Where GMA News went wrong
27 March 2010
9 Comments
By: Felicity
This is the lede of Stephanie Dychiu’s series on Hacienda Luisita:
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.
Jay Salazar, in his impressive analysis, says:
The use of phrases such as “being dragged”, “one of the most common”, “troubled history”, and “forever haunting” … 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.”
“Why the issue is forever haunting” assumes that the issue is in fact haunting the senator. (Her report also shows she never talked to the senator, so how would she know if he is in fact being haunted? A silly but fundamental question. Journalism is, after all, concerned with facts and the fair interpretation thereof.)
The 5-part series, Jay concludes, is a lengthy report based on a question for which that writer already has a blueprint or outline of answers to. That is, Dychiu’s search for answers was guided by a question she already, in her mind, had concluded. Her research, and thus reporting, process was flawed from the get-go.
This is what the legal community calls “begging the question,” petitio principii, assuming the initial point. It is a logical fallacy. In journalism, it is called sloppy reporting.
This piece takes off where Jay ended: RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM?
Did GMA News do the justice to the truth, the public, and above all, the farmers of Hacienda Luisita?
***
The ongoing discussion of the standards employed in the NYT-Luisita piece is one I am contemplating with much interest and re-evaluation.
On the other hand, the case of Stephanie Dychiu/Howie Severino’s Luisita series on the GMA News website is a glaring offense to the profession. What stands out is that the offended journalistic conventions are so basic.
Before I continue, in the interest of transparency, let me state I support Aquino’s bid. But two things must be noted:
1. My interest in this subject is purely journalistic in nature, I would write this even if I did not support Aquino for president;
2. My support for Aquino is voluntary, and ends the moment I am convinced/ facts confirm, that Aquino has violated mine and the public’s trust, and therefore, like all the others, should not serve in public office.
In any case, this entry is not about Aquino, but the practice of journalism in the specific case of Dychiu/Severino’s GMA-HL series.
My purpose here is to flick on the lights.
The Society of Professional Journalists says this in its code of ethics:
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
I’m doing my bit. In so doing, I also hope to do my part in enlightening the news-consuming public of what they must expect and demand from the news media, an institution that is, in its ways, as powerful as the government (will explore this relationship in a later post).
***
Do you know whom you’re getting your news from?
Journalism is the hallmark of democracy. As such, it must not be tainted, or cause itself to be cast in dubious light. Dychiu’s piece could arguably be suspected of the first; it is guilty of the second. The GMA-HL series is an affront to Journalism, and to news consumers, a betrayal of public trust.
In late 2009, a “groundbreaking” (as per some blog entries/comments touting the series) report on one of the most volatile political issues of today was released. The importance of discussing the issue is unquestionable. But who wrote it?
The series was advertised heavily on Facebook, with about 8 million Filipino users, as “an investigative journalist reports.”
According to Stephanie Dychiu’s portfolio, she’s a freelance arts, culture and lifestyle features writer who seems to have only recently been moving on to political matters (has a section in her site called “News Pundit”). She has also published a book profiling top CEOs. Her public LinkedIn profile shows a marketing, finance and business development background.
As a news consumer, I would have preferred if, on an issue as explosive as this, an established reporter with a solid record took the lead, as this person would be tried and tested in fact-gathering, interpretation, and resisting the human condition called opinion.
A colleague told me he had e-mailed Howie Severino about his reservations on the treatment of what is more like an essay or opinion piece (with the thesis statement disguised as a question), as a news report. The watchdog website Propinoy.net described the series as “wolf in sheep’s clothing” in response to complaints that they did not repost the lengthy 5-parter. Severino stood by his writer (as any editor should). That casts the net of praise and liability not only over Dychiu, but on Severino as well.
***
“Journalism is a discipline of verification”
The news is “the first draft of history.” It is a primary source, as it collects data on the ground, relaying information from verifiable witnesses to the event or issue being reported. Here is what GMA reveals to us about how they went about collecting data:
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.
