First posted 11:40pm (Mla time) July 22, 2005
By Solita Collas- Monsod
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the July 23, 2005 issue of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer
I THINK I may have been one of the fiercest critics of President
gloria Macapagal-Arroyo over the years, with my criticisms
particularly focused on, but not limited to, her economic policy. I
also admit that I may have imposed higher standards on her because she
is an economist. But in any event, I would like to think that these
criticisms were based on solid grounds rather than on conjectures and
speculations. And they were definitely not partisan or ideological in
motivation. The objective was always to look out for national rather
than personal interests.
Which is why I want no part of what has to be called the lynch-mob
mentality that has seemed to grip the nation, fed by, I am sorry to
say, the media, which, more often than I am comfortable with, cannot
seem to distinguish between generating news and reporting it. When
that happens, a vicious cycle occurs: We generate our own excitement,
then we panic because of it, and people get caught up in the hysteria,
which then results in generating more excitement....
Take for example the June 27 nationwide broadcast where the President
apologized for her lapse in judgment. Who was immediately asked to
react? Certainly not the man-on-the-street. Tremendous emphasis was
given to the opposition's reactions, starting with the jailed Joseph
Estrada, which were predictably unfavorable; and much less emphasis
(and I think column-inches or air-time analysis will bear this out) on
the reaction of administration stalwarts, which were predictably
favorable. Even more unfortunate, the "I am sorry" part of the
President's statement was focused on, practically ignoring the rest.
Let's just follow one thread in that reaction pattern: Susan Roces on
the basis of the President's statement and her (Ms Arroyo's) eyes,
accused her of stealing the presidency -- not once, but twice -- and
of insincerity. No one bothered to ask what in the Arroyo statement,
or for that matter the tapes, could possibly have been the basis of
that accusation. But it has caught hold of the public's imagination.
Anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon: My upholsterer in Subic asked
me what should happen now that President Arroyo had admitted that she
cheated in order to win. Is it any wonder that a very large majority
of the population want her to resign or be impeached?
And yet one recalls, the President made no such admission. But the
opposition fanned the flames, repeating the accusation that she stole
the elections with practically every breath they took. This was duly
recorded by the media. And while I may be casting too much blame on a
sector to which I belong, there were at most only feeble attempts to
bring balance to the reporting.
Couldn't there have been at least an attempt to determine whether
those conversations could have indeed resulted in stealing an
election? Because if the attempt had been made, some timing
inconsistencies would be revealed. The conversations took place from
May 27, after all the Certificates of Canvass (COCs) were already in
Congress. With all the security attendant to those COCs, not even a
Houdini (much less a Virgilio Garcillano) would have been able to
alter them to suit his evil purposes. The "dagdagan, dagdagan"
[vote-padding] theory falls apart.
Couldn't there have been a brief review to remind ourselves of what
transpired in the run-up to and the aftermath of the elections?
Because if there had been one, the releases of the poll groups Social
Weather Stations and Pulse Asia at the time would show that Ms Arroyo
had overtaken Fernando Poe Jr. in the polls and as of the week before
the elections, the difference between them was statistically
significant nationwide. While Metro Manila and Luzon and Mindanao
could go either way, the lead in the Visayas was so commanding (57
percent Arroyo, 20 percent Poe) as to ensure her victory. Which is
what happened.
Also, Bill Luz of the election watchdog group Namfrel was quoted as
saying: "We didn't see enough electoral anomalies at the national
level to have a material effect on the national results"-i.e., of
course there was cheating (there always is, and this must be
punished), but nobody stole an election.
And a year later, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines
(CBCP), through Archbishop Fernando Capalla, said: "It is the view of
the bishops that the results of the elections reflected the will of
the Filipino people." Unfortunately, not much attention was given by
the media to this statement.
And finally, amid all the furor over the latest survey results, surely
it would not have been too much to report that in one survey (June
28-30), while 18 percent wanted resignation and 20 percent wanted
status quo, 26 percent of those surveyed wanted more information. This
was totally ignored.
Also ignored is that in the latest Social Weather Stations survey, 62
percent were in favor of a truth commission-which means that whether
they wanted resignation or impeachment, they also wanted the facts.
(Perhaps their cool heads struggling to overcome their warm hearts?
There may be hope yet.)
Am I saying that media are in some way to blame for this lynch-mob
mentality? Another bit of anecdotal evidence here: When asked what
they thought would be the outcome of their demonstrations against Ms
Arroyo, a spokesman said, "It depends -- on the media and the
military." Not necessarily in that order, would be my guess.
But we must also blame ourselves. Surely it cannot have escaped our
notice that most of those making the noise are also-rans and people
with self-serving agendas. We should all refuse to be railroaded by
these people who don't want facts to get in the way of their
conclusions and their ambitions.
------------
yihee, im so proud.. we "almost" have the same opinion 'bout everything.
