- Dychiu, “Hacienda Luisita’s past haunts Noynoy’s future”, op. cit.
- Ibid., italics original.
- Ibid.
Works Cited
Bernas, Joaquin G. “More on Hacienda Luisita”. A Living Constitution: The Cory Aquino Presidency. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2000. 214-9.
Dychiu, Stephanie. “After Luisita massacre, more killings linked to protest”. GMANews.TV. 11 Feb. 2010, GMA Network, Inc. 22 Mar. 2010. <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/183662/after-luisita-massacre-more-killings-linked-to-protest>.
—. “Cory’s land reform legacy to test Noynoy’s political will”. GMANews.TV. 22 Jan. 2010, GMA Network, Inc. 22 Mar. 2010. <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182195/corys-land-reform-legacy-to-test-noynoys-political-will>.
—. “The Garchitorena land scam”. GMANews.TV. 22 Jan. 2010, GMA Network, Inc. 22 Mar. 2010. <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182211/the-garchitorena-land-scam>.
—. “Hacienda Luisita’s past haunts Noynoy’s future”. GMANews.TV. 18 Jan. 2010, GMA Network, Inc. 22 Mar. 2010. <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/181877/hacienda-luisitas-past-haunts-noynoys-future>.
—. “How the Cojuangcos got majority control of Hacienda Luisita”. GMANews.TV. 22 Jan. 2010, GMA Network, Inc. 22 Mar. 2010. <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182212/how-the-cojuangcos-got-majority-control-of-hacienda-luisita-under-carp>.
Philippine Press Institute and National Press Club. “Journalist’s Code of Ethics”. Eye on Ethics. n.d., Center for Media Responsibility and Asia Media Forum. 18 Mar. 2010. <http://www.eyeonethics.org/journalist-code-of-ethics-in-asia/journalists-code-of-ethics-philippines/>.
Putzel, James. “Agrarian Reform in a Captive Land”. Introduction. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. By Putzel. xix-xxiv.
—. A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila U P, 1992.
Teodoro, Luis V., ed. “About the Site”. Eye on Ethics. n.d., Center for Media Responsibility and Asia Media Forum. 18 Mar. 2010. <http://www.eyeonethics.org/about/>.
“World Notes: Jan. 13, 1986″. TIME.com. 21 Jun. 2005, Time Inc. 18 Mar. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074933,00.html>.
*
(This entry also appears in my blog, Random Salt.)
Popularity: 1% [?]
Excellent analysis. Ripped Dychiu’s alleged objectivity to shreds
let me add that dychiu is a LIFESTYLE EDITOR AND ONCE HEADED THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT OF AYALA LAND PREMIERE. She’s no expert agrarian reform writer and I really don’t know why GMA Network allowed an ignorant writer to feature such a fractured piece in their site.
gotcha!
is GMANews anti-Noynoy? if so, are Dichiu and Severino paid hacks? just wondering.
i have thought of it that much too..
bert,
Probably Dychiu is now working for Villar’s real estate company since she once headed Ayala Land’s exclusive property division as Marketing head. Remember that she’s the same age as Camille Villar who now heads Villar’s real estate companies.
Now, as far as Howee Severino is concerned, there were reports of Severino’s lack of objectivity, although I don’t know if he’s a paid hack of the Villar’s. So much for “walang kinikilingan, walang sinusuportahan.”
GMA Network should have been circumspect about this.
Dear Jay,
Great stuff. You’ve not only shredded Dychiu, you’ve also doused those who would use this issue to demolish by igniting where ther is nothing to ignite.
Regards,
Dean
Cannot agree with you more.
Hmm. Great piece, Jay — thanks!
It’s about time someone took these “journalists” to task. Most people are hesitant to expose them for fear of being attacked in the press.
A female columnist in the Philippine Star keeps attacking Noynoy but most readers are probably not aware that she is the recipient of largesse from GMA, having been named to the Petron Board and more recently to the CCP Board.
I can’t help but notice that in the recent brouhaha about the New York Times piece on Luisita, Carlos Conde was quick and open with his responses. Yet I look in vain for a response from either Dychiu or Severino. Have they nothing to say?
because the new york times is beholden to an international reputation that will hang them upside down for transgressions of their duties as journalists.
in the philippines, we have no such public anger, or social awareness for the role that media plays.
also, on a personal note, a friend did e-mail Howie Severino about his reservations on the tone of the piece, Howie defended Dychiu. Thus the disclaimer in the 4th series that Severino worked closely with Dychiu.
If someone slaps a libel suit on those two, Howie will pay. But public sentiment, despite GMA’s faults, will rest on the smearjob twins, as the media will always protect their own, as in the grander scheme of things, the media shapes public opinion rather than reflects it. and it is seen as an affront to the freedom of expressionand any time journalist is sued.
so what are we left with? it is time the public call out for stricter standards for the news media.
Great piece and very detailed. Dychiu clearly did not do her homework. There are always two sides and she stuck to only one. In fact, I asked an official of HLI if they were asked about this. They were never asked and that is why they will be issuing a series of replies to the insinuations made by Dychiu.
schumey, also notice she says this is the story of the “farmers” in the plural. how many farmers did she interview? correct me if i’m wrong, but i only see one. and he is the acting president of ULWU, which various testimonies have marked as “stained by the left.” Whether or not this is true, the responsible journalist will look into this and certainly temper quotation with multiple accounts. i see none but a secondary source and newspaper reports. she says she went to luisita. well then, why don’t we see more first-hand accounts?
sloppy journalism. a smear on the good names of good journalists who do their job well.
Jay, regretful to say, you are not helping Noynoy’s campaign at all. It doesn’t matter how Dychiu or Putzer lay data on paper or on TV . The law of Agrarian Reform is evidently stated in your blog that THE PIECE OF LAND IS FOR THE FARMERS and must be distributed. Thats the rule of law. Making known of your support to Noynoy descibed your work as telling that there’s a connector between Noynoy and HL. 1% or less is legitimate. I wish you have composed a piece that will disconnect that attachment.
The people have the right to recognize that there’s such a connection- a connection of conflict of interest and a poorly govern agrarian program. YES ,there was hope for the farmers at that time but it sounded like, no one cares. And now someone may have thought that He cares?
There’s no ETHICS in this country. That concept is yet to exist. For Dychiu or Putzer, both have licenses and authorities at their own risk. As a general rule, whoever holds authority and power is easily listened.
Great blog BTW…
leytenian,
I don’t understand how Senator Aquino could possibly be disconnected from Hacienda Luisita, considering he owns shares of stock in it. He himself has never said that he has nothing to do with Hacienda Luisita as such.
As for the rule of law, please note the following:
(1) CARP is the first ever agrarian reform law that included sugarlands, which President Aquino could have exempted out of pecuniary interests, and in which case we would never be having this discussion at all. The Cojuangcos would have kept the entire estate to themselves and no one would have been able to say or do anything about it.
(2) With regard to SDO: (a) it was approved of by both Houses of Congress; (b) it is a legal manner of undertaking agrarian reform; and (c) an overwhelming majority of the farmers concerned chose to go with the SDO and continue to stand by their choice.
Finally, as regards your statement, “There’s no ETHICS in this country”, I beg to disagree.
We Should stop hacking at people who own land. Land reform is passe. We cannot giveaway land anymore with our growing population. Or else people will just turn all the agri land to subdivisions like Manny Villar. Let us look at our law and update it in our time. It may have nice in the 1950′s when we have more land than our population.
Jay,
Please allow me to focus on ethics..