(1)
I take exception, above all, to the gross violation of one fundamental rule, judging by the above statement and the subsequent report. News must be neutral. Both and all possible sides of the story must be aired. Every attempt must be made to contact varying sides, especially when they dissent; in the event that attempts failed, it is incumbent upon the journalist to let the public know that those attempts were made.
The farmers and their legal counsel were consulted in an interview. One side, check. What about the party accused of wrongdoing? When were the Cojuangcos or their legal counsel interviewed for their side of the story? Why rely on a court defense and “past media legislative records”? Why speak to human beings whom you can question and verify your understanding with on one side of the picket line, but on the other side of the barracks, consult pieces of paper?
According to the SPJ code of ethics:— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
And the Journalist’s code of ethics (Philippines) says:— 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.
It must be noted that Aquino’s campaign spokesman Atty. Edwin Lacierda was interviewed by Howie Severino, and quoted in one line (please correct me if I am wrong). However, according to Lacierda (I verified that it was indeed him who commented on Jay’s blog): “I was interviewed by Howie Severino only for the purpose of verifying some personalities on the killings and the intention of Senator Aquino regarding land distribution.”
This is Severino’s response on the blog: “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[sic.-should be singular] included in the reports, also conveyed to us the sentiments of certain members of the Cojuangco family which he asked be off the record.”
It must also be noted that two statements coming from the Aquino camp were emailed to GMA News on Dec 7, 2009. But that’s all it is — an e-mail (in lieu of an in-person interview, as discussed above), and sidebarred at that, not even included in the body of the story.
In the sidebar of Part 2, the Aquino camp stated: “Those who are forcing us to speak on this matter are not after the welfare of my former constituents, but to advance their propaganda aims.”
That’s a big accusation. It behooves the inquisitive and responsible journalist to follow up on Aquino’s claim. Does Aquino have basis for saying this is the work of propagandists? There was no effort to address Aquino’s allegation. Dychiu, to use her own words, “dragged” Aquino into this story, so why didn’t she address this claim?
The only remote reference to “propagandists” is one line, leaps of information later, in Part 3: “Concerned groups from out of town also sent contingents to help protect the strikers.” An insufficient response to Aquino’s serious allegation, to say the least; especially since my own interviews with farmers at the hacienda, as well as various reports both in public domain and sub judice, show that there are farmers who believe those “concerned groups” such as Bayan Muna and KMU, ignited, rather than helped, the dispute. In fact, several of those I interviewed at Hacienda Luisita (some of whom I name below) hold deep grudges against these groups.
***
Note that I use the qualification “many farmers” rather than “farmers” or “the farmers,” as Dychiu does in her series. The latter two assume and give the impression that all farmers without exception share the belief. The use of qualifiers like “many” or “some” are, as in legal writing, standards in journalistic writing. The use of qualifiers is more accurate, unless you are certain there is 100% concurrence with the statement. See what a big difference it makes:
“…the farmworkers back then were protesting the construction of the Luisita interchange of the highway [SCTEx]…” -Dychiu, in Part 2
“Many/some farmworkers back then were protesting the construction..”
The first one lends the impression they all did. The second one lends the impression some (which, in the language of logic, is equivalent to “at least one”) did not. As it turns out, the second one is more accurate. In an interview by a colleague with Alfredo Laurente, current president of the CATLU [Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union], Laurente defended the construction of the SCTEx.
(2)
That brings me to another issue: the number of sources.
“To find the answer, GMANews.TV traveled to Tarlac and spoke to Luisita’s farm workers and union leaders,” reads Dychiu’s lede. In the introduction she writes, “This is the story of the hacienda and its farmers.”
This is their story, plural.
The only farmer that is quoted first-hand in this series is Lito Bais, “one of the present-day leaders of the ULWU.”
One. Singular. And quoted in length.
How can this be the farmers’ story, collective?
