As expected, the Cebu Citizens Press Council (CCPC) issued a resolution defending the video “Corruption of Media: The Cebu Setting” after a “closed-door” meeting on November 16.
We already expressed our misgivings about the so-called “closed-door” meeting in a previous post (“How to Stonewall: Lessons from CCPC”), and narrated our futile attempt to get ourselves invited.
The curious thing is that Cheking Seares apparently made it appear to CCPC that we were invited. (We just got off the phone with his friend, SuperBobby Nalzaro, who had that impression during the meeting.)
And there was this bit of sleight-of-hand regarding the actual date of the meeting. After Cheking Seares refused our request to be invited, we asked that we at least be informed of the date of the meeting, so we could prepare the list of complaints that he asked us to prepare. This was Cheking Seares’ reply:
Cherry has been making the arrangements. She’ll text you.
But we never got the text. She emailed us a copy of the agenda, though. Two days after the meeting.
Hardly had the ink dried on the CCPC resolution, however, when we’re getting a barrage of complaints regarding CCPC’s handling of the matter. Reporters are saying that the whole matter is like wine. Wine in Hanoi, which presidential speechwriter Mai Mislang says “sucks”.
As to the politics that went into the resolution, that will have to await another post. But we’ll leave you with these insider’s insights, from our reader, Reporter:
My initial thoughts on this development:
* The non-journalists were apparently clueless on what is right or wrong. They took their cue from the journalists who participated in crafting the CCPC response.
* Like Cheking, two of the journalists present, Mr. Leo Lastimosa and Ms. Eileen Mangubat, are known to give more weight to the adversarial role of journalism when it comes to the present occupants of Capitol but development oriented when the stories involve Cebu City Hall.
* Yet they are also known to have been at the receiving end of Cheking’s tactics sometime in the past. It would be to their interest to keep the media corruption issue alive because it dragged Cheking’s skeletons into the open. I bet they would not mind the use of onion-skinned in the discussions that the controversial video seeks to provoke.
* Because of these two reasons, Leo and Eileen supported the resolution.
* Cherry Ann Lim and Michelle So, on the other hand, reached their present status because of Cheking. They are expected to defend him. They are simply unmindful of Cheking’s agenda. Yet while they could not go against the sentiment of transparency in CCPC affairs, they are very uncomfortable with the current use of onion-skinned in current discussions (even in classrooms) in relation to their video. The two, like many in Sunstar, equate Cheking with Sunstar. They could not believe that Sunstar is better off without Cheking.
* The CCPC resolution defends a video that blamed only reporters of corruption and singled out Capitol as an example of corruption because of the packed lunches during daily press conferences.
* It would have been best had CCPC invited onion-skinned to the discussions prior to their resolution. After all, this is already happening outside. Their closed-door meeting violates the journalist principle of fairness and balance.
Yes, it’s like the CCPC telling the Cebu Federation of Beat Journalists (CFBJ) and Onion-skinned to take their complaints and introduce them into their rectal regions.
Is it really a “citizens” press council? Or is it a conspiracy of editors with a few citizens thrown in to deodorize their crap?