Reporting year one of the Aquino administration
By John Reiner M. Antiquerra
Published in PJR Reports, July-August 2011
SWEPT TO power in 2010 by a majority unprecedented in the country’s history, President Benigno Aquino III started his inaugural speech with the statement to the people that “Kayo ang boss ko. (You are my bosses)”. While that statement and his background as the son of the country’s first People Power president suggested that Aquino was committed to the empowerment of the people, the press covered the new Aquino presidency almost solely on the premise that his administration would focus on anti-corruption and good governance.
PJR Reports reviewed media’s coverage of Aquino and the issues that hounded the young administration during the past year, and found the coverage uneven.
Aug. 23 hostage-taking
As a new administration took over, the media began to adjust to the new government’s style and how it was likely to deal with the media, government coverage being a two-way street in which both parties had to measure each other. Because of his seemingly pro-media and press freedom statements during the campaign, the media looked at Aquino more positively than they did the past administration.
But just a few weeks after Aquino assumed power, the media was already tangling with the government in circumstances that threatened to develop into mutual hostility.
The botched government operations on the Aug. 23, 2010 hostage-taking crisis in Manila, where nine died including the hostage taker, was the first case involving the media that revealed not only the media’s own flaws, but also how limited still was the young administration’s capacity to defuse crises.
The live coverage of TV and radio networks played a crucial role in the failure of government attempts to put a quick and safe end to the hostage-taking crisis. The location of the Special Weapons and Tactics team in the area, the movement of the police and the arrest of Mendoza’s brother were all reported live. Some media people also acted as negotiators, in the process hampering police attempts to communicate with the hostage taker and end the crisis. Live coverage enabled Mendoza, who had access to the TV on board the bus, to monitor police operations.
Media mistakes in the coverage of the hostage taking crisis were described by Aquino as “irresponsible and bordering on the criminal” and could have led to the restriction of press freedom if the government had carried out its threat to pass laws restrictive of media coverage and to declare news blackouts during crises.
But the media alone were not responsible for the bloody outcome of the crisis. The hostage-taking incident revealed the consequences to public policy and implementation of the conflict between the “Balay” and “Samar” factions in the Aquino administration.
The top officials mainly responsible for the management of the hostage-taking crisis, Department of Interior and Local Government Sec. Jesse Robredo and Usec. Rico Puno, are allegedly members of the “Balay” group and “Samar” group, respectively.
The Balay group is supposedly composed of Liberal Party members and the Hyatt 10 group of former government officials who supported Aquino’s running mate and now Transportation and Communications Sec. Mar Roxas II in the May 2010 elections. The Samar group, on the other hand, is supposedly composed of Aquino allies who supported Vice-President Jejomar Binay to win.
Especially in the communications group of the President, there are divisions along the same lines which the protagonists have not even bothered to conceal. This rift in the government, the August 23 incident showed, became an impediment to the success of the rescue operations.
Aquino administration officials, have denied the existence of the “Balay” and “Samar” factions in the government. But in the communications group the division has been evident, especially that between Sec. Ramon “Ricky” Carandang of the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office who is allegedly a member of the Balay group, and Sec. Herminio Coloma of the Presidential Communications Operations Office allegedly of the “Samar” group.
This division adversely affected the communication of policies and statements of the administration, with the contending members of the communications group often providing media conflicting information on government policies and actions.
To reporters covering the Aug. 23 hostage-taking crisis, for example, Carandang said the Palace had not assigned anyone to deal with the media and that it had yet to develop guidelines on the coverage of crisis situations. But on another occasion, Carandang expressed surprise upon being told that Coloma had told the media that Malacañang and media groups had agreed to adopt coverage guidelines during crises after the Aug. 23 incident.
The alleged bias of Carandang and Lacierda for ABS-CBN 2 is often criticized by other media organizations. For example, Lacierda was late in one press conference because he was a guest at the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC) where he gave a preview of what he later said during the press conference. There are also allegations that Aquino’s first State of the Nation Address (SONA) speech was leaked to the TV network ahead of other media outfits.
Comments are closed.