Suddenly More Creative

One by one, Mike Defensor's sound experts are being destroyed one way or the other by the media.

First and foremost, there was this supposed interview over at RMN-DZXL with the Texas, USA - based principal sound expert Barry Dickey who denied reporting that the Garci-Gloria tapes are spliced. But it was said that he did not deny that there was indeed an anomaly on the tapes.
(from the Inquirer report)

THE AMERICAN forensic audio expert who examined portions of the “Hello, Garci” tape has denied saying that it had been spliced, and that it could not be used in the impeachment case against President Macapagal-Arroyo.

This was the report of RMN-dzXL radio based on an interview conducted by Don Lino Selle, its anchor in RMN New York, with the Texas-based expert Barry Dickey.

Dickey confirmed having said it was possible that not just one device was used to record the two tracks: “Yes, that’s my report.”

But he denied having said it was his opinion that the tape had been spliced or tampered with:

“Oh no. That’s where I correct you. No, sir. I am not the one who reported that. It was the Filipino experts. I have nothing to do with that.

Hmmm, suddenly DZXL has some very good information and was able to contact the foreign expert. If I remember right, Tatad's and Lacson's sound experts where never interviewed. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, one of the Filipino experts, Mr. Jimmy Sarthou, who was present during Mike Defensor's press conference, said that he was set-up and did not want to be there (as reported by abs-cbnenws.com). He said he had "no political inclination and he felt uneasy joining the conference".

Hmmm. Of course, we know that he is just not shy..., because he had some interviews with DZMM and ANC later.

In an interview with DZMM, Sarthou said he nearly walked out at the start of the press conference because he had not been informed of his participation. He said when he went to the toilet, he never came back to the conference.

Now, another Filipino Sound Expert, Mr. Jonathan Tiongco, who was also with Mike Arroyo in his press conference, was said to be "an expert at altering evidence". And this comment was from Teresita Ang See, a known anti-kidnappnig crusader who was interviewed by the Inquirer on the telephone (report).

“Rather than help [Ms Arroyo’s] case, Tiongco would even do more damage to her because he is known to be an expert in altering evidence,” Ang See said in a phone interview.

Hmmm. Why did the Inquirer says that the interview with Ang See is over the telephone? Are there preparing a way out just in case it turns out that the person they are talking to on the phone turn out to be other than Ang See?

Don't get me wrong. Indeed, reporters should verify the information given them by tracking the history and background of the persons and facts presented.

But why do I feel that when it is beneficial to the opposition, media suddenly becomes more creative?

Not verified because it was late

The Inquirer admitted they were not able to verify its news even as they tried to. This is in reference to an American Sound Expert Barry Dickey's supposed denial (news report) of Mike Defensor's supposed claim that the former's opinion that the Gloria-Garci tapes are spliced.

The Inquirer called Audio-Video Evidence Lab, Dickey’s company in Arlington, Texas, but no one answered, apparently because of the late hour.

Well, OK. Maybe we can try again tomorrow. Now what, a weekend? Ok, Monday, then? Not even Monday? What? Yeah, time difference. Ok, why not call them Monday evening, then? What? You don't work late nights?

Grrr.

On Mike Defensor's Press release?

I've told everyone: when you have an information, one should verify the information and its source first before one crows about its meaning. That is at least how news reporting should be.

But the Philippine press is a different breed. When they have some information, they publish it first. Then they verify from the people whom everyone surely knows would not provide straight honest answers. Then they ask the opinion from both sides. Funny? No, sad!

For example, what did the press do on the Gloria-Garci tapes? First, they talked to Sec. Bunye, then they talked to the opposition, then they talk about how dirty Garcillano really was, then they published the tapes, then they talked to Tatad and Lacson (who made their own of course not independent authentication), then they get the opinion of everyone again, then they get the press release from Susan Roces, then they cover everyone who is asking the president to resign, then they cover everyone who is trying to do some people power movements, then they talked to Bunye, then they covered the congressional hearings, then we are all in crises, etc., etc. Get the drift?

(Everyone who is anybody is guilty, the PDI, the Philstar, ABS-CBN, GMA, even the PCIJ!)

And what should have they done? First they should have verified the contents of the tapes and try to answer the following: where did it come from? was it spliced? are there alterations? who were the voices? are the contents logical? are there inconsistencies? In short, is this really for real? Then, if media feels that the contents are true, they should release what they found out (even as they come) and then pressure the administration (all of them) to resign? Or if proven untrue, get to where the false information came from and get those people publicly disgraced for the rest of their lives.

I am not sure, but maybe the media people doesn't just have the talent to do what is proper. Or maybe they are just too stingy or really do not have the money to spend on the research. Or yeah, maybe all of them lost all their moral aptitude to uphold the truth and they rather get paid through the spins they write. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know(?), maybe I am the most stupid person on earth, and I know nothing about anything, and that maybe what I thought is right is actually wrong and vice versa (and yes maybe, I am really a dog).

So what are we all left with?

Well, now here comes along, and we are all contented, with this so called news, yeah we are happy, covered by everyone in the press, bring it on, and we are left with, Mike Defensor's press release.

