An exercise in incoherence

I CAN only guess at the objective of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) “roundtable” with Janet Lim Napoles, the primary object of a five month inquiry by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for her involvement in what has now been called the “pork barrel scam.”

I do not know what was intended, sharing the opportunity as it were to come up close and personal with the person whose current notoriety has given her the dubious distinction of her own personal space in the country’s gallery of rogues. She has made it up there where Imeldific extravagance, Corona’s craft, and GMA’s brazen corruption hold the mirror to our most base selves.

Those who patiently slogged through the transcript of the “discussion” felt rather cheated in the end, as the long exchange, published in four parts, did not follow a thread of thought that one could hold on to; nor reveal any information that might clinch one’s conviction of culpability or innocence. Ironically, in response to a question, she directed the Inquirer to listen na lang to a TV interview which she had already done but which had not yet aired. That means, someone else got the answer to at least one of the questions raised by the Inquirer staff in attendance.

There are interviews and interviews. In published form, these are edited down to the most salient and most informative portions of the journalists’ exchange. Quite often, a journalist has to warm up the subject, put the interviewee at ease, gain his or her trust, much of which involves small talk, jokes even, all of which would be superfluous to the purposes of the reader wanting and needing to know. And these are carefully edited out of the published text. I think that only when dealing with showbiz celebrities, and in writing for “fans” would such asides have any value. Very rarely, would the public care to listen to every ahh and erm of the subject in question.

The transcript included even the passages which were unintelligible, noting these in parentheses, even those uttered by their own staff, who could’ve been asked to provide the missing text. The transcript then is a record of the lack of reason or order to the process and thus to the PDI’s line of questioning. Investigative interviews come up with leads and sometimes answers. But the responses coming from one person being interviewed still need to be corroborated by others or by other documents.

Dubbed by the PDI as a roundtable, we expected a moderated discussion. This would have required a plan, some framework that would guide the line of inquiry. At the very least, a list of subject areas to be covered could have been agreed upon on the side of PDI.  The point is to lead a discussion so it can yield new information, clarification, perhaps, even an agreement about the truth of or lack of it in some matters.

Unfortunately, this did not happen. Napoles denied vigorously, but such denials were all pro forma, and not to be accepted as credible, given the circumstances. What information she gave was vague or simply incredible.

Holding such “roundtables” serve a purpose. These exchanges usually provide leads or suggest the areas that need more journalistic sorting out. As journalism, and even with the most coherent of subjects, these are rarely useful in the raw.

I would have taken their word for it, if they came up with a report that highlighted what they thought interesting and relevant; or simply what they found particularly revealing of her character and personality. To give us the raw transcript is presumptuous of the importance of the roundtable itself. The issue is important and we have credited PDI and its reporter, with having been the first with the story of the NBI investigation.

As interview, roundtable, or investigative journalism, it was useless, and hardly worth the time required to read through the transcript. This we cannot blame on Napoles. We have PDI to blame for the waste of time.

Inquirer columnist, Randy David, found it instructive as a bit of micro-sociology. In his column published at the time of the fourth installment, he expressed his doubt about its value for journalism.

I would have to agree. PDI space is best given to the findings of paper’s enterprising reporters, working with other agents and sources, putting the pieces together to make a coherent whole, or part of the whole.