By Sol Bello
We previously discussed the things an injured worker should do in order to be able to claim for workers’ compensation benefits. This article will discuss the things that a benefit claimant should do to be able to get all the possible benefits he/she is entitled under workers’ compensation law:
Claiming for workers’ compensation benefits is complicated as it is and in order to be assured that you get all benefits to which you are entitled, you must do certain things to protect your claim:
From the time you report your injury to your employer, a stream of papers will be coming your way and you should have a system of gathering, saving and classifying them.
1. Keep a record of where, when and how the injury was sustained. Normally when an injury is sustained at work a ‘report of injury’ is done and made a part of the injured employee’s file. You should get a copy of this report as part of your own record. Make a note of any person who witnessed the incident of the injury.
You should also maintain a copy of the completed claim form (DWC-1) which you submitted to your employer.
2. Keep a file of all records of treatment, medical reports which you get from your doctor or medical facility where you had your treatments or tests and all other which the insurance carrier provides you. If you think that you are missing a report or record, you are entitled to have a copy of it and you should request one from your doctor or from the insurance carrier. These must be kept in chronological order.
3. Documents and correspondences received from your employer, insurance carrier or any other person involved in your claim should also be gathered and compiled in chronological order. If you send out any document relative to your claim, you must keep copies and proof that they have been sent.
4. Keep a record of your earnings, income tax returns and other tax documents at least the year immediately prior to your injury. If you received any unemployment or social security benefits from the time of your injury to the date your claim is concluded, you should also make a record of them.
5. The days you were off work on doctor’s order should be maintained in chronological order.
6. Payments made to you by the insurance carrier by way of temporary disability benefits as well as permanent disability advances before the case is concluded or finished must be carefully noted. Include the dates when check was issued, when it was received and the period for which payment is made.
7. You are entitled to be reimbursed for your expenses going to and from your doctor. You should keep track of your mileage, parking and toll fees.
8. Keep a record of all out of pocket expenses for your treatment. Treatment co-pays, prescription and other medical and chiropractic bills paid for by you are reimbursable but you must have proof of payment for them.
Mr. Sol Bellos and Mr. Ken Nakatas areas of law practice is limited to Workers Compensation claim (work related injures) and Personal Injury. (Car accident/slip and fall) Mr. Bello is fluent in Ilocano and Tagalog. The Law Offices of Sol D. Bello is located at 111 N. Market Street, Suite 415, San Jose, CA 95113, Tel. No. (408) 297-9088; sol.bello@yahoo.com
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
VIRTUAL REALITY: The economy under Aquino does not create jobs. Worse, it destroys jobs
By Tony Lopez
THIS you have to reconcile. The economy has been growing incredibly fast. President Benigno Simeon Aquino III has claimed credit for it. He has been in office for almost a year now. He has a right to assert his bragging right.
But during the same period, unemployment was rising faster, at an even more incredible pace.
This is happening at a time when the sitting government is supposedly clean. Sa matuwid na daan. Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap. [In the straight path. When no one is corrupt, no one is poor.]
In 2010, the economy grew at its fastest in 30 years at 7.6 percent (using 2000 as the new base year; growth was 7.3 percent with the old base year).
Between September 2010 and March 4-7, 2011, the number of jobless swelled by a stupendous 3.9 million, from 7.4 million to 11.3 million. This is according to the Social Weather Stations survey of March 4-7, 2011 published May 25.
Of the 11.3 million jobless, 9 percent or 1.017 million were fired; another 10 percent or 1.13 million resigned. Total fired and resigned: 19 percent or 2.147 million.
The 2.147 million is the number of people who lost their jobs in six of the 11 months of the administration of President Aquino III, an economist by education. That’s an average of 357,833 job loss per month. These are people with jobs when Aquino took office. By March or earlier, they had lost their jobs.
Now, 357,833 is equivalent to 357,833 families or almost two million Filipinos. Incredible enough, majority of Filipinos still love or like their laid-back Porsche-loving president.
Ordinarily, even if the president of the Philippines were a dog and is doing nothing or is lazy, the economy by itself, by sheer momentum or gravity, should create up to a million jobs a year. A good president adds another one million jobs, for a total of two million job creation per year. That is not happening.
Between September 2010 and November 2010, 2.5 million became or were declared jobless. From November 2010 to early March 2011, an additional 1.4 million became jobless. Total addition to the jobless ranks in less than six months –3.9 million (2.5 million plus 1.4 million).
Clearly, the economy of President Aquino III is not only not creating jobs. It is destroying jobs. If he wants to claim credit for the high economic growth, he should also take the blame for the massive job losses which are unprecedented in scale, severity and sustainability.
In the Middle East and North Africa, high unemployment, along with growing illiteracy, triggered the so-called Arab Spring whereby thousands of young people, mostly unemployed, spilled into the streets in mass protests. The phenomenon has also erupted in Greece and Spain which has the highest unemployment rate in the whole of Europe.
The Philippines has among the highest unemployment rates in Asia. If you include underemployment which counts people working part-time and people overqualified for their present job, one in every four adult Filipinos is jobless.
In fact, the SWS March 2011 survey has much higher figures. It says adult unemployment rose to 27.2 percent, or an estimated 11.3 million, from 18.9 percent (7.4 million) in September 2010 and 23.5 percent (9.9 million) in November 2010.
Since jobs are being lost at a massive scale, the number of poor people naturally is also increasing. No wonder, President Aquino’s job approval ratings are nose-diving with him barely a year in office. He is the only president in the last quarter century whose job approval rating went down within his or her first year.
