Another Inquirer “mistake” (Updated)

JEERS TO the Philippine Daily Inquirer for the flagrant inaccuracies in its front-page story “NDF Anniversary: Bayan Muna clears NPA: No extortion, it’s civil war” dated April 24 that tend to put a party-list group in a bad light.

Conflict of interest REPORTER NIKKO Dizon, whose byline appeared in the April 24 Philippine Daily Inquirer article “Bayan clears NPA: No extortion, it’s civil war“, covers the defense beat for the said newspaper. She recently completed her Master’s in National Security Administration at the National Defense College of the Philippines and has been commissioned a lieutenant colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines Reserve Force, according to an Inquirer report. Read more

Assuming it was indeed a mistake on the heels of previous ones, and not a deliberate and malicious attempt at political partisanship, the Inquirer mistook Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) for Bayan Muna. The former is an alliance of several sectoral organizations, while the latter is a party-list group that just happens to be, according to the latest surveys, leading in the party-list elections this May.

A BAYAN statement signed by Renato Reyes Jr. posted on its website on April 23 was instead attributed to Bayan Muna. The Inquirer also tagged Renato Reyes Jr. as “secretary general of the leftist group Bayan Muna.” Reyes is not a member of the party-list group.

Although the Inquirer reposted the article on its website and corrected its supposed error, BAYAN’s “statement on the NPA (New People’s Army) action involving Mayor Ruth Guingona” was clearly taken out of context. BAYAN’s statement was on the “need to resume formal peace talks between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines.” However, the Inquirer chose to highlight the part where BAYAN said that an Armed Forces of the Philippines statement on NPA checkpoints was “meant to make the incident appear as a case of plain extortion, detached from the bigger picture which is the ongoing civil war and the stalled peace negotiations.” The headline then said that Bayan Muna had “cleared” the NPA when the statement had said no such thing.

BAYAN even declared in its press statement its “solidarity with the Guingona family during this difficult time” and  suggested that “complaints by the aggrieved parties can be brought directly to the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) through the GPH-NDFP Joint Monitoring Committee on the Comprehensive Agreement for Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.” But the Inquirer did not mention this part of the statement, which contradicts the claim that the organization had “cleared” the NPA.

The Inquirer also linked the statement it falsely attributed to Bayan Muna to the NDFP’s 40th anniversary. BAYAN did not mention the anniversary at all in its press statement. A photo of an NDFP lightning rally was also used to illustrate the error-filled story, making it look as if the party-list group Bayan muna had something to do with the celebration. The Inquirer also included in its story a statement from the NDFP lawyer to emphasize Bayan Muna’s supposed connection with the NDFP.

BAYAN Chair Carol Araullo emailed CMFR to complain about the Inquirer’s “irresponsible treatment” of the BAYAN press statement on the incident involving the NPA and Guingona.

Araullo also attached a letter addressed to the Editors and Ombudsman of the Inquirer saying: “BAYAN’s statement had nothing to do with, and made no mention of, the NDF anniversary, yet the editors made the decision of using a headline that links the two, as well as placing a picture of what appears to be an NDF lightning rally. We don’t think such linking was inadvertent and clearly smacks of red-baiting.”

Araullo added that the media often mistake BAYAN for Bayan Muna and vice versa,  but that “over the years, the distinctions have become quite clear and PDI was among those media outlets able to correctly distinguish between the two.”

“That this happened during the campaign period of the 2013 elections raises even more questions on the purpose of the editors,” Araullo said.

In a subsequent issue on April 25, the Inquirer published an article on the NPA with the headline: “Palace to NPA: Make our day.” The article said that Armed Forces spokesperson Col. Arnulfo Burgos, Jr. had dismissed the statement of BAYAN secretary general Renato Reyes, Jr. that there was an ongoing civil war. The Inquirer mentioned BAYAN after the AFP statement on the NPA, making it appear that there is some connection between the two.

This is not the first time that the Inquirer has revealed its political and ideological bias against any group that it perceives to be “leftist.” Its free use of that term has served to enhance already existing prejudices against groups and individuals active in Congress and social movements. In one instance, on March 18, 2010, a story on the Hacienda Luisita dispute—which former New York Times and International Herald Tribune stringer Carlos H. Conde helped put together*—became the occasion for the Inquirer to write an editorial critical of the article because Conde had interviewed then Anakpawis party-list Congressman Rafael Mariano whom the Inquirer had repeatedly described as a “leftist,” implying that no one with “leftist” views deserves being quoted because they’re “biased”.

Ideological bias is common in the dominant media, the political and economic interests of which are firmly rooted in keeping things the way they are in this country, despite their pretense at being critical and even reformist. It is also among the least remarked among their biases, and among the most insidious. It demonizes individuals and groups who hold unpopular views, and denies them access to the dominant media—the very same media which, oddly enough, often shrilly demand that such individuals and the groups to which they belong get involved in Philippine politics and electoral contests. The practice also limits public discourse through the media to ideas that are merely popular and with which the public has been made comfortable by the media themselves, to the exclusion of ideas that while not popular may have more relevance.

In a text message to PJR Reports, Inquirer ombudsman Elena Pernia said correction regarding Reyes’ affiliation (BAYAN instead of Bayan Muna) has been made online. Asked about other BAYAN’s complaints, Pernia said she is “still waiting for couple of responses.” As of this writing, PJRR has yet to receive her comments.

UPDATES

(MAY 30, 2013)

*The Inquirer’s John Nery noted that the story, which appeared on March 14, 2010, was not bylined by Carlos Conde. The story appeared under the byline of Norimitsu Onishi. Conde was part of the entire process of putting the story together. His involvement included, but was not limited to, doing research, identifying interviewees, and arranging interviews.

(MAY 8, 2013)

Eleven days after BAYAN complained about the Inquirer’s April 24 issue, the latter published BAYAN’s letter to the editor, albeit not in full.

The Inquirer posted on its website, ‘‘‘Out-of-context’ Inquirer story is unfair to Bayan” on the evening of May 5. It also saw print the following day. BAYAN had asked the editors to print their original statement in full; however, the Inquirer printed only the link to the statement.