(Today’s column)
Just about every Filipino I know has been talking about the tragedy that struck Ted Failon’s wife. And just about everyone discussing it is, at the same time, conducting a guessing game as to whether it is a suicide or a homicide and, if it is the latter, who the probable killer is. Smack in the middle of the speculations came an appeal from an official of ABS-CBN, Failon’s employer, asking the public to respect the privacy of Failon’s family. Everything is wrong with the scenario.
First of all, let me say that I do consider the death of Mr. Failon’s wife a tragedy, irrespective of who pulled the trigger. I feel for the children she left behind; they will now grow up without a mother. Under any circumstance, that is a tragedy.
It is, however, highly ironic for ABS-CBN to issue the appeal for respect for privacy. In almost every gory crime, its reporters are among those first on the scene, pushing microphones into the faces of the victim’s family members. Now that one of its own finds himself on the other side of the microphone, so to speak, there is this call to respect his privacy. Ted Failon and any member of his and his wife’s family have the right to make that appeal — but not ABS-CBN.
When death is the result of the commission of a crime, the family’s entitlement to privacy takes on a different angle. The generally-accepted principle is that a crime is committed against society in general. That’s why every criminal case is captioned People of the Philippines versus name-of-the-accused –- it is the public that is the aggrieved party hence the case is prosecuted on behalf of the people.
In the context of what the public is entitled to know, it being the real victim in the commission of every crime, just what is the scope of the information it is entitled to know and who determines the parameters of that entitlement?
Let’s cite an example. An overloaded inter-island vessel capsizes in the middle of a storm killing all passengers aboard. What is the public entitled to know? The operative words are “overloaded” and “storm.” There is no quarrel about it -– the public has a right to know if the carrier had been negligent in transporting more passengers beyond the vessel’s capacity and in not postponing or canceling the trip because of the storm. The public has the right to know so it can avoid the carrier especially if it has a string of similar disasters in its navigation history.
When media keep watch over the rescue operations and the recovery and identification of the corpses, public interest is served because people are informed of the efficiency or inefficiency of the operations of the government agencies concerned.
But media, especially broadcast media, go beyond those issues. Reporters rush to interview the grieving families of the victims and encourage them to cry unabashedly in front of the camera for all the world to see. The public interest in the tragedy is overridden with the obvious ploy to turn it into a telenovela complete with tears, anger and blame.
They call it adding a human interest to the story. In truth, it elicits sympathy for the victim which is not always deserved. A soldier gets killed in battle – a tragedy for the family, no doubt, but that’s a risk that goes with the job. An overseas worker is arrested and media is quick to play up the “we have to protect our own” mentality often glossing over the issue of whether the arrest was valid or not. A young man is shot to death by a policeman during a buy-bust operation and, instead of determining what the victim was doing at the scene, we see the grieving mother on the television screen tearfully blaming the police for killing her son who, she says, is a good boy who would never be involved in drugs.
Now, we have the death of Ted Failon’s wife. What do we see on television? What do we see on ABS-CBN? Boy Abunda interviewing Nadia Montenegro who knew the decedent. What about focusing on why the crime scene was cleaned up before the police arrived?
The public is not entitled to know the nitty-gritty of the decedent’s life. To include all that in the guise of adding human interest to the story is merely to fodder gossip and speculation. What the public is entitled to know is how the crime was committed, whether there was an attempted cover up and what the investigators are doing. If the case goes to trial, all evidence admitted becomes public knowledge but all speculations and innuendoes are barred.
But the way broadcast media operate, television as well as radio, news reporting during tragedies like this has become a thinly veiled attempt to exploit the tragedy and turn it into ratings and money. In perfect Fox News tradition with extended coverage that touches on all things irrelevant including interviews with people who don’t know much about the facts but who have a lot to say about their personal speculations. No wonder the man on the street is doing the very same thing –- debating with anyone willing as to why the death of Ted Failon’s wife is a suicide and cannot possibly be a homicide.
Of course, there is also that possibility that in perfect “we have to protect our own” fashion, media is unscrupulously shaping public opinion in favor of Ted Failon to dissuade further theories that he may have pulled the trigger.
Ms. Connie, maybe it should be asked of ABS-CBN–beneath all the “respect the Failons’ privacy” hogwash, what’s in it for you?
And I can already anticipate a response in the line of “public service po lamang.”
Pag ordinaryong mamamayan ang nasasabit sa krimen, kaliwa’t kanan ang pagbroadcast ng unofficial statements at irrelevant opinions. Ultimo kinain sa agahan, binubulatlat. Mga personal na problema noong nakaraang dekada pa, isinisiwalat.