If the fastest economic growth in the last quarter century cannot create jobs, how much more is a slower growth rate.
Indeed, the economy is slowing down. First quarter growth in GDP (Gross Domestic Product or the value of goods and services produced during the period) was 4.9 percent—lower than forecast and lower than the performance than half of countries of Southeast Asia.
The amazing thing about the slow GDP rise in the first quarter is not that the government didn’t have money. It had plenty of money. Its surplus was a record in the last 25 years.
Why didn’t the Aquino government spend the money? There are two reasons: One, it didn’t know what to do or where to spend the money because until now, programs or projects are not clearly defined and in place. Two, the administration has this fixation with limiting spending deficit, something like less than three percent of GDP.
The budget to deficit ratio has long ago been discarded as a measure of a country’s financial discipline or economic stability. Domi-nique Strauss-Kahn, before he got embroiled in his latest sexual escapade, discarded it when he was the IMF managing director. DSK, an economist, found out the rich countries were the biggest violators of the deficit-to-GDP ratio ceiling.
THIS you have to reconcile. The economy has been growing incredibly fast. President Benigno Simeon Aquino III has claimed credit for it. He has been in office for almost a year now. He has a right to assert his bragging right.
But during the same period, unemployment was rising faster, at an even more incredible pace.
This is happening at a time when the sitting government is supposedly clean. Sa matuwid na daan. Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap. [In the straight path. When no one is corrupt, no one is poor.]
In 2010, the economy grew at its fastest in 30 years at 7.6 percent (using 2000 as the new base year; growth was 7.3 percent with the old base year).
Between September 2010 and March 4-7, 2011, the number of jobless swelled by a stupendous 3.9 million, from 7.4 million to 11.3 million. This is according to the Social Weather Stations survey of March 4-7, 2011 published May 25.
Of the 11.3 million jobless, 9 percent or 1.017 million were fired; another 10 percent or 1.13 million resigned. Total fired and resigned: 19 percent or 2.147 million.
The 2.147 million is the number of people who lost their jobs in six of the 11 months of the administration of President Aquino III, an economist by education. That’s an average of 357,833 job loss per month. These are people with jobs when Aquino took office. By March or earlier, they had lost their jobs.
Now, 357,833 is equivalent to 357,833 families or almost two million Filipinos. Incredible enough, majority of Filipinos still love or like their laid-back Porsche-loving president.
Ordinarily, even if the president of the Philippines were a dog and is doing nothing or is lazy, the economy by itself, by sheer momentum or gravity, should create up to a million jobs a year. A good president adds another one million jobs, for a total of two million job creation per year. That is not happening.
Between September 2010 and November 2010, 2.5 million became or were declared jobless. From November 2010 to early March 2011, an additional 1.4 million became jobless. Total addition to the jobless ranks in less than six months –3.9 million (2.5 million plus 1.4 million).
Clearly, the economy of President Aquino III is not only not creating jobs. It is destroying jobs. If he wants to claim credit for the high economic growth, he should also take the blame for the massive job losses which are unprecedented in scale, severity and sustainability.
In the Middle East and North Africa, high unemployment, along with growing illiteracy, triggered the so-called Arab Spring whereby thousands of young people, mostly unemployed, spilled into the streets in mass protests. The phenomenon has also erupted in Greece and Spain which has the highest unemployment rate in the whole of Europe.
The Philippines has among the highest unemployment rates in Asia. If you include underemployment which counts people working part-time and people overqualified for their present job, one in every four adult Filipinos is jobless.
In fact, the SWS March 2011 survey has much higher figures. It says adult unemployment rose to 27.2 percent, or an estimated 11.3 million, from 18.9 percent (7.4 million) in September 2010 and 23.5 percent (9.9 million) in November 2010.
Since jobs are being lost at a massive scale, the number of poor people naturally is also increasing. No wonder, President Aquino’s job approval ratings are nose-diving with him barely a year in office. He is the only president in the last quarter century whose job approval rating went down within his or her first year.
If the fastest economic growth in the last quarter century cannot create jobs, how much more is a slower growth rate.
Indeed, the economy is slowing down. First quarter growth in GDP (Gross Domestic Product or the value of goods and services produced during the period) was 4.9 percent—lower than forecast and lower than the performance than half of countries of Southeast Asia.
The amazing thing about the slow GDP rise in the first quarter is not that the government didn’t have money. It had plenty of money. Its surplus was a record in the last 25 years.
Why didn’t the Aquino government spend the money? There are two reasons: One, it didn’t know what to do or where to spend the money because until now, programs or projects are not clearly defined and in place. Two, the administration has this fixation with limiting spending deficit, something like less than three percent of GDP.
The budget to deficit ratio has long ago been discarded as a measure of a country’s financial discipline or economic stability. Domi-nique Strauss-Kahn, before he got embroiled in his latest sexual escapade, discarded it when he was the IMF managing director. DSK, an economist, found out the rich countries were the biggest violators of the deficit-to-GDP ratio ceiling.
FROM THE CAPITOL: CA May End Life Sentences for Youth
By State Senator Leland Yee
No other country in the world outside of the United States allows children to be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). In California alone, there are approximately 275 people serving LWOP for crimes they committed as kids.
However, on a 21-16 vote by the California State Senate, our state is one step closer, in line with the rest of the world by ending life without parole (LWOP) sentences for kids.
Under Senate Bill 9, courts could review cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after fifteen years, potentially allowing some individuals to receive a new minimum sentence of twenty five years to life. The bill would require the offender to show remorse and be working towards rehabilitation in order to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence.