The only other inkling of the existence of other interviewed farmers (if any) in the rest of the series is when Dychiu editorializes. Take for example: “The farmers thought the wheels of justice were finally turning.” Said who? Do you have a quote or identified source to prove it to the reader, that they in fact thought the wheels of justice were finally turning?
Another example: “Luisita farm workers that GMANews.TV spoke to believe that the Aquinos’ abrupt withdrawal of support for Arroyo had something to do with the hacienda.” Whom did you speak to?
***
Following is a statement quoted by John Nery (Inquirer) on the NYT-HL brouhaha, the “blockbuster quote” piece having itself raised questions on journalistic standards:
“…The story fell markedly short of the Times’ usually rigorous standards. We say this because the story purported to give an overall perspective on both agrarian reform and the Luisita estate, but depended chiefly on sources known, at least in the Philippines, to be unsympathetic to the Aquinos or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program itself.”
It applies to the GMA-HLI piece as well. Lito Bais is generally known as “makaliwa” (left-leaning) among the people in Hacienda Luisita, and according to his brother Manuel (whom I spoke to when I visited the hacienda this week), Lito frequents Manila to meet with Satur Ocampo and Paeng Mariano (left-leaning leaders), and disappears from the Hacienda for weeks.
Nery continues: “Nothing wrong with this per se, but both the gallant Mariano and the cerebral Simbulan are known in this country (but crucially, not by the story’s predominantly American audience) as unsympathetic to either the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or the owners of Hacienda Luisita or both. Many of us reading the story in the Philippines will get that; many American readers won’t.”
In the same vein, there is nothing wrong with quoting Lito Bais per se, but he is known in Luisita (but crucially, not by the story’s predominantly non-Luisitan audience) as unsympathetic to either the CARP or the owners of Hacienda Luisita or both. Many of them reading the GMA-HL story inside the hacienda will get that; many of us outside won’t.
That should have been clearly addressed.
(3)
| It is my hope that future journalists will adhere to the true principles of the profession and understand that they play a vital role in helping to keep democracy and the exchange of free ideas alive at home and abroad. ~ Helen Thomas |
Granted, every reporter is faced with a dilemma as to who and how many to quote in the final publication, from what one must expect to have been a collection of multiple interviews. But to voice one opinion out of many is highly irresponsible, especially in a sensitive issue such as this.
Lito Bais exists, for sure, I’ve met him. He’s amiable, talks fast, has a toothy smile, and is very used to the media and having cameras around. And he, being human, has his motives and opinions (which I discussed with him for about 45 minutes), which he is entitled to. And that, being a fact with any source, must be taken into consideration by the responsible reporter.
The SPJ code of ethics also states:— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
Sources, the glue that holds a news story together, have multiple view points. A story is not one-dimensional. A story is different to every single one who experiences it.
- Lito Bais is now an ULWU [United Luisita Workers' Union] leader (appointed, not elected, by his own admission). He was not present inside the negotiating room, and told me that before the strike, he was just a member and an adviser to Rene Galang, former ULWU leader and “hero” or “bad guy” of the striking saga, depending on your point of view. He disappeared during the shoot-out, and according to Bais, is in hiding in “Texas” inside Hacienda Luisita because their “katunggali” (enemies) will kill Galang. That’s his side of the story.
- According to my own interview with Danilo “Boy” Santos, an engineer at the sugar mill and present during the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] negotiations as a CATLU officer, the ULWU was heavily infiltrated by extremist groups. Santos was among the group that were whisked to Manila to meet the press during the strike, which the GMA-HL article described as: “the union officers now believe the meeting in Makati was just a ruse to lure them away so the military could move in…” According to Santos, he wanted to go to Manila to let the public know what was going on. He told this story to me without my prompting (I had not read the GMA-HL series at this point), and sounded convinced to this day that the Manila trip was a good thing. That’s his side of the story.