On HL and Agrarian Reform issue, the rule of law is the legal aspect of that agreement between the farmers and the cojuanco’s including the share of Noynoy’s family at 11%. The expected result of that agreement becomes what we call ethical behavior or ethics in managing the agreement. The result of that agreement did not deliver ethical result according to my own little research. The government paid HL P80 mil pesos for the road right of way. In the legal agreement approved by Congress and by majority including the farmers, the ethical numbers under the stock distribution option will make the farmers became owners of 33 percent of the enormous estate. The farmers should have received at least P25 million of the P80 million right-of-way government payment. The unethical consequence made the farmers broken and instead given only P2 million pesos in dividends, which translated to 50 centavos to P1 per farmer.
If ethical conduct carries out no harm and respects the rights of all influenced, and unethical behavior willfully or negligently squashes on the rights and interests of others, then the media or any journalist cannot deny or disregard the rights of others. Here, Dychiu or Putzer agenda may not be purely self-serving but rather may be serving the public specifically the farmers.
Creating good ethical decisions compels a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for examining the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our option to a course of action. Perhaps, this can be the true motivation of Dychiu or Putzer?
Yes, Ethics does not exist in this country. Given that you beg to disagree, delight me with an illustration or a specimen from any levels of government that has delivered a pattern of ethical method. And please don’t forget to interpret why the Philippines is ranked as the number 4th corrupt country in Asia.
Of course Jay, I find you ethical and very diligent in what you do. How I wish the system can take advantage of your talent and create more like you…
Thanks to a great blog. goodnite..
leytenian,
First, I am afraid that I am not cognizant of the issue that you are raising, and will have to refrain from making any specific comment on it until I have made a thorough study of it. I would appreciate it if you could share your research with me.
If I remember my corporation law, correctly, however, just because a company realizes income on a particular transaction does not mean that there will be dividends to distribute. After all, expenses and debts must be paid off first before dividends are declared and distributed. I just do not know if this is relevant to the case you mention.
Second, with regard to your statement on the agenda of Dychiu and Putzel (“Here, Dychiu or Putzer agenda may not be purely self-serving but rather may be serving the public specifically the farmers.”), please note that I present no argument against Putzel. As I mentioned, I do not believe myself competent enough to discuss agrarian reform.
What I strongly object to is the way Dychiu used Putzel in her series. Even if I take as given that Dychiu wants to serve the public, that is no excuse for her acts of distortion.
Third, I do not deny that corruption is ravaging the country. Just because corruption is a huge, pervasive problem, however, does not automatically mean that ethics does not exist or that ethical behavior is impossible. Also, why restrict your field of vision to the government? The Philippines is not its government alone.
Good evening.
Jay,
My view on HL is a social injustice concern. As you mentioned about corporate law, the language behind the HL agreement can be one-sided. Corporations in general are expected to bear social responsibility to its shareholders. Agrarian reform was initiated with the primary purpose of promoting social justice. Therefore with SDO, HL social responsibility is to deliver social justice. When poor farmers cannot voice out freely , cannot understand fully and cannot sell their shares as they please, that to me can also be interpreted as a direct assault to human rights. ( a clear example was the HL massacre).
If one believes he can oversee problems of human right abuses and social injustice designed for the whole country, perhaps it’s best to practice it first at his own backyard. Even with a minority share, a true leader can influence changes to the corporate language in the HL agreement.
I typically support any journalism that defends the poor as the recipient of its reporting. On Dychiu, i think she should continue to investigate and perhaps, use SEC reporting to see how transparent is the corporate language contain in the HL agreement. :D
leytenian,
I agree that agrarian reform is an issue of social justice. A book I’m reading now brings up the concept of “agrarian justice”, which I find quite interesting.
That said, how do did you come by the knowledge on which you base your remarks?
What is your basis for saying that “the language behind the HL agreement can be one-sided”? How do you know that, in Hacienda Luisita, “poor farmers cannot voice out freely , cannot understand fully and cannot sell their shares as they please”? Who are your sources? How many of these farmers are actually in the situation you describe? Also, how do you know who was at fault in the massacre? At the time, if you review the relevant news reports, many people were calling for the head of then–Department of Labor and Employment Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas.
Defending the poor is certainly a worthy goal, but should such defense come at the cost of willfully warping facts, as Dychiu and GMANews.TV have done? Disseminating tainted information to the public is like handing out poisoned fruit. The fruit will stave off hunger and maybe even provide a modicum of nutrition, but it will corrupt the health of the eaters nevertheless.
WARNING — Possible Contamination / Tainted Information.
Blog posts, blog-comments, like mass media column-writing, TV presentations, even news reports and updates share the warning — “may be disseminating tainted information”.
Jay,
let me continue….
Article XII, Section 4 of the Constitution grants that “the State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a JUST share of the fruits thereof.” The non-redistributive schemes such as stock distribution option (SDO) sabotage the right of landless farmers to own directly the land they till for many generations. It is disempowering and unfavorable where entrustment over procured land is channelled back to big landowners. Living defeated, the farmers aso lack the legal standing before local or judicial courts as they are poor and have no financial means to settle adispute. From global south study
Social responsibility in HL management shall promote not only for social justice but industrial enterprise and full employment founded on sound agrarian development and reform, through productions that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources that are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.
No hardworking individual will preserve his/her share in a company if ROI is consistently falling in value. It is common sense to sell short. In HL concern, the farmers have the right to demand social justice. For generations, the Cojuangcos have profited extremely from the Hacienda and labor of the farmers. Noynoy Aquino should recognize that the agri-workers developed it for half a century and more, legitimately owned it. What did he do in the Senate to address the issue and facilitate the revocation of SDO agreement?
I think Dychiu is doing a favor to the farmers. :DDDDD
leytenian,
I wonder if we could focus on one thing at a time, so that we can have a real conversation going. So many topics keep being brought up and none of them gets fully developed. For instance, I’d be interested in hearing your answers to the questions I have posed in my previous reply.
In any case, with reference to this, your latest response, I would like to make the following points:
(1) No one has ever said that the farmers have no right to ask for social justice.
(2) The SDO, as I have already mentioned, is a legal option that a majority of the farmers voted for, and continue to stand by. Following Fr. Bernas, whom I have quoted in my original post, we must also take into account what the farmers believe. It is not our place to impose upon them something that they may not want. I am not suggesting that the SDO is a perfect solution (there is no such thing anyway), but if we want to help the farmers, we have to begin by understanding where they are coming from, and not just barging into the picture with a messianic complex. One problem that I see in many discussions and debates about agrarian reform is the oversimplification of this extremely complicated issue.
(3) Let me repeat myself: “Defending the poor is certainly a worthy goal, but should such defense come at the cost of willfully warping facts, as Dychiu and GMANews.TV have done? Disseminating tainted information to the public is like handing out poisoned fruit. The fruit will stave off hunger and maybe even provide a modicum of nutrition, but it will corrupt the health of the eaters nevertheless.” Even the most cursory review of human history would reveal that too many atrocities have been carried out in the name of some noble, lofty goal.
Jay,
Allow me to share you this example: You work for company named ABC for years. ABC promised you a certain stock option. You agreed knowing that you would benefit from it but later on realized that it’s a dysfunctional relationship and you’re no longer happy. What would you do? I think it is common sense, right?
Now, a journalist noticed your sad story and wanted to investigate and report what had happened and used other reference material to support her work. Is that unethical?
Goodnite Jay… :-)
This latest response of yours gives me the impression that you either: (a) did not understand the point of my original post (that Dychiu was being unethical in her misuse of sources, thus betraying public trust); or (b) believe that the end justifies the means (Dychiu’s distortions do not matter to you because you feel they were made to achieve a “higher” goal).
Leytinian is just hopping from one point to the next which makes sit so hard to understand what he/she wants to say.
Jay,
ahhh. I would say, start building an audience that believes in your writing. It’s not my battle Jay. :-D
Jay wrote an excellent piece that neither Severino nor Leytenian succeeded in tearing down.
