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?
Cheking tries to rally his allies in Cebu media, selling his predicament as an affront to press freedom in Cebu. He is probably selling the idea that Onion-skinned is bad for Cebu media, when in fact, it is the best thing that ever happened to it in years. Proof of this is the more than 20,000 friends it got in Facebook since Sept 21. While Cebu media trumpets its news and opinion to the public, vulnerable to media spin and manipulation, Onion-skinned gathers support from the audience who finally, can now participate. Traditional form of mass media is undemocratic. It has no mandate from the people but controls what they see and read.
That the CCPC gave the video its stamp of approval is expected. Cheking simply told them a politician is mad at him for making a video on media corruption involving the Capitol. It is unfair accusation because the Capitol only gives free lunch and the video insinuates Capitol beat reporters are corruptible. Moreover, it glosses over issues involving media leaders like this editor who acts as PR man of his favorite congressman and his daughter.
The CCPC erred in not hearing the side of the aggrieved parties unless if they are told the aggrieved parties were invited but porfeited their rights by not coming to the meeting which is a lie. How could the likes of USJ-R’s Jonathan Capanas, Dr. Pureza Onate and Mr. Ben Dapat miss out on the basic requirement of due process due the people maligned by the video? What about the journalists in the CCPC? Where is your objectivity Mr. Leo Lastimosa? No matter what you feel about Capitol, you owe it to your profession to give the aggrived parties their chance to be heard.
I thought Cheking’s media allies are sensitive to public opinion. The CCPC resolution shows they are insensitive, or at least oblivious, to what people are saying about Cheking’s record of corruption.
A common objection to the CCPC video is its unfair focus on alleged corruption of reporters. Reporters are asking why gloss over the corruption of editors especially the mastermind behind the video — Cheking Seares.
The CCPC unfortunately stood by Cheking and swept under the rug the numerous complaints against him. What does this make of the CCPC and its mandate of looking into public complaints against members of the Cebu media? Instead of upholding the integrity of media, it has proven itself to be a stooge of the most corrupt journalist in Cebu.
Instead of upholding transparency, the CCPC met behind closed doors and decided to exonerate Cheking by defending his spliced video. Yes, the video provoked discussions and controversy precisely because its corrupt maker is accusing others as corrupt. Did the CCPC resolution look into this? No. In the process, it has lost its credibility.
No wonder many editors especially from The Freeman are no longer attending CCPC meetings.
How about Sir Leo and Maam Eileen? Their stand on the controversy is very disappointing. They should have maintained a good distance and allow Cheking and his allies to go down on their own corrupt weight. The two chose to go down with them.
So they did invite Mr. Baquero. But why shut the door on Onion-skinned? Why not accept the invitation to a forum or debate? Why give revised copies of the documetary to the Capitol? And only give the original when Onion-skinned complained it was doctored?
I understand Capitol also has its own investigation on the issue? May we know what is the result of their investigation? What happens when Capitol’s findings run contrary to CCPC’s findings?
The CCPC didn’t find anything wrong with the documentary and stands proudly behind it. Why? The resolution simply said the CCPC didn’t find anything wrong with it. Can they at least explain in their resolution, Why?
If the video is for present and future journalists, what are we teaching them? What are you teaching us? The point CCPC missed is that half-truth isn’t truth. The question is, is there corruption involving editors in Cebu? If so, why did the video focused only on reporters whose work is subject to editing by their editors. They are mere foot soldiers. If I were a politician I’d go straight to editors who have a say on how stories are treated and what comes out and what doesn’t.
As journalist, we are taught to be critical-minded. Let me just ask, wasn’t there a conflict of interest when a university’s masscom program accepts a project from a congressman as facilitated by his favorite editor? Wasn’t a line blurred somewhere when a news source gets cozy with future journalists from a state university as arranged by his editor-friend? Just asking.
did ccpc rule out the fact that the video was spliced to fit the agenda of those behind it?
Ang CCPC nisuporta kunuhay kay anti-the corruption pero the video only fried the small fish and leave out the big fishes nga media leaders kahibaw ta kinsa sila. Unsaon pagkacredible ato nga ang gahimo taga media ra sab. Kinsa may giilad nila? It protected the big players pero aron ingnon naa silay gibuhat so giclinical ang mga reporters
Yooohooo, Cong. We are again approaching September and Press Freedom Week. This blog has no update? Won’t there be another scheme hatched by the Saturday Club leaders? The wary Freeman management has made good its word of not leading this year’s celebration.