A Column That Bombed

What’s perfume to a columnist is lechon sauce to her readers
A Column That Bombed
By Junette B. Galagala

FROM OUT of the blue, a society reporter’s personal travel account generated death threats and triggered a debate within media about issues such as editorial judgment, ethics, and freedom of expression to the power of blogs and the online community.
“From Boracay to Greece,” lifestyle writer Malu Fernandez’s article in the June 2007 People Asia, drew a lot of flak not only from overseas Filipino workers—who were one of the subjects of the offending piece—but also from the online community. Criticisms and calls to boycott People Asia and Manila Standard Today, where Fernandez is a columnist, spread like wildfire in the Internet.
The Fernandez  article said: “However, I forgot that the hub was in Dubai and the majority of the OFWs (overseas Filipino workers) were stationed there. The duty-free shop was overrun with Filipino workers selling cell phones and perfume. Meanwhile, I wanted to slash my wrist at the thought of being trapped in a plane with all of them.”
It added that Fernandez thought she had died and that God had sent her to her private hell when she settled in the plane, with all of the Filipino workers allegedly yelling, “HOY! Kumusta ka na? At taga saan ka?  Domestic helper ka rin ba? (Hey, how are you? Where are you from? Are you also a domestic helper?)”
On the flight home, she mused: “This time I had already resigned myself to being trapped like a sardine in a sardine can with all these OFWs smelling of AXE and Charlie cologne while my Jo Malone evaporated into thin air.”
Readers did not find Fernandez’s brand of “witticism” funny or even witty. One question raised was: why did the editors allow the article to see print?
People Asia editor-in-chief Joanne Rae Ramirez said the magazine merely upheld Fernandez’s right to self-expression. She said it was characteristic of Fernandez not to choose the people she criticized. The article was shown to the magazine’s lawyers, who said it was not libelous.
Libel, however, was not the issue, and neither is the right to free expression a defense. As any self-respecting journalist can tell both Ramirez and Fernandez, the exercise of that right is premised on observance of the code of ethics of journalism, which among other standards bars journalists from singling out and stereotyping vulnerable individuals and groups.
A far from contrite Fernandez nevertheless replied to the negative comments in her Standard Today column, “Divalicious,” on July 30:
“The bottom line was just that I had offended the reader’s socioeconomic background. If any of these people actually read anything thicker than a magazine they would find it very funny. Most people don’t get the fact that they need bitches like me to shake up their world, otherwise their lives would be boring and mediocre. I obviously write for a certain target audience and if what I write offends you, just stop reading.
“Although it may sound elitist to you the fact is this country is built on the foundation of haves, have-nots and wannabes. One group will never get the culture of the other…. Now I seriously ask you, am I being a diva or are people around me just lacking in common sense? Perhaps it’s a little of both!”
The response only enraged more Filipinos.  Josel Gonzales, among the bloggers who posted the Malu Fernandez controversy, said in Media in Focus that his site’s number of hits increased from a daily average of 50 to 60 hits to 348 after he posted “Mahaderang Matapobre.”
But it was not only the article that attracted attention. Readers found an irresistible target in the pictures of the rotund Fernandez that were posted along with her article. Matching Fernandez’s venom, a critic tartly said, “Ilabas na si Mang Tomas (Bring out Mang Tomas)!,” a reference to the bottled sauce that goes with the favorite fiesta fare of Filipinos,  roasted pig.
Eventually, Fernandez issued an apology online. She wrote:
“I am deeply apologetic for my insensitivity and the offensive manner in which this article was written, I hear you all and I am properly rebuked. It was truly not my intention to malign, hurt or express prejudice against OFWs…
“As the recent recipient and target of death threats, hate blogs, and deeply personal insults, I now truly understand the insidiousness of discri-mination and prejudice disguised as humor … ”
The apology was also printed in the Philippine Star, People Asia’s sister publication, on Aug. 24. Fernandez then submitted resignation letters to both People Asia and Standard Today, which she noted in her apology.
But in the Aug. 30 episode of Media in Focus, Fernandez sent a text message, saying she has refused interviews because “it will just make things worse. Anything I say will be futile. That lynch mob that went after me was not (reacting) in proportion to my mistake.”
Standard Today columnist Connie Veneracion wrote that there had been two types of reactions to the Fernandez issue. One was more restrained and merely requested for a public apology. The other went overboard, calling Fernandez names, which she said, was part of a mob mentality.
Journalist Ricky Carandang in Media in Focus said it was unfair to call those who reacted to Fernandez’s article a lynch mob since they, too, were only expressing their opinions. He pointed out that columnists put out their opinions to be read, and therefore they have to be prepared for readers who will be “angry, disappointed, insulted.”
People Asia accepted Fernandez’s resignation but Standard Today did not.
In August 2006, an almost similar incident had happened with the column of former Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz titled “Don we now our gay apparel.” Readers, particularly members of the gay community, and Cruz’s fellow columnist, Manolo Quezon, bitterly criticized the piece for being prejudiced.
Cruz did not apologize but in fact defended his column. Citing the French philosopher Voltaire and American justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he maintained that freedom of speech covered the right to express opinions that are offensive to others. He was apparently unfamiliar with the Philippine Journalists’ Code of Ethics and the Inquirer’s own Bluebook—the publication’s inhouse ethics standards manual—both of which warn that it is unethical to stereotype and discriminate against groups one doesn’t approve of on the sole basis of their politics, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual preference.
The Inquirer sought to bring the matter to a close by reiterating in its editorial the newspaper’s position against all forms of discrimination, but did not otherwise censure Cruz.

Comments are closed.