In an attempt I made in the previous session, SB 399, was also approved by the Senate last year but died during the final days of session in the Assembly.
The neuroscience is clear – brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are not yet fully developed. SB 9 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors. SB 9 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it is an incredibly modest proposal that respects victims, international law, and the fact that children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults.
Supporters of SB 9 include child advocates, mental health experts, faith communities, and civil rights groups.
“In California, a sentence of life without parole is a sentence to die in prison,” said Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. “Teenagers are still developing. No one – not a judge, a psychologist, or a doctor – can look at a sixteen year old and be sure how that young person will turn out as an adult. It makes sense to re-examine these cases when the individual has grown up and becomes an adult. There’s no question that we can keep the public safe without locking youth up forever for crimes committed when they were still considered too young to have the judgment to vote or drive.”
Prosecutors and judges have discretion on whether to pursue LWOP for juveniles. However, several cases call such discretion into question.
One such case involves Christian Bracamontes, who was 16 and had never before been in trouble
with the law. One day when Christian’s friend said, “Hey do you want to rob this guy?” Christian replied in what can only be described as a quintessential adolescent response, “I don’t care.” When the victim refused to comply with his friend’s demand, Christian said he thought the bluff was called, and he remembered turning away and bending down to pick up his bike and leave, when he heard a gunshot.
The prosecutor offered a lower sentence, but in Christian’s teenaged mind he could not see how he would be responsible for the other person’s actions and he turned down that deal. The DA was quoted in the newspaper as saying, “It’s hard for teenagers to understand concepts like aiding and abetting.” Christian was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
A report published by Human Rights Watch found that in many cases where juveniles were prosecuted with an adult for the same offense, the youth received heavier sentences than their adult codefendants.
Despite popular belief to the contrary, Human Rights Watch found that life without parole is not reserved for children who commit the worst crimes or who show signs of being irredeemable criminals. Nationally, it is estimated that 59% of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions. Forty-five percent of California youth sentenced to life without parole for involvement in a murder did not actually kill the victim. Many were convicted of felony murder, or for aiding and abetting the murder, because they acted as lookouts or were participating in another felony, such as a robbery, when the murder took place.
Our state also has the worst record in the nation for racial disparity in the imposition of life without parole for juveniles. African American youth are serving the sentence at a rate that is eighteen times higher than the rate for white youth, and the rate for Hispanic youth is five times higher.
Each new youth offender given this sentence will cost the state upwards of $2.5 million. To continue incarcerating the current population of youth offenders already sentenced to life without parole until their deaths in prison will cost the state close to $700 million.
No other country in the world outside of the United States allows children to be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). In California alone, there are approximately 275 people serving LWOP for crimes they committed as kids.
However, on a 21-16 vote by the California State Senate, our state is one step closer, in line with the rest of the world by ending life without parole (LWOP) sentences for kids.
Under Senate Bill 9, courts could review cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after fifteen years, potentially allowing some individuals to receive a new minimum sentence of twenty five years to life. The bill would require the offender to show remorse and be working towards rehabilitation in order to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence.
In an attempt I made in the previous session, SB 399, was also approved by the Senate last year but died during the final days of session in the Assembly.
The neuroscience is clear – brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are not yet fully developed. SB 9 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors. SB 9 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it is an incredibly modest proposal that respects victims, international law, and the fact that children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults.
Supporters of SB 9 include child advocates, mental health experts, faith communities, and civil rights groups.
“In California, a sentence of life without parole is a sentence to die in prison,” said Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. “Teenagers are still developing. No one – not a judge, a psychologist, or a doctor – can look at a sixteen year old and be sure how that young person will turn out as an adult. It makes sense to re-examine these cases when the individual has grown up and becomes an adult. There’s no question that we can keep the public safe without locking youth up forever for crimes committed when they were still considered too young to have the judgment to vote or drive.”
Prosecutors and judges have discretion on whether to pursue LWOP for juveniles. However, several cases call such discretion into question.
One such case involves Christian Bracamontes, who was 16 and had never before been in trouble
with the law. One day when Christian’s friend said, “Hey do you want to rob this guy?” Christian replied in what can only be described as a quintessential adolescent response, “I don’t care.” When the victim refused to comply with his friend’s demand, Christian said he thought the bluff was called, and he remembered turning away and bending down to pick up his bike and leave, when he heard a gunshot.
The prosecutor offered a lower sentence, but in Christian’s teenaged mind he could not see how he would be responsible for the other person’s actions and he turned down that deal. The DA was quoted in the newspaper as saying, “It’s hard for teenagers to understand concepts like aiding and abetting.” Christian was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
A report published by Human Rights Watch found that in many cases where juveniles were prosecuted with an adult for the same offense, the youth received heavier sentences than their adult codefendants.
Despite popular belief to the contrary, Human Rights Watch found that life without parole is not reserved for children who commit the worst crimes or who show signs of being irredeemable criminals. Nationally, it is estimated that 59% of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions. Forty-five percent of California youth sentenced to life without parole for involvement in a murder did not actually kill the victim. Many were convicted of felony murder, or for aiding and abetting the murder, because they acted as lookouts or were participating in another felony, such as a robbery, when the murder took place.
Our state also has the worst record in the nation for racial disparity in the imposition of life without parole for juveniles. African American youth are serving the sentence at a rate that is eighteen times higher than the rate for white youth, and the rate for Hispanic youth is five times higher.
Each new youth offender given this sentence will cost the state upwards of $2.5 million. To continue incarcerating the current population of youth offenders already sentenced to life without parole until their deaths in prison will cost the state close to $700 million.