Hmm, MB, try imagining this is a hacienda owned by the Arroyo family…
ricelander,
1. Was the hacienda legally acquired?
2. Is SDO legal under CARP?
3. Is it okay for a hacienda owner to fight legally for what he acquired legally?
Whether we are talking of a hacienda owned by the Arroyo family or anyone else, if those three questions are answered in the affirmative then what’s your problem?
Why don’t you allow the courts to decide the issue? Do you prefer mob rule to the rule of law?
Well-said, Manuel!
“Why don’t you allow the courts to decide the issue?…”
Of course, we should, even as i think it will go on forever. But hey, i will commit to memory you said that.
“Why don’t you allow the courts to decide the issue?…” has become complicated considering the possibility NoyNoy not recognize the decision of a Pilipinas Supreme Court on excuse that the justices are…. ahemmmmm, appointed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
the answers to these questions strike at the heart of this issue: noynoy and the aquinos-cojuangcos have been presenting themselves as moral, ethical and conscientious people. but apparently, they have no qualms using all legal technicalities to deprive people of land and to skirt land reform.
1) yes, the hacienda was acquired legally. but the 1958 loan agreement with the GSIS stipulates that the cojuangcos should distribute the land after 10 years to its tenants. the cojuangcos did not because, according to them, there were never any tenant in the 6,000-hectare property — just workers. how can a moral, ethical and conscientious person use this as an argument — that is if he or she believes in the spirit and intent of the CARP, as noynoy and cory said they did?
2) yes, the SDO is legal under CARP. but it was inserted in the CARP st the last minute. if cory believed in agrarian reform, why allow the insertion of this SDO provision that clearly, from the get-go, will undermine CARP? for further readings on this, check: http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2009/11/16/how-hacienda-luisita-stock-scheme-led-to-farmers%E2%80%99-misery/ and http://www.bulatlat.com/news/5-14/5-14-sdo.htm
3) yes, it is ok for a hacienda owner to fight legally for what he acquired legally. but in the luisita case, it’s not just a mere issue of legality. it is a clear issue of morality, ethics and conscience — the very thing that cory wanted us to believe she had and now noynoy wants us to believe he has.
the bottomline is this: luisita, under the spirit and intent of CARP, should be distributed to farmers. but the aquino-cojuangcos have successfully prevented this from happening. and their attempts to frustrate what was supposedly a moral and ethical law fly in the face of their claim now that they are a moral, ethical and conscientious people.
Jonas,
1) “yes, the hacienda was acquired legally. but the 1958 loan agreement with the GSIS stipulates that the cojuangcos should distribute the land after 10 years to its tenants. the cojuangcos did not because, according to them, there were never any tenant in the 6,000-hectare property — just workers.”
So period.
2) “yes, the SDO is legal under CARP.”
Period again.
3. “yes, it is ok for a hacienda owner to fight legally for what he acquired legally.”
And period again.
Jonas, the “buts” that you raise are beyond the issue at hand. The issue of morality, ethics, and conscience depends on which side of the table you sit that’s why we have laws as the final arbiter.
The cojuangcos have said they will abide by the decision of the courts. You can’t ask for more.
You can’t force your moral and ethical views down their throats as they can’t force theirs on you.
If one believes that the laws are unjust, if one believes that there is no hope of changing them, then one can always revolt.
Revolution has always been an option for those who feel oppressed.
“Revolution has always been an option for those who feel oppressed.”
I like that. I agree. Noynoy should tell that to the farmers: “kung ayaw nyo, di magrebolusyon kayo!”
It’s been happening already for a long time. Nagrerebolution na mga CPP/NPA. They want the land distributed to the landless, para pantay-pantay ang lahat. Hindi naman pwede iyon sa batas ng democrasya.
Puwede ito sa demokrasya, but not in an oligarchy. The tillers of the land especially on large plantation estates could be empowered and so are the feudal landowers, what we have is feudalism, not democracy. The landowners could engage in industrial investments and the small landowners could further our agricultural production, not simply produce sugar for export.
@manuelbuencamino:
so we should jsut look the other way while noynoy, the aquinos and the cojuangcos resort to all sorts of machinations to defeat agrarian reform? if that were the case, i wish noynoy and cory and the others stopped presenting themselves as moral and ethical. what makes them any different then from trapos? what makes them any different from, say, manny villar?
define machinations?
if its within their rights, is it still machinations?
Good thinking Jonas, Noynoy is simply the biggest swindle that popular media have successfully sold to the unthinking public. . .
SDO was legal, no? no longer?
i wonder about the implementation of SDO. the idea of it is sound. there is a dearth of papers that completely describe what the SDO partitioning is.
from my reading of putzel (yeah, i read parts of it when the gmanewstv article came out!), only the “land part” of the ownership of the HL is given to the farmers. that is only ~30% of the value. the rest of it is the value of blgs, equipment, and standing crop.
but the book isnt clear, nor are the papers, what terms of the profit sharing are. it ought to be that they get wages and cut from the top (profit sharing).
This is exactly the rationale of the continuing communist insurgency in our country, the oppressed have been brainwashed into thinking that since laws only favor the rich and the powerful, revolution is the only option. However, as we know it, the low intensity conflict in our country pits the oppressed members against themselves, in that most of the soldiers fighting the poor insurgents also come from the poorer classes. The rich and the powerful rest well at night, and the poor are fighting it out in the jungles so social justice could prevail. Given more journalistic pieces promoting social justice especially on agrarian reform, the people could be educated and could put pressure on the government to implement land reform with political will. I don’t see Noynoy leading a government that can do this, and in all other aspects of ethical governance.
“Why don’t you allow the courts to decide the issue? Do you prefer mob rule to the rule of law?”
In short: respect the institution, plick!
Hmm, I have no problem with that really, ferrow plick. It’s just that it sounds kind of familiar. Y’know, Toting Bunye, Eduardo Ermita, Gary Olivar? Interesting when you start mouthing similar lines from people you routinely mock, isn’t it. From someone known for rabble rousing hahaha!
“Wait for the courts” has become complicated considering the possibility NoyNoy not recognize the decision of a Pilipinas Supreme Court on excuse that the justices are…. ahemmmmm, appointed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
This is simplistic, not everything legal is right and just, as we know, laws could always be twisted to suit the interests of the powerful. And in the Philippines, this is always the case without much public outcry. Kudos to Dychiu for coming up with a piece of work that is what investigative journalism demands. We need more journalistic work like this, instead of the nauseous quantity of TV programs romanticizing the memories of Ninoy and Cory to the hilt, without putting historical realities in clear perspective.
The public has been lulled by mindless and sensational news stories that do not dissect social and political issues based on facts. Quibbling on semantics is pointless here no matter how elegantly written any piece of journalistic work is. I applaud this investigative piece of journalism that promotes social justice, and hopefully informs the public of why we are beset continually by insurgency problems notwithstanding the collapse of the communist order worldwide. Social justice is only served well by an Agrarian reform that has teeth, one that does not patronize the direct tillers of the land, but empowers them no matter how small their landholdings are.
Many development economists attribute our underdevelopment to the unleashed potential of capital based on ownership of properties of ordinary people. With small landholdings, the poor hacienda workers could be economically empowered to uplift their economic situation. It is not only the sugar plantation workers on HL who exist on subsistence level, but also workers on other haciendas in the land, and most especially in Negros. The hacienda system is keeping us underdeveloped and is feeding the lingering insurgency problem and rice shortage problem of our country.