Survey Suprised?

I thought I was the only who noticed. Surveys by the SWS and Pulse Asia has seemed to become so meaningless that it is very easy to see that they are released to provide a spin on issues. Amazingly, the surveys even often get to the newspapers headlines (including the Inquirer) as if the surveys themselves are the burning issues rather than the fact that they merely reflect what the real burning issues are!

But I was surprised today by the Inquirer editorial piece that showed the same sentiments that I had. I recently commented on the May SWS survey on charter change which was belatedly released two months after and which release is seemingly timed to reflect a negative opinion on cha-cha. The Inq editorial on the other hand commented on the uselessness of the said survey...

One was the mid-May survey of the Social Weather Stations (SWS) poll group on Charter change. The survey of 1,200 people nationwide showed that 70 percent didn't find anything in the present Constitution that needed to be changed. But the same survey found 73 percent of the respondents admitting that they had little or almost no knowledge of the Constitution. The only useful conclusion one can reach from such a survey is that Filipinos do not know their Constitution. But to cite the survey findings as an argument against Charter change would be a non sequitur.

We know how bad our media has become and we know spins abound everywhere. We know that release of surveys is just one of the tools everybody use to project whatever they want to project. However, we do not know how these spins propagate and pinpoint the persons from where propaganda has been coming from.

Insiders in media organizations would know, and I just hope that someone among them would tell us how they do it and what we can do against it. Yes, we are desperately looking for a hero.

Personal Knowledge

Now, according to inq7.net breaking news, there is this one lawyer that says that Captain Mendoza with his statements surely had personal knowledge that Bong Pineda gave P300M to the Arroyo campaign.

"There is a personal knowledge. He [Garcillano] was telling them [Mendoza of]
the fact that GMA [Arroyo's initials] received 300 million pesos from [suspected
'jueteng' lord] Bong Pineda," Castriciones told a news conference in Pasig City.

"It was not hearsay because as far as Garcillano was concerned, Garcillano was telling him [Mendoza] directly that he was talking to these people," Castriciones said.

Now now, if Capt. Mendoza can be considered as to have 'personal knowledge' and not just 'hearsay' because as per above logic, how about Garcillano? Can it be said that Garci has 'super personal knowledge' of what has happened?

hearsay evidence Function: noun: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

(from merriam-webster.com dictionary)

If the mere meaning of words are changed, how can we communicate with these people?

What is happening now with the PCIJ?

While the Philippine Daily Inquirer now tries to make their headline more accurate, PCIJ's Avigael Olarte thinks that Capt. Mendoza's testimony can be headlined with an entry on their blog: Jueteng Lord gave P300M to GMA campaign, says Garci's security officer.

I am getting a little confused here. Is that what Capt. Mendoza really said (as if from personal knowledge)? Or is that what PCIJ heard the Captain said? It seems now that what is said and what is heard are two different things, too different indeed especially when it is many in media, including PCIJ who are doing the listening. Can PCIJ not anymore make a distinction from what was said to what Mendoza's handlers want everyone to think what was said?

Or maybe the title was made to induce a sense of shock to the reader. OK, let us give it to them. Or maybe not. For the entry continued to be vague on what is actually said:

A CLOSE-IN aide of former elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano told a Senate committee today that alleged jueteng lord Rodolfo "Bong" Pineda contributed P300 million to fund President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s campaign in 2004.

Army Capt. Marlon L. Mendoza, who was Garcillano’s chief security officer from April to June 2004, quoted the former commissioner as saying that Pineda donated the money to ensure the President’s “success in the election.”

Again, the entry continue to say that:

Mendoza bolstered the testimony of Michaelangelo “Louie” Zuce, nephew of Garcillano, that payoffs made to election officials in Mindanao came from Pineda
and his wife Lilia.

In short, PCIJ's Olarte treated Capt. Mendoza's testimony as really one big deal testimony, as it even has supposedly "bolstered", yes "bolstered" some of Zuce's earlier testimonies.

Amazingly, that is the line used also by Ted Failon in his 7:30AM program over DZMM. Of course, it is very easy to see that Mr. Failon is now one of the opposition's spokesperson on radio. But PCIJ? Come on!

In fairness to PCIJ, they also posted the whole affidavit made by Capt. Mendoza on their blogsite, where one can read what the Captain actually said: that he was told by Garcillano that Pineda gave P300M to Arroyo campaign.

She sells seashells...

Now this is funny, the Inquirer headline today goes... Captain says Garci said Arroyo got P300M!

Ha.. ha.., it seems now that the Inquirer headline editors are reading my blog! But still, the headline is misleading and not accurate. It should have been: Captain says Garci said Pineda gave P300M to Arroyo campaign!

Now, doesn't that sound like she sells seashells by the seashore?

What garbage is this?

According to the title of a report at Inq7.net, Senate probe witness Capt. Mendoza said that "Jueteng Lord gave P300M to Arroyo campaign".

Is this title correct or not?

Apparently not, for what he said was:

“I distinctly heard Garcillano say that Bong Pineda gave 300 million pesos for the President's success in the elections,” he said.