STREET TALK: Walang Kama-Kamaganak, Walang Kai-Kaibigan
By Greg Macabenta
The commentaries on the presidency of Noynoy Aquino have ranged from praise for economic gains and his determined campaign against graft and corruption, to allegations of laziness, incompetence and inaction over official abuses and inefficiency.
This has left the public confused. Which portrayal is true? Unfortunately, when in doubt, people choose to believe the worst. This is probably what has eroded the approval rating of Aquino.
The Malacañang communications group has been roundly castigated for failing to get out the good news about his administration’s achievements. Unfortunately, Edwin Lacierda, Ricky Carangdang and Sonny Coloma – mischievously dubbed the Three-Headed Hydra by pundits – could unleash a flood of positive press releases till they collapse from overwork, but the media will still choose and pick the most “interesting” stories. You can bet that most of that will be unflattering.
In Journalism school, you are taught that "dog bites man" is not news. What’s news is "man bites dog." People gravitate to that which is contrary, grotesque, intriguing, exciting or dramatic. In other words, news dressed up as showbusiness.
The propaganda handlers of Ramon Magsaysay (rumored to be CIA operatives) were masters of these dynamics. Thus, they depicted The Guy, during his presidential campaign and throughout his short-lived presidency, in dramatic situations. Cradling in his arms the bloodied remains of assassinated political leader, Moises Padilla. Jumping over farm ditches. Eating with his hands among the poor.
In contrast, Aquino has been portrayed with his million-peso Porsche and watching a pop concert with a beautiful girl. Hardly the kind of imagery that will enhance a presidency, especially one ostensibly anchored on anti-corruption, anti-poverty and “daang matuwid.”
These, of course, have been the work of an enterprising media sector eager to give the public its dose of entertainment disguised as current events. The failing of the palace communications group has been its inability to counterbalance that unflattering imagery.
So, how should Aquino’s advisers and his communications triumvirate handle this vexing situation? Instead of cursing the columnists, they might do well to think of ways to portray him in his most heroic, exciting and appealing presidential moments.
But not just ANY situation but those that most dramatically portray him as a champion who will slay the dragon of corruption and free the populace from the shackles of poverty.
Ideally, he should send Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, her relatives and her minions to jail. Nothing can match that for sheer spectacle. But that is unlikely to happen during his brief tenure. Look at what has NOT been done to the Marcoses, after all these years.
A more viable alternative is to tighten the screws on erring relatives and high officials in his administration, especially those reported to be his close friends. That should resonate with the citizenry.
If greater love has no man than that he should give up his life for his friend, then greater proof of sincerity has no president than that he should bring his own larcenous relatives and friends to justice.
Remember how Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew became legendary when he threatened to jail even his own parents if he caught them stealing from the public coffers? That clearly sent the message that he was a no-nonsense reformer.
In the case of Erap Estrada, the part in his inaugural speech that impressed the citizenry was his vow: “Walang kama-kamaganak, walang kai-kaibigan.”
Of course, we all know what happened to that promise. He promptly broke it.
Estrada’s friends and relatives were the monkeys on his back that eventually did him in. His “friends,” Chavit Singson and Atong Ang, fought over the spoils of illegal gambling. Estrada got caught in the crossfire. Singson sang on him. And that made Estrada history.
Rumors of rapacious relatives also spoiled the presidency of Cory Aquino. Kamaganak, Inc. became one of the dubious tags of her tenure and tainted an otherwise heroic record of service to the country.
Fast forward to the Noynoy Aquino presidency. In a peaceful reprise of People Power One, he was swept into office on the crest of citizen fury over allegations of corruption in the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, with her immediate family being accused of a number of shady deals.
Noynoy Aquino was perceived as the opposite of Arroyo. “Kung walang kurap, walang mahirap!” was his campaign promise.
So far, no one has doubted his sincerity in wanting to fulfill this promise. But his intentions, according to his critics, have not been translated into significant results.
In truth, decades of corruption cannot possibly be eliminated in one presidential term – not even in two. The cancer has so pervasively afflicted society that it will take decades to excise it.
But Aquino’s inaction in the face of demands for the scalp of his target shooting chum and undersecretary of interior Rico Puno marked him, early on, as loyal to his friends rather than to the Filipino people. Whether or not Puno did, in fact, deserve to be canned, was irrelevant to the public and the media.
The resignation of Bureau of Corrections Director Ernesto Diokno, in the wake of the controversy involving jailed former Batangas Governor Antonio Leviste, may have spared Aquino another demerit point for inaction, but it hardly served to enhance his image as a decisive president.
Washing his hands off the issue of Marcos’ proposed burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani has further portrayed him as a cop-out.
It’s only the first year of the Aquino presidency. In fairness to him, he has done several good things, and he has NOT done many of the bad that past administrations have traditionally been known to do upon assuming office.
To his credit, he has shown no partiality to his relatives, including the intending non-Muslim candidate in the ARRM polls, his aunt, Tingting Cojuangco. His sisters have also discreetly kept out of the news.
But what the people want to see are dramatic results. In fact, heroic results. And it may be something as simple as translating into concrete action the promise that Erap Estrada, as well as Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and other past presidents failed to fulfill:
“Walang kama-kamaganak. Walang kai-kaibigan.”
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
The commentaries on the presidency of Noynoy Aquino have ranged from praise for economic gains and his determined campaign against graft and corruption, to allegations of laziness, incompetence and inaction over official abuses and inefficiency.
This has left the public confused. Which portrayal is true? Unfortunately, when in doubt, people choose to believe the worst. This is probably what has eroded the approval rating of Aquino.
