Arrgggghhh

DZMM interrupts with commercials and an Ariel-Ureta-ish filler its "religious" coverage of the DOJ clarificatory investigation when the vital part of Susan Enriquez being interrogated on media ethics and the extent of her knowledge and understanding of ethical coverage and airing of hostage taking incidents.
Could it be that...


a. they care about Enriquez and they don't want her to be embarrassed or lambasted on air?
b. they are likewise affected by the incrimination implicit in the questioning and the conspicuous defensiveness and irrationality of Enriquez's answers? Feeling the same guilt and instinct to go defensive?

******

At least Erwin Tulfo has the guts to accept that there is definitely a problem with the Philippine media. No matter how annoying this guy is, let's give him the credit for agreeing with Teresita Ang See's emotional outburst over the media.

******

Say, what essential difference does it make when a radio reporter mentions of an incident that would most probably influence the emotions of a hostage taker but withholds some information though actually mentioning in his report (that he is withholding some details that might affect the hostage taking incident) and a feisty Lyceum schooled TV reporter who puts a video of the same incident live on air?

******

One can actually hear bursts of laughter on certain points of the DOJ investigation of the hostage taking incident. Guess that's one proof the Philippines is indeed one of the happiest countries; also one of the most insensitive?

******

Why can'\t some most media people keep themselves from saying the phrase "Hong Kong nationals" Hong Kong isn't a nation and it is a territory of China; hence people there are also Chinese. As much as possible we should avoid overusing the word "nationals."