I am happy that GMA 7 is breaking out of the mold of the usual mindless TV programming in our country. Consider that TV is the most potent source of info. in any democracy, and yet, the TV programs we mostly see on popular stations are devoid of content in analyzing our problems of underdevelopment. Most of the journalists are patronizing the downtrodden and the ignorant while they earn scandalous salaries for perpetuating ignorance among the populace. This is why our democracy is inferior compared to others, journalists are timid in engaging in investigative journalism tackling issues that matter to our country. We need more Dychiu type journalistic pieces on television. I also agree with Leytenian’s perspective of the blog.
ricelander,
I am reminded of the dialogue between Martin Riggs and Uncle Benny in Lethal Weapon 4.
Martin Riggs: Flied lice?
Uncle Benny: Flied lice? It’s fried rice, you plick.
The older I get, the lazier I get. I read about half, and got the point. We all blunder about with our opinons, and spout them off. Most of the time we are just regurgitating thoughts we believe. Sometimes we tell lies with intent, knowing it is a lie, and that is bad. When we tell lies with intent whilst claiming it is something else, like news, it is a super-bad. I agree with Leytenian on the matter. I admire the diligence and effort you put into the post. And always, always I ask, okay, so what are you going to DO about it. Or is this blog the doing?
I have not studied Philippine regulations pertaining to broadcast media, but judging from the number of commercials per hour on the boxing reruns, or how my sound volume doubles during commercials, I would say it is lax and favors the stations, not the public. Maybe start tightening up broadcast regulations so the stations know they can’t run irresponsible journalism and get off free.
Yours for the doing,
Joe
Joe,
I would like to believe that the writing of this entry constitutes the doing—or at the very least, the beginning of the doing, as the tightening of regulations on media is not likely to happen unless the public asks for it.
“tightening of regulations on media”? you sure you want this, jay? sabi nga, be careful what you wish for.
anyway, excellent shredding of stephanie dychiu and gmanews.tv. but that’s just that — you shredded the messenger. and the message remains: the cojuangco-aquinos did not distribute luisita to the farmers, period.
Jay,
Yes, and in that context I will save the blog for later study, as it deals with two issues: land reform and responsible journalism. It will certainly accomplish making me a brighter individual, and others, too, I presume. Mission partially accomplished!
Thanks.
Joe
ps,
when the public catches on that a nation of laws gives people the right to speak through the courts, the public will demand more open, fairer courts (like, double Judiciary’s budget), and it will only take one courageous citizen with an attorney to start whacking away at the obscene money grubbing being done by media companies entrusted with managing their right to broadcast in the public interest, rather than stealing the public blind.
Joe
Filipinos are scared to cause too much trouble to elected
officials because Pilipinas libel laws are awful. I thought
that there already are cases if reporters sent to jail
for reporting on elected officials being seen in hotels
or motels with females of the opposite persuasion.
And it won’t surprise me if soon, a few bloggers will
start asking that SWS and Pulse survey results be shut down
down because the surveys shape the thinking of the voters.
jonas,
My comment about tightening regulations was less an expression of a personal wish than a response to Joe’s suggestion (“Maybe start tightening up broadcast regulations so the stations know they can’t run irresponsible journalism and get off free.”).
That said, regulation doesn’t necessarily mean government regulation. Self-regulation and peer regulation are also important. As I said, however, no media entity will have any motive to self-regulate or to regulate its peers if the news-consuming public doesn’t say anything.
Can this article be used to squeeze out an apology from Dychiu and company? Better yet, have her fired or banned from broadcasting. What can we do to get this done?
The Hacienda Luisita issue is like an Albatross on the neck of Noynoy
Aquino. It will haunt him, when he shall be elected President. And, in
his Presidency. It hits hard on the Landowners, who refuse to give up
their lands. To truly make us achieve a True Land Reform. The Mexican Revolution was fueled by this kind of issue at the begining of
1900… Do we want another Mexican type of revolution? Viva Emiliano Zapata!!!
Because the Cojuangcos have money to hire excellent lawyers, the possibility remains that the Pilipinas Supreme Court decides for Cojuangcos against farmers. Should the next president not recognize a Supreme Court decision about Hacienda Luisita using the argument of “…decision by GMA’s appointees…”?
Dear Jay,
Thank you for the effort you took to analyze the GMANews.TV reports on Hacienda Luisita. Please allow me to respond to some of the points that you raised.
I will only respond to the points that relate to factual content, as these are more relevant to understanding the Hacienda Luisita issue. Your opinion on semantics and style is yours and you are entitled to it.
But first, a few general comments.
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 included in the reports, also conveyed to us the sentiments of certain members of the Cojuangco family which he asked be off the record.
But the New York Times has already published its own on-the-record quotes of Luisita top executive Fernando Cojuangco, Sen. Aquino’s cousin, whose position is opposite of what Sen. Aquino has been saying publicly about the fate of the land. Sen. Aquino has tried to cast doubt on the accuracy of Fernando’s quotes despite a tape recording of the interview.
As for the insinuations by some of your readers that we are doing this on behalf of Sen. Aquino’s rival, Sen. Manny Villar, we are happy to note that Sen. Aquino himself has been using in his presentations about the C-5 controversy an interactive map of the road project that we developed and uploaded on GMANews.TV (we have a photo of Sen. Aquino doing so).
His running mate Sen. Mar Roxas recently told a group of reporters that our map clarified what 800 pages of Sen. Jamby Madrigal’s evidence could not. The map is here for your perusal: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/185300/villar-wants-closure-on-c-5-road-controversy
We also recently broke the story of Villar giving P20 bills to children, resulting in charges of vote buying.
After painstaking research of Senate rolls (which are not computerized), we confirmed Sen. Villar’s high absenteeism record in the Senate (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/183430/hounded-by-colleagues-villar-leads-senate-in-absenteeism), leading Noynoy’s spokesman Edwin Lacierda to issue a press release a day later attacking Villar for his absenteeism.
Villar partisans are also upset with us, but so far have not accused us of being in Sen. Aquino’s pocket.
As for primary author Stephanie Dychiu, she is a prize-winning writer on a wide range of subjects. Just search her name. For GMANews.TV, she has produced excellent reportage on abortion, the Ondoy flood, and Carlo Caparas. From a previous career, she also has a keen understanding of corporate finance, thus her ability to process complex information on the stock distribution option.
A few specific points in response to your fascinating and well-written but disputable post:
1. Regarding your contention that the portions of the GMANews.TV report attributed to the book A Captive Land by Dr. James Putzel are inconsistent with what Putzel actually wrote, we prepared our own comparison below between what Putzel wrote and what appeared in the GMANews.TV report.
a) GMANews.TV: The Cojuangcos’ disputed hold over Hacienda Luisita had been tolerated by Marcos even at the height of his dictatorship. However, as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US, a case was filed on May 7, 1980 by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco company TADECO for the surrender of Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, so land could be distributed to the farmers at cost, in accordance with the terms of the government loans given in 1957-1958 to the late Jose Cojuangco, Sr., who died in 1976. (Republic of the Philippines vs. TADECO, Civil Case No. 131654, Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIII)
Dr. James Putzel: The [Cojuangcos] did not hear from the government again until Aquino was about to leave detention for a by-pass operation in the United States in May 1980. The day before he left, the government filed a case. The plaintiffs evidently included the Central Bank (or Monetary Board), the Government Service Insurance System and the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The case remained in its preliminary stages until August 1983 when Aquino was assassinated. It was only then that the government began to conduct hearings, but there was still no urgency to the case.
Remarks: Both the GMANews.TV and Putzel versions state that the government under Marcos did not take decisive action on the Hacienda Luisita case until May 1980 when Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for the US.
b) GMANews.TV: The government pursued its case against the Cojuangcos, and by December 2, 1985, the Manila Regional Trial Court ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. According to Putzel, this decision was rendered with unusual speed and was decried by the Cojuangcos as another act of harassment, because Cory Aquino, now a widow after the assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983, was set to run for President against Marcos in the February 7, 1986 snap elections. The Cojuangcos elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals G.R. 08634).