The Malacañang communications group has been roundly castigated for failing to get out the good news about his administration’s achievements. Unfortunately, Edwin Lacierda, Ricky Carangdang and Sonny Coloma – mischievously dubbed the Three-Headed Hydra by pundits – could unleash a flood of positive press releases till they collapse from overwork, but the media will still choose and pick the most “interesting” stories. You can bet that most of that will be unflattering.
In Journalism school, you are taught that "dog bites man" is not news. What’s news is "man bites dog." People gravitate to that which is contrary, grotesque, intriguing, exciting or dramatic. In other words, news dressed up as showbusiness.
The propaganda handlers of Ramon Magsaysay (rumored to be CIA operatives) were masters of these dynamics. Thus, they depicted The Guy, during his presidential campaign and throughout his short-lived presidency, in dramatic situations. Cradling in his arms the bloodied remains of assassinated political leader, Moises Padilla. Jumping over farm ditches. Eating with his hands among the poor.
In contrast, Aquino has been portrayed with his million-peso Porsche and watching a pop concert with a beautiful girl. Hardly the kind of imagery that will enhance a presidency, especially one ostensibly anchored on anti-corruption, anti-poverty and “daang matuwid.”
These, of course, have been the work of an enterprising media sector eager to give the public its dose of entertainment disguised as current events. The failing of the palace communications group has been its inability to counterbalance that unflattering imagery.
So, how should Aquino’s advisers and his communications triumvirate handle this vexing situation? Instead of cursing the columnists, they might do well to think of ways to portray him in his most heroic, exciting and appealing presidential moments.
But not just ANY situation but those that most dramatically portray him as a champion who will slay the dragon of corruption and free the populace from the shackles of poverty.
Ideally, he should send Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, her relatives and her minions to jail. Nothing can match that for sheer spectacle. But that is unlikely to happen during his brief tenure. Look at what has NOT been done to the Marcoses, after all these years.
A more viable alternative is to tighten the screws on erring relatives and high officials in his administration, especially those reported to be his close friends. That should resonate with the citizenry.
If greater love has no man than that he should give up his life for his friend, then greater proof of sincerity has no president than that he should bring his own larcenous relatives and friends to justice.
Remember how Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew became legendary when he threatened to jail even his own parents if he caught them stealing from the public coffers? That clearly sent the message that he was a no-nonsense reformer.
In the case of Erap Estrada, the part in his inaugural speech that impressed the citizenry was his vow: “Walang kama-kamaganak, walang kai-kaibigan.”
Of course, we all know what happened to that promise. He promptly broke it.
Estrada’s friends and relatives were the monkeys on his back that eventually did him in. His “friends,” Chavit Singson and Atong Ang, fought over the spoils of illegal gambling. Estrada got caught in the crossfire. Singson sang on him. And that made Estrada history.
Rumors of rapacious relatives also spoiled the presidency of Cory Aquino. Kamaganak, Inc. became one of the dubious tags of her tenure and tainted an otherwise heroic record of service to the country.
Fast forward to the Noynoy Aquino presidency. In a peaceful reprise of People Power One, he was swept into office on the crest of citizen fury over allegations of corruption in the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, with her immediate family being accused of a number of shady deals.
Noynoy Aquino was perceived as the opposite of Arroyo. “Kung walang kurap, walang mahirap!” was his campaign promise.
So far, no one has doubted his sincerity in wanting to fulfill this promise. But his intentions, according to his critics, have not been translated into significant results.
In truth, decades of corruption cannot possibly be eliminated in one presidential term – not even in two. The cancer has so pervasively afflicted society that it will take decades to excise it.
But Aquino’s inaction in the face of demands for the scalp of his target shooting chum and undersecretary of interior Rico Puno marked him, early on, as loyal to his friends rather than to the Filipino people. Whether or not Puno did, in fact, deserve to be canned, was irrelevant to the public and the media.
The resignation of Bureau of Corrections Director Ernesto Diokno, in the wake of the controversy involving jailed former Batangas Governor Antonio Leviste, may have spared Aquino another demerit point for inaction, but it hardly served to enhance his image as a decisive president.
Washing his hands off the issue of Marcos’ proposed burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani has further portrayed him as a cop-out.
It’s only the first year of the Aquino presidency. In fairness to him, he has done several good things, and he has NOT done many of the bad that past administrations have traditionally been known to do upon assuming office.
To his credit, he has shown no partiality to his relatives, including the intending non-Muslim candidate in the ARRM polls, his aunt, Tingting Cojuangco. His sisters have also discreetly kept out of the news.
But what the people want to see are dramatic results. In fact, heroic results. And it may be something as simple as translating into concrete action the promise that Erap Estrada, as well as Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and other past presidents failed to fulfill:
“Walang kama-kamaganak. Walang kai-kaibigan.”
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
NO LIMITATIONS: Bongbong attempts to manipulate Aquino on Marcos' hero burial
A recent news article appeared in The Philippine Star titled: "Bongbong hails P-Noy's move to let public decide on FM burial." This news article of Bongbong lauding President Aquino who supposedly has allowed the public to decide on his father's hero burial appears to be a subtle attempt to manipulate and pressure Aquino into allowing surveys to determine this important issue.
What is not subtle is the blatant disrespect on the part of Bongbong for Aquino's intelligence and strength of character. He also maliciously misleads the public by claiming na pumayag na daw si Aquino na ang publiko ang magiging taga desisyon kung ililibing na bayani o hindi ang nasirang diktador.
