Delikado maging mediaman (o kritiko) sa pahanon ni Arroyo

I can understand kung bakit galit si Conrad de Quiros. Pero hindi ako surprised sa ganyang attitude ng Arroyo administration at mga kaalyado nito.

For example, these are the comments made by Mike Arroyo and former NBI chief Reynaldo Wycoco about the media killings last year:

WHEN the First Gentleman tells the Bacolod Press Club that the reason those who are killing journalists have killed no member of the BPC is that the members of the BPC are responsible journalists who are well behaved, Mike Arroyo is telling the world that the killers of journalists are in the right.

In effect, he is telling us that he agrees that those who, in his mind or in the mind of those ordering the killings, are irresponsible journalists, ought to die. It is only right. After all, what purpose do these irresponsible journalists serve if not to "destabilize" his wife’s government? They make themselves the enemy when they act irresponsibly. And, who are acting responsibly? Those who agree that Gloria Arroyo is the greatest thing that has ever happened to this country.

This is how dangerous journalism has become in this country. All that has to happen is for someone like Mike Arroyo or some local satrap such as a governor or a mayor to identify some writer or broadcaster as a "destabilizer" and that journalist’s goose will soon be cooked. In other words, he’s dead! That is the reality.

The sad part is that if even Mike Arroyo, the husband of Her Excellency feels this way, why would anyone – policeman or government functionary — go out of his way to protect journalists or to find out who killed them?

Imagine, too, that the head of the NBI also came up with advice to journalists to the effect that because these are dangerous times, journalists ought to go easy in what they write or broadcast and how they write or speak. The onus for the killings is, in the mind of NBI director Reynaldo Wycoco, on the journalists, rather than on the killers.

The victim is at fault. If he did not write or talk about the corruption, the cheating, the mistakes of those who govern and their profligate ways, then, he would not have been killed. It is as simple as that. It is as though he willed himself to be killed. Because he did all those forbidden things, then, naturally, he has to be killed. Do we actually expect the crooks in government to allow just about anyone to write any which way about them?

Who gave journalists the right to write or talk about these irregularities? Who told them that they could do those things that they do that make the powerful uncomfortable and that shame them before the people that they are supposed to be serving but whom they are victimizing by their incompetence and avarice?

How can anyone be doing a good job of reporting when he does not support Gloria Arroyo with the devotion of a lapdog?

The serious answer to these questions is of course to be found in the Constitution: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

Of course, as we all know, the second part of this provision is no longer honored by the present government. The present rule is "No permit, no rally!"

Thus, even if no law has been passed abridging any of these freedoms, the fact is that we can no longer exercise many of these freedoms. As for journalists, the hard fact is that the Constitution does not guarantee the journalist’s freedom to live.

And when Arroyo stooges Sergio Apostol and Romela Bengzon were explaining how their CON COM was going to mangle our constitution and bill of rights to make the media "more responsible", they made these points:

In last night’s “Strictly Politics” ANC, hosted by Pia Hontiveros (disclosure:I’m editorial consultant for the show) the topic was this particular Concom provision. Guests were former Rep. Serge Apostol and Atty. Romela Bengzon, both members of the committee on Bill of Rights, Atty. Adel Tamano, professor of law at the Far Eastern University, and Vergel Santos, columnist of Businessworld and director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

Bengzon said the word “responsible” was put there to “enhance and focus”. She talked about investments not coming in, because investors always read bad news. We should give more tiem and space for “good news”, etc. etc., the usual Malacañang line although she denied that the Concom was inspired by GMA’s tirade on media and the opposition.

Apostol asked what’s the problem of of the word “responsibility” when media people themselves invoke that word all the time.

Apostol said soemthing shocking: proof that media can sometime be irresponsible is the high number of journalists being killed.

LOL.

I remember an Arroyo apologist blogger saying na it's okay to lose "our" (meaning: the opposition's) rights and freedom so that "we can move the country forward." I've called out that prick many times already, because it is this kind of excuse-giving on their part that allows this administration to show it's Marcosian tendencies.

So how do you deal with the "innacurate" and "irresponsible" media?

Well, my advice to these pro-Arroyo idiots is to stop whining about it in general terms and be more specific. Show us where they got it wrong on the GLORIAGATE election fraud scandal, the kidnapping/abduction of witnesses and other people connected to the anti-Arroyo movement, etc etc...

(Here's an example of how it should be done.)

Oh, maybe you think the media is not "fair and balanced" dahil puro "bad news" lang ang naririnig natin at wala ang "good news." I think the so-called "good news" on the economy is being reported, pero hindi lang talaga maiwasan na mai-report ang mga katarantaduhan, abductions, murders, tortures at criminal activities ng admin na ito.