- Dychiu also quotes Bais’ as saying that Ronaldo Alcantara was “used to mislead the media.” Alcantara was not allowed to defend himself in her series, and he’s not that hard to find, as I was able to interview him as well. Alcantara was third-in-command in the ULWU at the time of the negotiations, and according to him, ULWU members were divided whether to strike or to keep the peace. He said he was following the bylaws of the union, doing his job to present his union’s case in the negotiating table, as negotiations were ongoing, and not in “deadlock,” as Galang stated in his petition to strike. That’s his side of the story.
- Rey Atienza, whom I also interviewed and was present in the negotiations on the ULWU side, said he was surprised the retrenched ULWU workers had gone on strike as early as 6 Nov 2004 (the notice of strike was signed on 22 Oct and filed on 25 Oct, but law mandates a 30-day cooling off period for a strike to be legal), because as far as he knew the workers were waiting for the results of the negotiations. And that’s his side of the story.
Those are but four of the viewpoints that exist; only one of them was touched upon in at least four articles in the incredibly lengthy “well-researched” (as per blogs) series.
Also note that the three not quoted were all present at the negotiating table while Bais was not (we had an interesting exchange about this, Lito and I, but I will save this for another day). Bais gave us eyes on the outside. But what about the inside, where their fates were being negotiated?
***
Beyond the story of the farmers, the views of the political players in the saga were aired in an imbalanced manner as well. I already discussed this in point (1), but let me add briefly that the only other statements coming from Aquino were sourced from newspaper reports, and none from his supporters (except columnist Conrado de Quiros, but in critique; de Quiros has responded to this).
According to Lacierda, his 10-20-minute phone interview with Severino involved the post-massacre killings (Part 4), and nothing to confirm or deny the allegations the series make that Sen. Aquino had something to do with them.
“We have documents that can clarify some of the things they wrote, but they never bothered to ask for them, and we didn’t know what they were going to talk about,” Lacierda told me. “Did they bother to interview personalities involved in their reports?”
Lacierda was referring specifically to PARC hearings and DAR certificates, and brought up the same points in the comments section of Jay’s exegesis into the matter; as of this posting, Severino has not replied. In a prior comment, however, Severino mentioned GMA News consulted (again) documents.
On the other hand, the Aquinos and Cojuangcos’ detractors are heavily quoted (not directly, that is, via interview), including Danilo Ramos of the KMP, who is a leader of one of the groups accused of “infiltrating” the ranks of the workers (the problem here is explored in point (1)). It is known that the Aquino and Cojuangco families have many supporters as well. Why weren’t any of them quoted defending the family?
Extensive quoting from secondary sources like Putzel’s book (which Jay takes valid exception to) should be used only as support — minimally — and is not normally journalistic practice, as journalism is primarily concerned with first-hand accounts.
(4)
| Journalism may not dare too much. It can be gently humorous and ironic, very lightly touched by idiosyncrasy, but it must not repel readers by digging too deeply. This is especially true of its approach to language: the conventions are not questioned. ~ Anthony Burgess |
Granted, news reports and court documents are primary sources, but in journalism, there is an almost sacred primacy in sourcing information through first-hand accounts (via interviews). Especially when the people involved are alive and accessible.
Why? Facts is the currency of the journalistic trade, and the interview is the gold standard. There is a different dynamic with reading a quote and talking to a person face-to-face. A published quotation is a selection from an entire conversation or statement you are most likely not privy to, therefore, your knowledge of the context of the statement is already removed, even if slightly. Using it again will further remove the next reader from the original context. Also, one can use a quote any way they want (“But that’s what’s written,” one might argue.)
With an interview, there is a discussion between human beings, where tones of voices can be detected, where clarification can be sought and given. In an interview, you can tell who’s lying, and who’s telling the truth.
While referring to news reports and related literature are crucial to understand the situation, why rely almost entirely on them, as the GMA-HL series does? The massacre happened in 2004. That means any reporter seeking to uncover the truth about what truly happened five years ago has the luxury of going to Hacienda Luisita and speak to what should be about 3,000 witnesses who can give you a first-hand account, as well as the hundreds of lawyers and government officials involved in the complex case. And quote them. The news media must never assume the news consumer will take your word for it. In investigative journalism, especially: Prove It.