Mendoza said his former “boss” made the boast when they were together in Naga City. He said he was with Garcillano between April and June 2004.

... meaning he was told by Comelec Commissioner Garcillano (during a drinking session) that alleged Jueteng Lord Bong Pineda gave P300M for the President's success in elections.

It was not clear whether Garcillano and Capt. Mendoza are both drunk at the time, although Mendoza, judging from the contents of his speech, seem drunk during the Senate hearing.

Knock, knock, anybody home? Is media giving credence to this kind of testimonies?

From the same Inq7 report, Sen. Santiago said:

"He went from point A to point B completely in hearsay mode. Testimony is about what he heard, not what he knows. He has alleged that Bong Pineda is a 'jueteng lord' without presenting any evidence. At another point, he said he heard Garcillano say that Bong Pineda gave 300 million pesos, that's double hearsay," Santiago told reporters following Mendoza's testimony.

“I don't see how the opposition can hear this kind of witness. We're treading on thin ice when we hear this person's testimony for no other purpose than to demean or defame another person, in this case the President of the Philippines.”

The fact is, we do not even need to ask Sen. Santiago to comment on this matter (we already know that she defends the President). Any person who knows how to understand words and utterances would immediately conclude that the testimony given is plain garbage. It is amazing how the senate and media, day in and day out cannot seem to understand what is relevant from what is not. They now cannot make a distinction between gossip and truth.

Roco: A victim of our rotten media

Less that 3 hours ago, it was reported that former senator and presidential candidate Raul Roco died at the St. Luke's Medical Center, apparently of prostate cancer (news from abs-cbnnews.com, inq7.net and philstar.com). I do not know Sen. Roco that well, but now that we are at a loss for leaders, I feel that his death is somewhat of a sad blow to our country.

Everyone knows that Mr. Roco is the only candidate in last year's elections really qualified to be president. However, at that time, everyone also knows that he wouldn't win. In fact, a lot of those planning to vote for Roco shifted and voted for Gloria Arroyo instead. Yes, many voted for Mrs. Arroyo, for everyone knows she will do everything to win (even by cheating) and still a better alternative than the prospect of a Fernando Poe Jr. presidency.

Although he enjoyed considerable support among the youth and students, his campaign did not have the widespread machinery of those of Arroyo and other candidates.

(from philstar.com)

Roco does not have the election machinery he needed to win. "Machinery" here could simply be translated simply as "money". Surely, the so called "machinery" is not needed if only we have a free and balanced media. In fact, the press should have been insulted long ago when it is determined that candidates need the machinery in order to win.

What we lack is not Roco's machinery to win the elections, but a machinery for truth. Conversely, what we have is a machinery of lies perpetuated by vested interests through the mass media. We can only see how sorrowful the state of the country is. Behind the scenes, people with dark intentions are funding lies, corrupting our media, while there is nobody who will come out to raise money for truth. I am not sure how low we can go, but I do not yet see anything where hope can cling on. Roco's death accentuates this vanishing hope.

Estrada is as Innocent as I am Handsome!

Erap is Innocent! Well of course, this is the opinion of his supporters. In fact, according to Rene Saguisag, an ardent Estrada defender, the special division of the Sandiganbayan hearing the Estrada case is made specifically to convict Estrada.

I am not sure why but the Philippine Daily Inquirer and other so called reporters interviewed Saguisag abouts of all things.. Estrada's innocence. Tell me where is news in that? Is this worth so much ink? Are they expecting Saguisag to say Erap is guilty and should be subjected to lethal injection? Of course not!!!

This is obviously a press release, an interview with Saguisag, without much of a challenge to verify his claims.

LAWYER Rene Saguisag yesterday said the Sandiganbayan special division would convict former President Joseph Estrada of plunder because it had been "programmed to do so."

If this is news, then these reporters should have interviewed my mother, too, and asked her who is the most good looking guy in town (that's me of course)!

May Survey now published?

I am not sure now what is happening to the Philippine Daily Inquirer. There is today a story at inq7.net about a survey last May on charter change. Are there no more new stories that PDI can print or is this just a filler for some vacant space on the paper or on the net?

SEVEN in 10 Filipinos oppose Charter change, even as the number of those who want to amend the Constitution has been steadily increasing, an independent survey released Tuesday showed.

According to a Social Weather Stations (SWS) poll conducted nationwide from May 14 to 23, 70 percent of Filipinos said "no" when asked if certain constitutional provisions "need to be changed now" as against the 30 percent who answered "yes."

Why on earth would the nation's widest circulating paper print a story about a survey made more than 2 months ago and before the Gloria-Garci tapes scandal broke out?

Tell me, whose press release is this, this time?

Pamatong Tidbits

This Pamatong guy is obviously having his way with the press. I again saw today a press release referring to this guy, of his impeachment complaint, this time versus Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante Tinga.

Had media been doing its job, we would not have been wasting time talking about this guy. Anything that he said should have been dismissed outright.

So I wonder, why is media giving credence to Mr. Pamatong, a disgraced character no one should have cared about? Or perhaps the correct question is: How much money was there on the table to merit this Pamatong tidbits published?