Re Bondoc’s latest column.
While we may all appreciate Bondoc for his adherence that the truth must come out because it is the truth, must say am a bit worried. He’s treading on dangerous ground, i.e., breach of confidentiality between a journalist and his source?
That Romulo Neri is Jarius Bondoc's source is the worst kept secret in town. Sino pa ba sa atin ang hindi nakakaalam nito before Bondoc wrote his monday article.
Kaya nga tinanong ni Lacson si Neri kung pwedeng magsalita si Bondoc eh:
It was Ping Lacson who finally exposed Neri.
Lacson realized that Neri was not going to budge from his executive privelege position so he offered Neri a way out. If he couldn’t talk because of executive privilege then maybe Bondoc could do it for him, considering that he was a source of many of Bondoc’s information.
So Lacson asked Jarius Bondoc how many times he talked to Neri and if he was willing to reveal what they talked about.
Jarius replied, ‘yes but I have to ask Neri’s permission first.”
Lacson then asked Neri if he would permit Jarius to reveal the contents of their conversations.
Neri replied, ‘I will not grant permission.’
Yes, Neri did not give Jarius permission to reveal what they talked about during the Senate hearings. But why only now, Mr. Neri.
IIRC, Neri never stopped Bondoc from writing about what they've talked about in Bondoc's previous columns on ZTE.
Eto sabi ni DJB:
That is certainly true for Jarius Bondoc, whose sensational columns about sexcapades and golf junkets in China, and millions of dollars in bribery money focussed the spotlight on ZTE and the national broadband project early on. Together with Joey de Venecia and Romulo Nery testifying in the Senate, the scandal has already resulted in the accused broker, Benjamin Abalos to resign as chairman of the Commission on Elections this past week.
But by revealing Romulo Neri to be the source of his news-making columns early on in the ZTE scandal saga, Jarius Bondoc broke a rule of omerta...
When bondoc was writing his ZTE articles, hindi pinipigilan ni Neri si Jarius. Which means not once during their numerous telephone conversations beginning april 2007 did Neri tell Bondoc to zip it. the fact that we knew neri was bondoc's source from the very beginning leads me to believe that what bondoc wrote before had neri's seal of approval (even using him as source.)
Nung nasa senado na siya atsaka lang nagkaroon ng "cold feet" si Neri at hindi nya binigyan ng permission si Jarius magsalita sa harap ng senado.
So no "rule of omerta" was broken when jarius started writing all those ZTE articles.
but maybe DJB is referring to Jarius' recent article after the Senate hearing this monday?
Since everybody knew who Bondoc's source was at this point, and knew pretty much what neri told bondoc, jarius probably concluded there's no point in keeping the rest of the sordid ZTE details to himself.
I believe Bondoc calculated that it was futile to keep the details to himself since everybody else pretty much knows the big picture of the ZTE deal, pero kulang na lang sa detalya. And everybody knows he knows.
By revealing what he knows in that article, the pressure coming from the senate, the media and other people for him to tell all (or in Malacanang's case, for him to keep quiet, or else...) will dissipate.
So should he be fired by philstar for disobeying neri after the neri told him to shut up at the senate hearing?
Oo raw, sabi ni Business World Vergel Santos.
UPDATE: From Ernesto Maceda:
Columnist Jarius Bondoc confirmed during a TV interview that Secretary Romulo Neri made 17 important admissions to him regarding the ZTE-NBN deal but he revealed only five in the Senate. He believes Neri has been threatened into silence...
UPDATE: I haven't read all of Jarius' ZTE articles, but my understanding is that sa simula pa lang ng pagsusulat ni Bondoc re ZTE, may idea tayo na si Neri ang source ni Jarius. Has neri discussed with bondoc how certain information he provided can be used or not used before he started leaking the info? What was their "speaking terms" agreement? on the record? on background? deep background? Double Super Secret background?
Sometimes, the editors or lawyers of the news organization are in on the source's identity too:
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney/client privilege.) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent, anonymous sources, and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued.
So if bondoc "violated" any confidentiality agreement with Neri, then the editors probably were in on that too.
But I do know Neri's in trouble with Malacanang for leaking. I believe matagal na nilang alam na siya ang source ng mga article ni Bondoc (probably ever since nilipat siya sa CHED). Because of Neri's leaking, he is seen as disloyal by malacnang, and it is just a matter of time before he is punished or removed.
Sa US, I've never seen any recent administration who isn't paranoid about leaks (lalo na yung mga admin na may tinatago). Nixon employed the Plumbers to find and destroy the leakers in his admin. So imagine how Arroyo must feel about Neri. His goose is cooked.
From Manuel Buencamino:
Star should Jarius a raise. And sakay ako sa argument mo na gusto naman tlaga ni Neri lumabas yun baho kaya lang ayaw niyang sumabit.
Wasn't it obvious to everybody else that Neri is one of Bondoc's sources early on? Especially after Lacson asked and was denied permission by Neri to let Bondoc speak re ZTE?
paano ba nalaman ni lacson na si neri ang source ni bondoc in the first place, hindi ba?