Reporting Mindanao: ‘A series of unfortunate events’

By Jose Torres Jr.

A series of unfortunate events”— from “bad beginnings” in the past to what could be the “penultimate peril” lately —can best describe the situation in Mindanao and how the Philippine media reported it.

There were shining moments: We were not as ignorant as we had been in the past about the situation. We did our best to provide context to our stories, to look at the situation with maturity, and to give voice to the different players in the conflict, conscious that the post 9/11 world that witnessed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is watching.

Unfortunately, as the situation on the ground started to get blurry and emotions to run high, many of us, as Froilan Gallardo of Sun.Star described it, started to “rave and rant” and forgot all the lessons we ‘ve learned from previous mistakes.

The events in Mindanao—the kidnapping of Cecilia Victoria “Ces” Drilon in Sulu, the controversy over the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the armed clashes in Lanao del Norte and North Cotabato, and the bomb threats and actual bombings—have all the ingredients for front page and prime time stories.

But to the dismay of our audience, and even some of us, many of the stories we churned out were incomplete and wanting of the facts that could have cleared up the confusion.

The stories on Ms. Drilon’s abduction continue to link the Abu Sayyaf Group to the incident even after those involved in the “unfortunate event” had said otherwise.

On the issue of MOA-AD, Mindanao-based journalist Gallardo, a veteran in the coverage of the conflict in the region, complained in an open letter to media that reporting on the issue had gone “directly to the color without looking at the meat of the story.”

Reporters and commentators delved into the MOA-AD story without reading the document even after copies had been released to the media. Thus we have, for instance, conflicting figures on how many villages are supposed to be included in the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE).

Some reported that 1,000 villages would be included in the proposed BJE, others said about 700. Actually, the MOA-AD initialed by the government and the MILF on July 27 identified 735 villages under Category A and 1,459 villages under Category B.

Gallardo said Moros predominantly reside in most of these villages, which by the way were not picked at random. The residents signified their intention to be part of the entity when the MILF conducted consultations in the past two years.

Even the term BJE has been taken as synonymous to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao when it is only used in the document as a description of the proposed “entity” that will be established after a plebiscite is held.

Diving into the story

“We dove into the story without the basic knowledge of what the MOA was all about,” observed Gallardo, adding that the media became part of the confusion instead of providing the relevant information for people to be informed and to decide for themselves.

Among the facts many of us failed to cite in our stories on the MOA were:

• That a plebiscite will be held a year after the signing of the MOA

• That another plebiscite will be held 25 years from the signing to ask residents of the 1,459 villages the same thing

• That the cities of Zamboanga, Iligan and even the province of Zamboanga del Norte staged similar protest actions when then President Ramos created the Southern Philippines Development Authority (SPDA)

• That life went on in these cities and in Mindanao after the rallies and demonstrations when people realized that there was nothing to fear about the SPDA

In the reporting of the armed clashes between some MILF members and government forces in Lanao and Cotabato, the tendency to “pit Christians against Muslims” in our stories also became evident.

A story from the Associated Press used by several local media outfits labeled the politicians commenting on the situation and the government troops who joined the military operation as “Christian politicians” and “Christian soldiers” fighting it out with “Muslim rebels” who had attacked “Christian villages.”

Professor Miriam Ferrer of the University of the Philippines, commenting on the story, said:

“I think it is counterproductive, even potentially dangerous, to use the term ‘Christian villages.’ To use ‘Christian’ or ‘Catholic’ as shorthand unnecessarily highlights the religious component with the possible effect of inflaming religious passions. Besides, those affected places are not pure this or that, as they are mixed communities.”

“Let’s not foment a religious war with irresponsible framing of the unfolding events. If we need to qualify, it might be better to use the terms ‘Moro’ or ‘non-Moro’ (who may be lumad or settler communities) instead of Christians and Muslims. These terms more accurately reflect the ethno-political nature of the conflict. The conflict in Mindanao is not a religious war, not yet, anyway.”

Gallardo cited a story which labeled the attack of the MILF supporters as an “Islamic insurgency.”

In an exchange of emails among news managers and deskpersons at GMA-7, Howie Severino warned that “it is always dangerous to identify warring communities or wrongdoers by religion, especially in situations where religion is not the bone of contention.”

I agreed with Howie. Journalists covering Mindanao must go back to the basics and understand the history and culture of the region.

Many Manila-based reporters and commentators became instant experts on the situation after only a few trips to Zamboanga or Cotabato, and without even knowing the dynamics between the Moro National Liberation Front and the MILF, the business and political interests of the politicians, and the background of their sources of information.

There were instances that “loaded” terms like jihad and mujahideen, which were fed to the media by the likes of Kumander Bravo, were used without explaining its meaning, nuances and implications. Let us remember that interest groups in Mindanao, including Muslims, Christians and Lumads, will take advantage of the situation.

How can we just quote Bravo, for instance, without an accompanying definition of terms, when he said the attacks in Kolambugan were done by mujahideens out to do jihad (holy war) when Islam prohibits a mujahideen from killing old men, women and children.

Islamic scholars have always maintained that a mujahideen must “not injure date palms and cut down fruit trees. Do not slaughter any sheep or cows or camels except for food. Do not burn houses and places of worship such as churches, temples and monasteries. Leave priests and monks alone and do not molest them. These are the rules of war in Islam.”

Muslims as enemies

A Moro friend rightly observed: “Unwittingly, the media contributed to the creation of a myth—the myth that presents Muslims as enemies of the state and of the majority.”

The media, as displayed in the recent incidents in the South, played a big role in widening the divide between Muslims and Christians in Mindanao by, through sheer ignorance, projecting the conflict as a religious war, as a conflict between good versus evil, Christian against Muslim, the government versus forces wanting to establish an Independent Islamic state.

We have ignored the historical context of the Mindanao conflict, to the point of influencing public opinion and condoning, if not actually encouraging, acts of cultural violence.

A study by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility in 2000 revealed that of the 1,428 news articles and opinion columns on the Mindanao crisis during the Estrada administration, sources of 1,055 of those articles were from government. The Abu Sayyaf was the source in 72 of the articles; the MILF in 67; the business community in 18, the civil society in 37; the religious sector in 38; and others in 141 stories.

It’s interesting to see how we fare in our recent coverage.

We in GMA-7 have tried to highlight the voices of other Mindanao leaders who do not see the conflict in religious or biased terms. “Moderate Muslim leaders have been publicly condemning the violence. They should at least be given comparable airtime,” our news managers agreed in one exchange of ideas.

Failure to give voice to ordinary people—the real victims of the crisis— contributed to bias in reporting. The media’s failure to present the bigger picture also sowed fear and alarm, not only on the general population but also on policymakers who issued knee-jerk statements that led to further misunderstanding and more conflict.

How many of us in the media have reported that amid the armed clashes and the confusion in North Cotabato, a beauty pageant participated in by both Muslim and Christian ladies was held, a tree-planting activity was conducted, and life went on in colorful town markets in other parts of the province?

The view that Mindanao is a war-torn, conflict-ridden island is due mainly to media’s reporting. We have always given value to “conflict” as news, disregarding its absence as worthy of our attention. We have to review our news values, or we will continue to face “a series of unfortunate events” that could lead to an undesirable end. n

Jose Torres Jr. is officer in charge of Editorial Operations of GMANews.TV, and chair of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines.

Comments are closed.