Cory Aquino officially announced her candidacy on December 3, 1985. Land reform was one of the pillars of her campaign.
Putzel: However, the government’s attitude changed at the time of the snap elections in February 1986, when the Aquino-Cojuangco clan once more emerged as a major threat to Marcos. On 3 December 1985, one day after Cory Aquino filed her candidacy, Judge Pardo of the Regional Trial Court denied the appeal and ruled that the family had to transfer their lands. The judge made his ruling even before summary arguments were presented, suggesting that Marcos had intervened to ask for a quick decision.
Remarks: Both the GMANews.TV and Putzel versions state that the decision on the Hacienda Luisita case was issued hurriedly around the same time Cory Aquino filed her candidacy, and was therefore seen as a politically motivated act.
(Politically motivated or not, the bigger issue was determining whether or not the facts of the case and the basis for the decision were valid. Hence, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. However, before the Court of Appeals could render a decision, the situation was overtaken by events. EDSA 1 occurred, Cory Aquino became President, then the Aquino government withdrew the case at the Court of Appeals under the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be distributed to farmers under CARP.)
c) GMANews.TV: In his 1992 book A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, American development studies expert Dr. James Putzel also mentioned that Father Bernas had informed President Aquino about the Garchitorena deal on April 1, 1989. Aquino then met with the DAR and Land Bank heads on April 5, 1989. Then, Sharp petitioned the Supreme Court to enforce the P62.7 million payment. Juico subsequently stopped the payment order, but the scam had already been exposed in Congress.
Putzel: The President was informed about the deal on 1 April 1989 by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, and she met with [Land Bank of the Philippines President] Vistan and [Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary] Juico on 5 April. Sharp then had the audacity to petition the Supreme Court to order DAR to pay the P62.7 million for the land. Subsequently, Secretary Juico stopped the payment order and began an investigation of the deal. However, Vistan revealed the overpricing agreement to Congress and on 13 May 1989, Rep. Edcel Lagman told a joint House-Senate Committee the details, unleashing a scandal that brought the DAR’s work virtually to a halt.
Remarks: Both the GMANews.TV and Putzel versions state the following in the same sequence:
*Father Joaquin Bernas informed President Aquino of the Garchitorena land deal on April 1, 1989.
*Aquino met with the DAR and Land Bank heads on April 5, 1989 (Juico and Vistan).
*Sharp then petitioned the Supreme Court to order DAR to pay the P62.7 million.
*Subsequently, Juico stopped the payment order.
*But the transaction was exposed in Congress.
Admittedly, the wording in our version may have given the impression that the exposure of the scam in Congress occurred before Juico stopped the payment order. But even in the Putzel version it is not stated when exactly Juico acted and whether this was before or after the scam’s exposure in Congress. However, even if we had the sequence mixed up, I’m not sure it’s fair to jump to the conclusion that we deliberately distorted that fact. For what would that have proven?
Something else Putzel also wrote, which was not included in the GMANews.TV report:
“Throughout 1988 and early 1989, LBP president, Deogracias Vistan, had been sparring with Juico over the orientation of CARP implementation and the division of power between the LBP and the DAR within the government. Vistan used the controversy to bring down the DAR secretary and to secure LBP dominance over the land valuation procedure. Subsequently, the bank was given full responsibility over land valuation, weakening DAR’s position still further.”
2. You said that “based on the dates, Dychiu provides a different —a reversed— sequence of events, saying that Cory Aquino filed her candidacy after the Regional Trial Court had ordered the transfer of Hacienda Luisita, while Putzel states that Cory had done it before”.
You then follow this with a statement saying that, “Putzel has the date wrong, as Cory did file her candidacy on December 3.”
I believe you have answered your own question. The dates indicated in the GMANews.TV report are correct.
3. Regarding your contention that the statement in the GMANews.TV report saying that there was suspicion surrounding the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) is a mere passive-aggressive attack of the author against the Cojuangcos, kindly note that this is a factual statement, not a statement of opinion. There were suspicions surrounding the SDO, and this is why it has been the subject of controversy since the time of its inception in 1989. There would be no investigations and no court cases if no doubts existed.
4. Regarding your contention that the GMANews.TV report did not name who “those” were who examined HLI’s books and claimed there was an overvaluation and undervaluation of assets, kindly read the report again. The sources are identified. Here’s one link: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182195/corys-land-reform-legacy-to-test-noynoys-political-will
At the beginning of your essay, you said that you support the bid of Senator Noynoy Aquino for president, and your decision to write your critique is partially motivated by that support.
Is a pre-existing favorable bias for a presidential candidate the correct motivation?
Perhaps it would be better to be motivated by a sincere desire to know the truth. Then there would be no need to attack authors, because the facts, favorable and unfavorable, will be seen for what they are.
Again, my compliments on a fascinating, well-written critique.
Howie Severino
Editor-in-Chief
GMANews.TV
Thank you for your response. Let me offer the following in answer:
Specific comments
Your remarks: “Both the GMANews.TV and Putzel versions state that the government under Marcos did not take decisive action on the Hacienda Luisita case until May 1980 when Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for the US.”
My response: This is beside the point. You do not address Dychiu’s attribution of an attitude of “tolerance” to Marcos, which has important consequences for the overall tone of the article.
Your remarks: “Both the GMANews.TV and Putzel versions state that the decision on the Hacienda Luisita case was issued hurriedly around the same time Cory Aquino filed her candidacy, and was therefore seen as a politically motivated act.”
My response: Dychiu’s version makes it appear that only the Cojuangcos decried the Hacienda Luisita case as an act of harassment. Does she know this for a fact?
Your remarks: “Admittedly, the wording in our version may have given the impression that the exposure of the scam in Congress occurred before Juico stopped the payment order. But even in the Putzel version it is not stated when exactly Juico acted and whether this was before or after the scam’s exposure in Congress. However, even if we had the sequence mixed up, I’m not sure it’s fair to jump to the conclusion that we deliberately distorted that fact. For what would that have proven?”
My response: This proves that the vetting process of GMANews.TV requires more rigor, whether the disparity is an example of distortion or incompetence.
Your remarks: “I believe you have answered your own question. The dates indicated in the GMANews.TV report are correct.”
My response: I did not question the dates per se. I questioned the sequence of events as they were presented. Let me repeat myself: Dychiu makes it appear that Cory Aquino filed her candidacy after the Regional Trial Court had ordered the transfer of Hacienda Luisita, while Putzel states that Cory had done it before. If Dychiu based her narrative on the date written upon the order to transfer, rather than the date on which such order was released, then that should been clearly stated in her presentation. It is not.
Your remarks: “…kindly read the report again. The sources are identified.”
My response: The relevant sidebar in your link only discusses land assets. My question pertained to the alleged inflation of non-land assets based on a study of the financial documents of HLI.
General comments
(1) Your consignment of the issues of semantics and style to the realm of opinion would seem to indicate an unfortunate attitude toward language—but surely you are neither ignorant of nor indifferent to nuance? Data are not merely gathered, but constructed, and semantics, style, and even sequence of presentation are crucial in such construction. Consider: the root of the word “fact” is the Latin facere, which means “to make”.
(2) GMANews.TV is not the New York Times. In any case, John Nery has already offered an interesting assessment of the NYT piece you refer to, and Atty. Lacierda has made good points regarding Dychiu’s choice of sources as well.
(3) That there are disparities at all, however minor, between Putzel and Dychiu should be disturbing to you, as the editor-in-chief of GMANews.TV. As I said earlier, if these are not deliberate distortions, then these are instances of incompetence. Either way, their existence proves that your organization needs to make its vetting process more rigorous. Awards, as I am sure you know, only recognize past achievements. As this situation shows, they are not lifetime guarantees against failure.