Ang totoo ay wala namang sinabi si Presidente Aquino na pumayag na siya. Ang hirap talaga dito sa mga Marcos, sanay na sanay na magsinugaling sa mga Pilipino dahil madalas nakakalusot ang kanilang mga kasinugalingan. Kaya lang nga, mabuti na rin kay PNoy na ipakita agad na hindi siya uto-uto at magpapagago sa mga Marcos at madaling makuha sa kunting himas. Sabihin niya agad ang totoo: Hindi totoo na pumayag siya na
ang publiko ang magsasabi kung ililibing na bayani o hindi si Marcos.
And then. he should already declare to the world as soon as possible that Marcos is no hero and that he, as President, owes it to the Filipino people - not to allow him to be buried as one - now and for all time. That is, if in fact he is still on the side of what is right.
Many will be disappointed if Aquino betrays his commitment to moral leadership - but surprised? Probably not. So many of our leaders from whom we expected so much have betrayed us in the past like the previous president and others. We will no longer be shocked if Aquino turns out to be the same.
It is conceivable that rather than bump heads with the wealthy and the powerful and do what's right for the people, which is what his father did - and as a result was imprisoned and murdered - he might have just assumed the attitude that its smarter to accommodate - and take the money and run. I just hope for the sake of his soul and the country that this is not the case.
Bongbong appears confident that with the unlimited funding and other resources they utilized in this Libingan campaign, including mercenary journalists and accommodating opportunistic politicians - they easily were able to manipulate the survey results and would come out winner.
The Star article reported "Marcos said Vice-President Binay has already informed his family of the results of the nationwide consultation and they are anxiously waiting for the report."
Strange statement. Binay already informed the Marcoses of the result and they are still anxious to see the report? Does that mean they don't trust Binay's word and that they are still waiting anxiously for his written report to confirm that they won?
Or is Bongbong engaged here in mind games? Condition the public's mind to believe that Aquino had already given his word on this issue and that it will be decided by the public so that if Aquino or Binay later decides that it is to the best interest of the Filipino people for the late dictator not to be buried as a hero at Libingan notwithstanding the surveys - the Marcoses and their followers will claim that they reneged on their word. They will then call Aquino and/or Binay as liars and insist on Marcos' hero burial.
Where does Aquino go from here?
He can't go wrong if he listens to his conscience, be brave and stick to what is true. The whole world knows Marcos is no hero. Let's say seven thousand out of ten thousand respondents in a questionable survey - wants him buried as a hero. No, let's make that seven hundred thousand out of a million respondents - and let's even assume the survey is not questionable - would that convert a lie into truth?
The issue of whether or not a hero's burial should be given to a tyrant who caused so much suffering to his people - is essentially a moral issue. It is not a question that a true moral leader abstains from like a Pontius Pilate who knew Jesus to be innocent yet allowed the mindless majority to crucify Him. This is Aquino's defining moment. Will he allow the unthinking majority to crucify our hopes and dreams of a better Philippines?
Note: The California State Bar honors Atty. Ted Laguatan as one of the best lawyers in the US. He is one of only 29 US lawyers officially certified continuously for more than 20 years as an Expert Specialist in Immigration Law. He also does accident injuries, wrongful death and complex litigation. For communications (San Francisco area): 455 Hickey Blvd. Ste. 516, Daly City, Ca 94015 tel 650 991 1154 fax 650 991 1186 email laguatanlaw@gmail.com
What is not subtle is the blatant disrespect on the part of Bongbong for Aquino's intelligence and strength of character. He also maliciously misleads the public by claiming na pumayag na daw si Aquino na ang publiko ang magiging taga desisyon kung ililibing na bayani o hindi ang nasirang diktador.
Ang totoo ay wala namang sinabi si Presidente Aquino na pumayag na siya. Ang hirap talaga dito sa mga Marcos, sanay na sanay na magsinugaling sa mga Pilipino dahil madalas nakakalusot ang kanilang mga kasinugalingan. Kaya lang nga, mabuti na rin kay PNoy na ipakita agad na hindi siya uto-uto at magpapagago sa mga Marcos at madaling makuha sa kunting himas. Sabihin niya agad ang totoo: Hindi totoo na pumayag siya na
ang publiko ang magsasabi kung ililibing na bayani o hindi si Marcos.
And then. he should already declare to the world as soon as possible that Marcos is no hero and that he, as President, owes it to the Filipino people - not to allow him to be buried as one - now and for all time. That is, if in fact he is still on the side of what is right.
Many will be disappointed if Aquino betrays his commitment to moral leadership - but surprised? Probably not. So many of our leaders from whom we expected so much have betrayed us in the past like the previous president and others. We will no longer be shocked if Aquino turns out to be the same.
It is conceivable that rather than bump heads with the wealthy and the powerful and do what's right for the people, which is what his father did - and as a result was imprisoned and murdered - he might have just assumed the attitude that its smarter to accommodate - and take the money and run. I just hope for the sake of his soul and the country that this is not the case.
Bongbong appears confident that with the unlimited funding and other resources they utilized in this Libingan campaign, including mercenary journalists and accommodating opportunistic politicians - they easily were able to manipulate the survey results and would come out winner.
The Star article reported "Marcos said Vice-President Binay has already informed his family of the results of the nationwide consultation and they are anxiously waiting for the report."
Strange statement. Binay already informed the Marcoses of the result and they are still anxious to see the report? Does that mean they don't trust Binay's word and that they are still waiting anxiously for his written report to confirm that they won?