Pero pag media men na ang mismong nasasabwat sa issue, aba, “respect our privacy” at “pray for us” ang nagiging tema.
If the network truly respects the family of the deceased and in honest pursuit of the truth (and not viewership), just give us the facts straight up.
Huwag nang haluan ng kulay at drama!
PS. Echoing Connie’s question above: why was the crime scene cleaned up even before the authorities had the chance to study it?
PPS. If only the police agencies know how to utilize the internet and broadcast their findings there, I really wouldn’t bother tuning in to any of the two television networks.
Let’s not even forget how it’s always suppression of press freedom whenever a media person is killed violently. AS though there is no other possibility. As though there is no chance that media persons can be involved in shady operations.
This day in our country, it isn’t about press freedom anymore.
I miss the days when the public used to find out how elected officials turned out to be scumbags BEFORE they get elected higher into office. Now, we only find out their shady dealings AFTER they’ve been sworn into office and AFTER they’ve pocketed their kick-backs.
Perhaps, the media’s scheme of waiting for an issue to snowball into a bigger problem before they report on it (and later claim to be bastions of truth) is what’s really turning our country upside down.
The truth is that the big media outfits are just as self-serving as the government they’ve are covering and reporting on. The truth is that it isn’t about “freedom of the press”; rather, it has turned into BUSINESS of the press — investigative journalism and sensationalized newscasting for VIEWSHIP and PROFIT.
I wonder when a case will finally reach the Supreme Court and force it to define freedom of the press — if the SC itself is not afraid of a lashback from mighty media.
I am not really familiar with Ted Failon, but when I read tha he has a show with K. Sanchez, I said to myself – yes, I think I might have watched this guy several times when I was visiting Manila.
Anyway about this thing with “cleaning up the crime” scene.
I just have this crazy thought. Maybe the help/maid cleaned the scene, not because someone instructed them to do it, but simply out of their subconscious, their “frame of mind” – the bathroom/house/car is dirty; it has to be cleaned right away.
They’ve been programmed/instructed/ to always do this; even, maltreated or beaten, if they did not do it. Well.
Possible.
“It is, however, highly ironic for ABS-CBN to issue the appeal for respect for privacy. In almost every gory crime, its reporters are among those first on the scene, pushing microphones into the faces of the victim’s family members. Now that one of its own finds himself on the other side of the microphone, so to speak, there is this call to respect his privacy. Ted Failon and any member of his and his wife’s family have the right to make that appeal — but not ABS-CBN.”
“Now, we have the death of Ted Failon’s wife. What do we see on television? What do we see on ABS-CBN? Boy Abunda interviewing Nadia Montenegro who knew the decedent.”
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. That’s exactly what I thought off. I would’ve preferred it if ABS-BS said “this news is exclusive to our network so leave them alone” instead of asking for privacy when it’s actually them who seems to be sensationalizing this tragedy for their news and entertainment shows. know what i mean?
“sensationalizing this tragedy for their news and entertainment shows”
Oh, that is the perfect phrase to describe what ABS-CBN is doing.
And, yes, the fact that the tragedy has entered the realm of entertainment (a.k.a. celebrity gossip) shows is really beyond the pale.
As usual, Ch 2 was at it again. They really have squeezed all the juices from the tragic death of Ted Failon’s wife. This news outlet tried very hard in putting some finesse (kuno)in delivering the tragic news to the public. (See, they didn’t put up their usual exclusivity claim on the news.)
You can’t accuse them of being remiss in their practice of standards of journalism or shall I say judgementalism in their news casting (for Ch 2, it is always news crafting) since they were cautioning the public not to SPECULATE on the death of Failon’s wife. Right after reading that punch line (cut one of my balls and I’ll still refuse to call that as news casting), Tunying “the time checker with Chinese interpretation” Taberna went again on his daily personal propaganda (cut my other ball and I’ll still refuse to call him as newsreader – pwede pa the morning show comedian).
That time (take note that this was right after reading the Failon’s punch line), he was admonishing the DOJ for not acting on the complaint against the Solicitor General. There was an impeachment case filed against the Solicitor General by former Senator J. Salonga for her being tentative in resolving cases filed against erring government officials. One of them is the fertilizer scam. Recently, there was a murder a Dept of Agriculture Usec. Tunying “the time checker with Chinese interpretation” Taberna was very quick in CONCLUDING (not just SPECULATING) that the murder was related to fertilizer scam and many more similar to that murder would happen if the DOJ will not act on the case against the Solicitor General. Tunying “the time checker with Chinese interpretation” Taberna is not just a very good propagandist cum news crafter, he can also see the future. LOL, fair and balance speculation anyone?