(4) It is journalists like you and Dychiu who bear the onus of objectivity in the process of seeking the truth, as very clearly laid out in the Journalist’s Code of Ethics. Considering Dychiu’s choice of sources (and use thereof), not to mention manner of presentation, I am not convinced that this series, which professes to be news rather than opinion, proves that you are equal to such an onus. But out of curiosity, let me ask: do you fully believe that the series meets the ethical standards of your profession?
Pardon me, I missed a specific comment:
Your remarks: “Regarding your contention that the statement in the GMANews.TV report saying that there was suspicion surrounding the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) is a mere passive-aggressive attack of the author against the Cojuangcos, kindly note that this is a factual statement, not a statement of opinion. There were suspicions surrounding the SDO, and this is why it has been the subject of controversy since the time of its inception in 1989. There would be no investigations and no court cases if no doubts existed.”
My response: Based on the wording of her statement, Dychiu attributes the suspicion as having been directly produced by the early incorporation of HLI. Do the court cases that have been filed allege the same thing? Who is/are alleging that the SDO was a set-up all along? Why are they not named?
Thank you.
Jay,
Excellent work.
I hope some perspective about CARP can come from this piece written in 2008:
http://atmidfield.com/2008/09/25/how-carp%E2%80%99s-failure-impacts-on-social-services-and-agrarian-reform-beneficiaries-a-firsthand-account-2/
Ding,
Thank you. I will certainly read this carefully.
but there WERE suspicions RE the SDOs and cojuanco’s involvement right?… the investigations i’ve found online are the investigations on the massacre, and thus were about something else.
hey howie ;) i’m loving this exchange between you and jay. raises the bar. while i agree with jay that the piece by s.dychiu could have been more objective (“tolerated” is not self-explanatory: tolerated it cos marcos didn’t really believe in agrarian reform, he had lots of land himself? or he tolerated it cos it was too hot a case, sobrang pandidiin na sa pamilya ni ninoy? or or or ), still, thank you and dychiu for all that data, especially the co-incidences linking the hacienda’s history and EDSA’s history. must take all that into my chronology and reading of EDSA 86. cory had vested interests too.
I emailed Dychiu and asked to answer here unless she agrees with Jay Salazar.
I went to http://www.gmanews.tv/story /183662# and emailed her/them thru this site…
Let’s see if she….
I think the question of selectivity of references is a valid one. Who r your sources and who do u base your overall assessment on? In this case, the Putzel text is certainly dated (and hardly indisputable); in the NYT case, interviewing Nando Cojuangco (HLI COO and landowner), on the one hand, and the Anakpawis rep, on the other, is hardly representative of the wide range of interests on the Luisita issue. It most certainly does not represent the Aquino side, which is often distinct from the Cojuangco positions.
In literary theory, we often talk about *absence as presence.* What bias and ideological point of reference does your writing reflect based on what is present and absent in it? The absence of other points of view can suggest the presence of a particular bias. Not having seen the entire GMA series myself (altho I have certainly heard about it), I am reluctant to pass judgment, but I do think the question of bias is always a fair one. And it most certainly needs to be asked of Caloy Conde’s piece in the NYT, which I must say was somewhat disappointing.
I very much like the reference to “absence as presence”. :-) Sorry, geek moment.
John Nery has written an interesting column on that NYT piece. Among other things, he said, “Sometimes a headline, or a column or a report, or even an entire series, can betray the truth itself, by giving a distorted picture of the subject of the coverage or commentary.”
Somehow I don’t think his allusion to a series is entirely random and coincidental.
speaking of facts and truths and all that, here’s a bombshell, ms shahani: i am NOT the author of the story in the NYT on hacienda luisita.
GMAnews should replace Howie Severino and hire Jay Salazar as their news editor =)
speaking of facts and truths and all that, here’s a bombshell, ms shahani: i am NOT the author of the story in the NYT on hacienda luisita.
Since when has a opinion writer’s piece on the history of Hacienda Luisita become the bible for everyone.
The role of the Aquino-Cojuangco landed arsitocracy must always be seen through the prism of Philippine societal evolution.
It is a wonder how a small minority of landlords involved in the sugar trade were able to co-opt for a long time the policy framework for Philippine economic devleopment.
Lands tilled to sugar comprise a very small portion of agricultural lands.
The Aquino-Cojunagco clan are prime exmaples of the jurassic thinking that permeate a large portion of the Philippine elite. They belong in the dustbin of history.
@jay
i am confused by some of your arguments.
on “tolerance”
you say: “One has to wonder how Dychiu was able to say that the attitude of Marcos toward Hacienda Luisita was one of “tolerance”, considering that she does even not point to any persons or materials that could back up her claim—in sharp contrast to Putzel, who scrupulously cites his sources.”
what, in your view, does tolerance mean? how can a writer be justified in using the word tolerance?
howie says: “Both the GMANews.TV and Putzel versions state that the government under Marcos did not take decisive action on the Hacienda Luisita case until May 1980 when Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for the US.”
i define tolerance as NOT ACTING against someone/something that you (at the very least) dislike, when i could have easily gotten rid of it. (ex. i tolerated the spoiled behavior of my little sister)
WHY is howie WRONG?
is your argument: to use the word tolerance, one must find some other scholar that uses that exact, same word?
thats too high a bar (not to mention potential plagerism).
I will defer to Angela, who has already commented on the use of the word “tolerance”:
I strongly disagree that expecting precision in word choice from a major media organization is “too high a bar”.
when you use the word tolerated, do you have to know EXACTLY WHY?
in the article, we know the sense/context in which the word tolerated was used.
“The Cojuangcos’ disputed hold over Hacienda Luisita had been tolerated by Marcos even at the height of his dictatorship. ”
it is the “disputed hold” that was tolerated. then a case was filed…
so angela’s questions, on the “why” of it, is NOT the point of the paragraph. the point is not to explain WHY it was tolerated.
here’s another way to discuss the issue — if not tolerated, what word would you have chosen to mean:
a) marcos did not act (for some reason) on the HL land ownership by his political opponents
b) but later DID act.
can come up with another word that is another word that is NOT “tolerated”?
As Angela said, “tolerance” is not self-explanatory, so to answer your question, yes, the reason for using such a word would have to be clear.
Why not just say that Marcos did not act until it was politically expedient for him to do so? Why pick “tolerated”? As I mentioned in my original post, “tolerated” is not the word that comes to mind after reading Putzel’s account, and yet “tolerated” is the word Dychiu chose to go with.
“..until it was politically expedient for him to do so”…??
If we go by the whole tone of your entry, how would one determine if indeed Marcos’ acted on his own estimation “it was politically expedient” then to do so, as opposed to, say, him having a spur-of-the-moment inspiration to do right for the farmers or him being inspired by a moment of madness or feeling of vengeance against the Aquinos? To satisfy our curiosity, we should avail of, say, all information about immediate events, Marcos’ options and thinking processes, how he appreciates his circumstances, his true nature etc etc. See, we need to travel down to the depths of man’s lofty motivations and dark desires…”Tolerate” of course presumes a magnanimous character and that you cannot accept, while your “until it was politically expedient to do so” is more in keeping with your idea of a devious man.
You hit on other peoples’ biases when yours is just as big as an elephant.
First, if you had read and understood my original post in its entirety, then you would have realized that my position is based on, among other things, this quotation from Putzel (with my emphasis):
Second, I suggest that you brush up on history. To say that Marcos may have fallen prey to “a spur-of-the-moment inspiration to do right for the farmers” or could have been “inspired by a moment of madness or feeling of vengeance” betrays a lack of insight into his character.