Or is Bongbong engaged here in mind games? Condition the public's mind to believe that Aquino had already given his word on this issue and that it will be decided by the public so that if Aquino or Binay later decides that it is to the best interest of the Filipino people for the late dictator not to be buried as a hero at Libingan notwithstanding the surveys - the Marcoses and their followers will claim that they reneged on their word. They will then call Aquino and/or Binay as liars and insist on Marcos' hero burial.
Where does Aquino go from here?
He can't go wrong if he listens to his conscience, be brave and stick to what is true. The whole world knows Marcos is no hero. Let's say seven thousand out of ten thousand respondents in a questionable survey - wants him buried as a hero. No, let's make that seven hundred thousand out of a million respondents - and let's even assume the survey is not questionable - would that convert a lie into truth?
The issue of whether or not a hero's burial should be given to a tyrant who caused so much suffering to his people - is essentially a moral issue. It is not a question that a true moral leader abstains from like a Pontius Pilate who knew Jesus to be innocent yet allowed the mindless majority to crucify Him. This is Aquino's defining moment. Will he allow the unthinking majority to crucify our hopes and dreams of a better Philippines?
Note: The California State Bar honors Atty. Ted Laguatan as one of the best lawyers in the US. He is one of only 29 US lawyers officially certified continuously for more than 20 years as an Expert Specialist in Immigration Law. He also does accident injuries, wrongful death and complex litigation. For communications (San Francisco area): 455 Hickey Blvd. Ste. 516, Daly City, Ca 94015 tel 650 991 1154 fax 650 991 1186 email laguatanlaw@gmail.com
VIRTUAL REALITY: The Carl Vinson visit: America’s message to Asia
By Tony Lopez
ON May 18, I was privileged to visit the USS Carl Vinson, the nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier of the United States government. I spent more than six hours on the boat, visiting its nooks and crannies, including its so-called combat room. The Vinson is one of about ten aircraft carriers which are the prime symbols of America’s military might and lone superpower status.
Built at a cost of more than $4.5 billion, the Carl Vinson since late 2009 has been the flagship of the relatively new Carrier Strike Group I, based in San Diego. When it departed Norfolk for San Diego in January 12, 2010, the carrier was accompanied by Carrier Air Wing 17, Destroyer Squadron I, and the guided missile cruiser Bunker Hill, according to Wikipedia.
Early morning of May 2, the USS Carl Vinson acquired additional bragging rights—or notoriety, if you will—for burying the world’s No. 1 terrorist and wanted man, al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, into the North Arabian Sea, with proper burial honors, of course. Thus ended the career of OBL, who The Economist said “swept up a ragbag of local grievances into a brand of intoxicating and violent jihad with worldwide pretensions.” The respected magazine estimated the cost of pursuing OBL at over $1 trillion, 150,000 deaths, two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 15 years.
So who’s the next enemy? My guess is countries, like Libya under Qadaffi, and China, the next solo superpower, in 20 to 30 years. If America could spend $1 trillion to destroy one man, how much is it willing to spend to put so-called “enemy” countries in their proper places?
When USS Carl Vinson sailed into Manila Bay May 14-19 for an R and R for its more than 5,000 crew and airmen, it not making an ordinary or routine port call.
America was sending a message. It could be any or all of the following:
One, the United States is a Pacific power. One side of the American mainland faces the Pacific Ocean. America has the fund, the force and the fleet to project such power into the world’s most dynamic region.
Two, now that the world’s No. 1 terrorist is dead, tension, especially in the Middle East, may subside.
So the next battleground, if any, is the South China Sea where China has been flexing its muscles, building garrisons, and claiming territories. At least six countries, (the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Brunei and China), claim islands in or the entire Spratly island archipelago. So the message to America’s Asian enemy, whoever, he is: “We’ll bury you next.”
Three, the Philippines is a strategic place for power projection by any superpower.
Four, the Obama administration supports the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III although the latter has suffered steep drops in his job approval ratings in recent months for lack of any substantial initiatives or achievements after a year in office. This may explain why the Carl Vinson docked off Henry Sy’s Mall of Asia, not at the blue waters of Subic Bay, the former home of the US Seventh Fleet to which the Carl Vinson is sometimes assigned. Manila, not Subic, is the seat of political and economic power.
Five, the Americans are in the Philippines to stay—for good. Its so-called visiting forces are not visitors nor guests. They are permanent residents.
Three days before the Carl Vinson docked off Mall of Asia, Chinese MIG-29 Fulcurm jet fighters reportedly buzzed two Philippine Air Force OV-10 Bronco planes on routine reconnaissance patrol over the Reed Bank Basin of the Kalayaan Island Group, which is part of the Spratly archipelago being claimed by Beijing.
In March, two Chinese gunboats harassed a Philippine research vessel of the Department of Energy at the Reed Bank. The Philippines has oil and gas deposits at the Reed Bank and the commercial scale Malampaya gas find. Manila protested China’s brand of gunboat diplomacy, but feebly.
At the dinner at the Carl Vinson, US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. said: “I agree with the reporter who recently wrote that ‘the honor accorded to President Aquino shows (that) the closeness of the United States and the Philippines does not only extend to treaty ties; it is built on blood and shared relationships!’
Four days after the Vinson left Manila, the Chinese defense secretary came. Gen. Liang Guanglie met with President Aquino. Invariably, they discussed the Spratlys, “Nansha” to the Chinese. They agreed not to resort to violence in pursuing their conflicting claims.
By tradition and history, however, when it comes to territories, might is right. Why do nations go to war? To claim territories.