The SPJ Code of ethics continues:— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.and here’s what the New York Times says in its code of ethics:— As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.
With 3,000 witnesses, was one quoted source in the “farmers’ story” the best GMA News could learn it?
***
“Seek the truth and report it”
Dychiu prefaces the series with a claim that GMA News traveled to Luisita. They say they did it to “find answers,” presumably there. But majority of the report was based on research that could be done from one’s desk. It is apparent to me that they traveled to Luisita not to seek answers, but confirmation of their prejudgement. And a single farmer obliged.
# # #
Final word:
The SPJ also says:
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
And the Code of Ethics for Philippine Journalists says:
— 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 will discuss these ideas in a future post.
For now, I must hand it to Dychiu for taking on this incredibly difficult task, and, being someone Severino touts as having a “keen understanding of corporate finance, thus her ability to process complex information on the stock distribution option,” for taking up the chops to wade through dense legal information and impart to us with certainty what for decades legal eagles, agrarian reform experts, and judges of the highest courts, could not put a definite finger on, and continue to deliberate.
If there’s anything I learned from Ms Dychiu, it’s to be even more scrupulous in my own work and to raise the bar.
Viewed 10355 times by 2904 viewers
Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress Plugin
reynz is one Uragon and a Filipino-American, has many years of public accounting & auditing, broadcast investments, housing tax credits and equity investments as his background. Based in the US, he maintains his personal and humor blog at reyna elena dot com. A graduate of Aquinas U, he went to GWU and Temple U in the United States.
philippine election is always heated, always polarizing, always testing even the fairness factor of journalists sworn to abide by some journalistic rules. but i know one who is a rabid anti-noynoy who would even write completely erroneous articles like when she wrote about danding’s daughter in australia hehehe
anyway, i’m lost in journalistic semantics here. but i must say that for a non-journalist like me, your arguments were presented very clearly and convincing.
Thanks Reynz! I wrote this for the farmers I met at the Hacienda, for the honest journalists I met along the way, and to the people he fooled. Ayun talaga, the news media should be responsible!
Here is a reader’s comment Mr Severino posted in Part 3 of the series:
“Thank you for this detailed report.
I haven’t chosen any Presidential candidate for now. Your report is helping me in choosing the next leader of the land. I would appreciate it more if you could have a documentary that will be shown in one of your top and best news and current affairs program. This might help the Filipino people examine the darker side of Ninoy. I hope you could also feature other Presidentiables.
I always share this report to my friends here in Davao and they liked it so much not because they hate Ninoy but because they see the truth and substance in your reporting. God bless you!
Anonymous
Davao”
Mr Severino, you just betrayed this person, and everyone who saw the “truth and substance” in your reporting.
it is quite unnecessary but important to note Severino’s presidential candidate…. does it ave something to do with it? i wonder.
i would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. he is, after all, in the PCIJ. If he has been bought, woe to us.
oh, i’m not saying he’s been bought. and i don’t think he will be. it’s just to ask full disclosure.
besides, it’s the same thing i had been arguing with my former media colleagues, that whatever we do, however way we try to hide it, we all have our own opinions and biases on things, and that somehow would get in the way of fair reporting.
Now, will somebody please dispute the numerous allegations raised about the Hacienda Luisita one by one.
@miss Felicity
about this entry:
Lito Bais is now an ULWU [United Luisita Workers' Union] leader (appointed, not elected, by his own admission).
who appointed Bais?
@Ricelander
“Now, will somebody please dispute the numerous allegations raised about the Hacienda Luisita one by one.”
Try the link below and kindly give your comments (if you please)
http://noypi-ako.com/ang-totoong-nangyari-sa-hacienda-luisita-video/
@Felicity, have you posted your interview video sa farmers?