From time to time, Ch 2′s punchline was to respect the solemnity of Failon’s grief. I’m just wondering why. they have to update the public every hour of its status to the point that the were redundant already.
Silly of me. I’m forgetting that these news crafters have no shame. Way to go Ch 2!
You’d think they were all CSIs and private dicks rolled into one with the swiftness by which they conclude the motives for crimes, eh?
“You’d think they were all CSIs and private dicks rolled into one with the swiftness by which they conclude the motives for crimes, eh?”
It’s a compliment for them.
All I can think of is they can always claim they’re just comedians kapag nabubuko na sila. We all know how some if not most of our kababayans idolize comedians.
I’m just watching this evening one of the CSI NY season 5 episode in AXN where the Doctor Sid Hammerback, the Medical Examiner, died while examining a vic affected by radioactive radiation. He too eventually was also affected by the radioactive radiation. (He is the CSI with a folding eyeglasses frame). I’m just confused why he is still around in the later episodes of the Season 5.
Actually, I’ve already finished watching half of the CSI NY Season 5 bootleg DVD which includes the above episode. Up to episode 13 of 22 episodes.
Lindsey Monroe and Danny Messer is a nice love story in that season.
Jeez…naubusan yata ako ng gusto kong i-comment.
Sensya na po…
He didn’t die. I just finished watching the episode. He was contaminated, collapsed and was taken to the hospital but he recovered.
Jeez, tnx for the correction. Actually, I’ve watched it first in the bootleg copy and perhaps I’ve made a FFW and missed it. I was watching it again last night while surfing the web (read: while also downing a six packer).
Mabalikan nga ulit.
I have visited your excellent website on many occasions, but this is the first time I have sent in a comment.
After the arrest and detention of Jun Lozada yesterday, I was looking around for somewhere to vent my spleen and happened upon your “Crime and privacy” article.
I happen to think that Ted Failon is entitled to his privacy, and should not be harrassed by the media, including ABS-CBN News, but I do not think he should be a special case.
ABS-CBN News, of which Failon is an anchor, consistently fails to respect the privacy, and indeed the civil rights, of the victims of its so called news reporting. To describe ABS-CBN News as a “news” program is an insult to responsible journalism.
As you have stated, the death of Failon’s wife, whether suicide or homicide, is a family tragedy. In circumstances where a crime may have been committed and an investigation is underway, it is not for the media to interfere with the ongoing investigation, or indeed infer who is innocent or guilty. That is what the courts are for. The evidence should not be in the public domain until the investigators either conclude that it was a suicide and issue a report substantiating their conclusion, or a charge of homicide is brought, and the evidence disclosed in a court of law.
In countries which use a jury system, the actions of ABC-CBN and other media would make it impossible for a defendant to get a fair trial and, no matter how strong the evidence, the presiding judge would likely dismiss the case.
It is not the job of journalism to turn personal tragedy into soap opera for the masses. I would have some respect for ABS-CBN News if it actually undertook some genuine investigative journalism into politics, the economy, education, healthcare and graft at the highest levels. That of course is much too risky. Easier to have 30 shallow minutes of headlines, traffic accidents, fires, Senate committees etc, followed by 30 minutes of celebrity drivel.
As with most things in the Philippines, you never get what you pay for.
While I’m here, back to the arrest of Jun Lozada for perjury. I don’t understand how a charge of perjury can be brought by a private individual. It seems that it is Lozada’s word against that of Defensor. If Defensor says that Lozada has lied, surely he (Defensor) should issue a civil writ for slander (and libel if the alleged lies are in writing), in order to protect his reputation. If Defensor is able to prove his case, Lozado should subsequently be charged with perjury.
Maybe I missed something in the reporting, but where is the evidence to support the perjury charge?
Perjury is committed when an untruthful statement is made under oath, as when a witness gives testimony or executes an affidavit or files a complaint.
Slander (oral defamation) and libel (generally, written defamation) are both felonies in the Philippines.
The penalty for perjury is HIGHER than the penalties for libel and slander.
The alleged perjury was committed 1) during a Senate hearing (where all statements are made under oath) and 2) in the Court of Appeals hearing in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo (also under oath).
The way the system goes, any private individual who may have been victimized by an untruthful statement can file a complaint but unless the prosecutor files a criminal information based on the complaint, then, the case does not progress.
So the fact that Lozado has been arrested and detained implies that the prosecutor possesses hard evidence that Lozada lied?
Either that or political clout played a role.