Third, stop making straw man arguments. I have never claimed to be unbiased—I establish that very early in my original post. I am not a journalist and I have never claimed that my post is news.
but it IS self-explanatory.
i presented to you my definition of the word tolerated above. why is that not enough?
let me be as pointed as possible:
A. what is the difference between
1) marcos did not act until politically expendient
2) marcos tolerated … and acted only when…
B. Why is that difference relevant in (mis)understanding the MAIN point that no action was taken until a certain point in time. Is there any scenario that makes the reader NOT understand that?
GabbyD,
Frankly, the line of argument you insist on pursuing seems unnecessarily obtuse to me. “Tolerance” connotes liberality, indulgence, or even magnanimity on the part of the tolerator. Can it be said that Marcos’s decision not to act on Hacienda Luisita until it was politically expedient to do so evidence of liberality, indulgence, or magnanimity?
If you insist, however, that “tolerance” is self-explanatory, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
obtuse?
i am trying to discuss the meaning of the word “tolerance” and “tolerate”.
this has an accepted meaning(s). if one of the meaning fits, then there is no problem –right?
why is this obtuse? this the MOST straightforward application of the dictionary one can hope to have.
from online webster:
“a sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own b : the act of allowing something”
MY definition is part of it. so WHY am i obtuse?
surely, webster is an accepted source of definition for english words, right?
@jay
i do commiserate with you about “political harrasment” here:
“According to Putzel, this decision was rendered with unusual speed and was decried by the Cojuangcos as another act of harassment, because Cory Aquino, now a widow after the assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983,…”
it makes it appear that putzel makes the claim that the cojuancos called it harrasment, where in the book, he made no such claim.
putzel only claimed that marcos wanted a speedy resolution to the case.
but, as your research pointed out, via TIME’s world notes, cojuanco DID call it harrasment.
so, yes, false attribution due to faulty sentence construction. so it fails your criticism number 1, but perhaps not too greviously, as its not a lie to say that cojuanco DID consider it harrasment.
further, is that enough to say that the writer was unethical?
Distortions of a given source material, however minor, constitute ethical breaches because they misrepresent said material. Furthermore, as I said in my original post, the series is packaged as reportage, rather than editorial or opinion, and such packaging is deceptive.
Please note that my assessment is not random or arbitrary, but is based on the Journalist’s Code of Ethics. Its provisions are extremely clear, and I have cited above the specific provisions that were violated. You may wish to refer to this related entry by the journalist Felicity Tan for an extended discussion of ethics in journalism.
like i said, i agree with you here. there was a mistake. but unethical?
the relevant sentence is here:
“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. ”
the essential fact/truth is that cojuanco called it political harassment.
note:
1) this essential fact was not suppressed.
2) the essential truth is not distorted
3) nor was it improperly emphasized
now, they may want to correct the misattribution to putzel. but this is small beans compared to whether they mangled about the truth on whether cojuanco called it political harrasment.
GabbyD,
Kindly review the excerpts I have lifted from Dychiu and Putzel. Dychiu’s version makes it appear that only the Conjuangcos perceived Marcos’s actions as political harassment, whereas Putzel’s account says that it was widely or generally perceived as such.
You consider these distinctions “small beans”. I do not.
OK. i disagree with you that this is the difference between waht dychiu and putzel said:
” Dychiu’s version makes it appear that only the Conjuangcos perceived Marcos’s actions as political harassment, whereas Putzel’s account says that it was widely or generally perceived as such.”
Dychui’s version misattributed to putzel saying that he (putzel) said that cojuanco’s perceieved the action as political harrasment. putzel didnt say that.
thats why dychui is wrong. But is it unethical?
the question, then is WHY its such a big deal?
why is it a big deal when the TIME article you mentioned INDEED reports cojuanco said that.
the truth of what cojuanco said is maintained, although mistakenly attributed.
this is an error, but unethical?
i’d love to hear an explanation.
esp
next on “spurious hyperbole”…
you say: “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” [30]. The pentapartite series, then, seems to be based on a question for which the author already had a kind of blueprint or outline of answers before even beginning the research process, which may explain why it is seriously flawed, as I have already shown.”
this is a weird paragraph.
the article doesnt seek to prove whether or not:
a) he is being dragged into this
b) he is being forever haunted by this
c) its one of the questions of the 2010 elections
these arent the things she wants to write about! or prove! she IS taking these as background of what she actually wants to write!
which is:
WHY is the HL issue a big deal. What is the historical background of this issue, which would explain why his critics are so interested in it.
so let me restate my point of confusion again:
she doesnt want to prove any of a)-c). we all know a)-c) is true. she is not interested in the “IS/WHAT”. she is interested in the “WHY”.
parenthetically, this is what a special report means — writing about “WHY”, not just about “WHAT”.
maybe your bone of contention is — i believe that critics are artificially raising this issue from the dead. that no one is interested in this issue, apart from political assasination?
if so, i disagree with this 100%.
I suggest you take a closer look at what the phrases suggest, as the narrative time is confused and confusing. If the issue has been “forever haunting” him, how could he be “dragged” into it? If the issue has been “forever haunting” him, how could it be a question that only became important during election season, thus turning into “one of the most common questions asked”?
ah, interesting question: “If the issue has been “forever haunting” him, how could he be “dragged” into it? If the issue has been “forever haunting” him, how could it be a question that only became important during election season, thus turning into “one of the most common questions asked”?”
the word dragged is used here:
“Senator Noynoy Cojuangco Aquino has said he only owns 1% of Hacienda Luisita. Why is he being dragged into the hacienda’s issues?” to highlight seeming irony of the fact that despite the fact he owns so little of HL, he is he being involved?
put it another way: owning so little would make u think that he is not important, hence, he is dragged into it. one is dragged into a situation where one does not really belong.
ex: i witness an accident on the road. the cop forces me to stay in the police station until the details are finalized several hours later. i can say that i was “dragged into this”
correct?
why is it only an important question during election time? i will assume that you are not kidding, but the answer is patently obvious
elections involve an action by people not directly involved in the HL dispute (i.e voters). its important that we know stuff about noynoy we would NOT ordinarily know.
it is NOT important (as important– its important still coz its news, which is intrinsically important) before elections to know this, as this is not generally the business of voters.
the voters dont know the details of HL, so its a “common question”
finally, it IS possible to be haunted by something for a long time, yet its not in our (our== voters) faces for all that time too right?
GabbyD,
If Senator Aquino was always already involved, i.e., “forever [haunted]“, then to claim that he is “being dragged” into the issue is contradictory. Your analogy is inapplicable.
Is agrarian reform in general (and Hacienda Luisita in particular) a top election issue? The various surveys of voters’ preferences that have been conducted do not indicate this.
I am not suggesting that agrarian reform is unimportant. It is a legitimate campaign issue and it is worth discussing. But the statement that the question of Hacienda Luisita is “common” already operates on assumptions that have not been empirically proven. If it were a “common” issue, then it should rightfully be the business of the general public, whether it be election season or not.
why is it inapplicable?
uulitin ko ang argument. simple lang:
(i found it hard to find my comments. its all over. the reply button is NOT working).
_____________
the word dragged is used here:
“Senator Noynoy Cojuangco Aquino has said he only owns 1% of Hacienda Luisita. Why is he being dragged into the hacienda’s issues?” to highlight seeming irony of the fact that despite the fact he owns so little of HL, he is he being involved?
put it another way: owning so little would make u think that he is not important, hence, he is dragged into it. one is dragged into a situation where one does not really belong.
ex: i witness an accident on the road. the cop forces me to stay in the police station until the details are finalized several hours later. i can say that i was “dragged into this”
correct?
____________________
is any of the above, wrong? if so, WHAT is wrong?
the logic of the paragraph is sound. if you dont think so, it should be easy to explain why. i for one would want to know why the logic is not sound, if it is not.
j nery’s critique of the NYT-HL article mentions asking for quotes from people who support the implementation of CARP.
do these people exist?
also, isnt this just “he said, she said” journalism?
hsaidssaid journ is when two opposing sides are featured to project objectivity. the basic problem is it gives airtime to people with bogus ideas.
krugman’s funniest example is this headline: “opinions on the shape of the earth differ” and the article interviews people with different views on the issue.
now, if most people believe that CARP was badly executed, and there are a few fringe people who believe otherwise, why bring them credibility?
the goal of good journalism isnt the semblance of “balance”, but to seek out truth and understanding.
GabbyD,
Yours is a false comparison based on unproven assumptions. How many people actually believe that “CARP was badly executed”? What is your basis for saying that these constitute a majority of the population?
I do not wish to suggest that CARP is a perfect law, but your claim that “most people believe [it] was badly executed” is just that, a claim. I would venture to posit that most people do not have a full understanding or appreciation of agrarian reform—myself included, which is why (a) I do not discuss agrarian reform in my post; and (b) I object very strongly to the incredibly skewed and distorted series by Dychiu. She could have done the public a signal service by presenting a fair, nuanced account that would empower readers to decide for themselves, rather than betray public trust by polluting the information stream.
I think the best persons to ask about CARP would be the farm workers themselves, considering they were directly affected. Felicity Tan actually went to Hacienda Luisita and asked them about it, so I suggest that you consider their perceptions as well.
here i’m asking for people’s understanding of the CARP issue.
i dont know if there are any people who believe it to be a success. do you? i would like to know anyone who believes in SDO in theory, and/or in practice.
my understanding is, the CONSENSUS position is that it isnt a success.
note that the word consensus does not mean EVERYONE.
if my understanding of the consensus is wrong (which is very much possible!), i’d like to know. i dont think its news to say that carp has problems, or is flawed.
in fact , the very fact that it needs to be extended is proof that something was wrong with the past execution of the program.
in the interest of further discussion, my question to you is:
IF the consensus exists about how carp was badly executed exists, then a journalist give the same weight to a person who believes it to be a success?
this is HUGE and DIFFICULT question, and its something journalists routinely face now with stuff like the financial crisis and global warming and intelligent design.
are ALL statements about global warming EQUALLY VALID?
going back to “opinions differ on shape of the earth”, should the NYT give space to the guy on the streetcorner who says i dont believe the earth is round?
I admire Jay for his fearless opinion and analysis. I am no legal, financial or agrarian expert myself but I will share my two cents’ worth on a very intuitive and simplistic plane regarding Ms. Dychiu’s article.
First, I commiserate with Mr. Salazar on what he most probably felt as a lopsided, emotional, editorial and subjective article. I think the most basic repulsion an intelligent and learned reader would feel with Ms. Dychiu’s article is her strong use of editorialized words. I am a communicator by vocation and profession, and I completely understand how Jay could be uncomfortable with the fact that such a biased article is passed on as a journalistic reportage. That, for me, is the most pressing and basic issue.
Second, as Mr. Severino had pointed out as well, Dychiu’s professional background is far from journalistic at all. Motley at best—covering a wide range of topics and expertise—but is this reason to justify expertise to analyze such a topic as agrarian reform and politics? The skill of writing is far different from the skill of analysis. Moreover, in this digital day and age, anybody who can pick up a digital camera can call himself a photographer. Could anybody who could string compelling copy be called a journalist? And this is because I have the highest respect for genuine journalists.
Last, ergo I have the highest respect for such newsmen as Mr. Severino. As such, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he has not performed adequate due diligence on their writer’s true professional affiliation. I say this with courage and admitted personal bias, because after all I am not writing a reportage or expose but simply commenting on a personal blog and speaking from my heart. GMA and Mr. Severino had better do their homework before betting their reputation on a “journalist.”
To cut to the chase, I would like for either Mr. Severino or GMA online to categorically state that their writer is or has not received any kind or form of compensation from a currently running political candidate or party, while under the task of writing and submitting this purported “report.” That should make for a clear case of conflict of interest that should be easy to resolve. I look forward to any response from the parties involved.
so, let me reiterate where i am intellectually here:
1) what does the word tolerate mean? i have presented a definition above, one that is consistent with dychiu’s statement.
why am i wrong?
2) what is the intellectual consensus on carp? is there such a thing as “another side” to the carp issue that requires/demands covering, which wasnt covered here, or which wasnt requested to be interviewed?
on Cory Aquino’s Land Reform Legacy
i agree with you that Dychiu’s position, and putzels’ too, presents the voting in favor of SDO as negative is a too slanted.
here, u present an alternative, nuanced, POV, Fr. Bernas’s position, that says, we dont really know what went down there. putzel did really prove his claim via any evidence.
its possible that, in good faith, they voted for it coz it couldve worked.
thats the shame of this thing — SDO’s might have been this wonderful innovation in social justice. alas, it failed coz the people behind the idea stopped making changes that might have improved its implementation.
Ano bang kalokohang pinaguusapan nyo?! Nagkukunwari pa kayong matatalino, pero di niyo maharap ang tunay na isyu. Lahat naman kaya may bias kaya hindi niyo mahahanapan ng solusyon ang Luisita. Ang bias n’yo lahat kayo may pinapanigan na kandidato. Yun naman talaga ang isyu dito di ba? Pataasan ng ihi. Pagalingan ng kandidato. Si ABNOYNOY kalbong hasyendero yan. Si VILLAROYO pekeng mahirap na tunay na magpapahirap tulad ng kakontsaba niya sa Malakanyang. Ang meron lang naman talagang paninindigan diyan na kayang mag-resign sa partido dahil napapaligiran siya ng mga trapo si GIBO TEODORO. Si TEODORO ang pinakamatalino at pinakamagaling sa kanila. Kaya siya dapat ang maging sunod na pangulo.
its too bad this thread is dead.
i would love to know whether there is another view to HL issue that was neglected by GMAnews.
i also would have liked a further discussion on media criticism. it would’ve been fun.
I think there are two issues here being mixed up by the readers:
1. responsible journalism, which is the topic of this blog
2. HL land distribution, which is the topic of the GMA.tv article
For the first issue, I agree with you in saying that Dychiu made some serious lapses as a journalist as you have stated in this blog. Since I am just a “simple citizen” and not a writer/journalist who knows the technicalities of writing a news/report/opinion, I am basing my agreement with the overall tone of the report which makes me, as the reader, feel like it is biased against Noynoy. However, in answering your questions near the end of the blog:
If, as I mentioned earlier, the currency of the trade of journalism is information, dare any critical, ethical reader have faith in and use the information that has Dychiu provided, particularly when she cannot even report the smallest details accurately? How can her larger claims be trusted when she cannot perform the simple act of quotation properly, instead willfully warping data—including data from her chosen expert—to suit her prejudices, which she has conveniently failed to disclose?
I would have to say that her “lack of objectivity” does not remove my faith on the facts that she presented in the article. Although one-sided (imho), I think the article presented the case well enough to sift through the core facts of the matter, at least for the side of the farmers.
For the second issue, you have already mentioned that you will not be dealing with issues on “agrarian reform, Hacienda Luisita, or Senator Aquino and his family per se”, so my succeeding comments would be more of expression of opinion directed not to a specific person. I just need to get it out of my head, pardon me for using you blog space. =)
I have two words regarding this issue: “Social Justice”. More than the legality, what is important is that your action is beneficial to the majority of people, or society in whole. For the last 50 or so years, majority of the people involved (the farmers) have not received the land that is ethically theirs. I say ethically because this MAY not be legal (as of the moment), COMMON SENSE and CONSCIENCE would dictate you that these lands belong to them. Therefore, it is the Social Responsibility of the people to ensure that this wrongdoing be stopped and remediated.