ON May 18, I was privileged to visit the USS Carl Vinson, the nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier of the United States government. I spent more than six hours on the boat, visiting its nooks and crannies, including its so-called combat room. The Vinson is one of about ten aircraft carriers which are the prime symbols of America’s military might and lone superpower status.
Built at a cost of more than $4.5 billion, the Carl Vinson since late 2009 has been the flagship of the relatively new Carrier Strike Group I, based in San Diego. When it departed Norfolk for San Diego in January 12, 2010, the carrier was accompanied by Carrier Air Wing 17, Destroyer Squadron I, and the guided missile cruiser Bunker Hill, according to Wikipedia.
Early morning of May 2, the USS Carl Vinson acquired additional bragging rights—or notoriety, if you will—for burying the world’s No. 1 terrorist and wanted man, al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, into the North Arabian Sea, with proper burial honors, of course. Thus ended the career of OBL, who The Economist said “swept up a ragbag of local grievances into a brand of intoxicating and violent jihad with worldwide pretensions.” The respected magazine estimated the cost of pursuing OBL at over $1 trillion, 150,000 deaths, two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 15 years.
So who’s the next enemy? My guess is countries, like Libya under Qadaffi, and China, the next solo superpower, in 20 to 30 years. If America could spend $1 trillion to destroy one man, how much is it willing to spend to put so-called “enemy” countries in their proper places?
When USS Carl Vinson sailed into Manila Bay May 14-19 for an R and R for its more than 5,000 crew and airmen, it not making an ordinary or routine port call.
America was sending a message. It could be any or all of the following:
One, the United States is a Pacific power. One side of the American mainland faces the Pacific Ocean. America has the fund, the force and the fleet to project such power into the world’s most dynamic region.
Two, now that the world’s No. 1 terrorist is dead, tension, especially in the Middle East, may subside.
So the next battleground, if any, is the South China Sea where China has been flexing its muscles, building garrisons, and claiming territories. At least six countries, (the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Brunei and China), claim islands in or the entire Spratly island archipelago. So the message to America’s Asian enemy, whoever, he is: “We’ll bury you next.”
Three, the Philippines is a strategic place for power projection by any superpower.
Four, the Obama administration supports the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III although the latter has suffered steep drops in his job approval ratings in recent months for lack of any substantial initiatives or achievements after a year in office. This may explain why the Carl Vinson docked off Henry Sy’s Mall of Asia, not at the blue waters of Subic Bay, the former home of the US Seventh Fleet to which the Carl Vinson is sometimes assigned. Manila, not Subic, is the seat of political and economic power.
Five, the Americans are in the Philippines to stay—for good. Its so-called visiting forces are not visitors nor guests. They are permanent residents.
Three days before the Carl Vinson docked off Mall of Asia, Chinese MIG-29 Fulcurm jet fighters reportedly buzzed two Philippine Air Force OV-10 Bronco planes on routine reconnaissance patrol over the Reed Bank Basin of the Kalayaan Island Group, which is part of the Spratly archipelago being claimed by Beijing.
In March, two Chinese gunboats harassed a Philippine research vessel of the Department of Energy at the Reed Bank. The Philippines has oil and gas deposits at the Reed Bank and the commercial scale Malampaya gas find. Manila protested China’s brand of gunboat diplomacy, but feebly.
At the dinner at the Carl Vinson, US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. said: “I agree with the reporter who recently wrote that ‘the honor accorded to President Aquino shows (that) the closeness of the United States and the Philippines does not only extend to treaty ties; it is built on blood and shared relationships!’
Four days after the Vinson left Manila, the Chinese defense secretary came. Gen. Liang Guanglie met with President Aquino. Invariably, they discussed the Spratlys, “Nansha” to the Chinese. They agreed not to resort to violence in pursuing their conflicting claims.
By tradition and history, however, when it comes to territories, might is right. Why do nations go to war? To claim territories.
STREET TALK: On Pnoy’s Approval Rating
By Greg Macabenta
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda has blamed the columnists for the drop in the approval rating of Noynoy Aquino. Reacting to this, Mangar Mangahas wrote an opinion piece that lectured Lacierda on the intricacies of research and drew the conclusion that newspaper columns could not possibly be the culprit since people hardly read newspapers and fewer still read the columns.
The columnists, expectedly, weighed in on the issue, some pointing out that Aquino has only himself to blame for his dip in popularity owing to his inability to deliver on his campaign promises. Others have placed the onus on Malacañang’s communications group for failing to effectively get the word out about the good work of the new administration.
To start with, any seasoned marketing practitioner will tell you that a new product introduction usually results in high positive perceptions simply for being new, on top of its unique features. But these high marks invariably drop to more realistic levels.
Aquino rode the crest of his mother’s popularity, as well as the unpopularity of his predecessor. With no track record to speak of but only the promise of a government that would be the opposite of that of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in terms of honesty and integrity, Aquino enjoyed rock star popularity.
It was inevitable for his approval rating to dip. Whether or not it has dipped to the level that he deserves, is still unclear. But the public has begun to get over the novelty of a brand new president and is now more closely checking out the merchandise. That is understandable.
On the other hand, perceptions are influenced by media, mainly because media are the main sources of information about national events. But a new element has been added that Noynoy Aquino’s mother and past presidents did not have to deal with.
This is the new, interactive media environment, characterized by the social networks, the email, the blogs and the search engines like Google and Yahoo.
These days, anyone who has something to say, from the sublime to the ridiculous, has a platform from which to deliver his piece. And not just to his immediate family and the next door neighbors but, potentially, to the whole world.
But for someone to make a comment on something, there has to be a stimulus. In marketing, we refer to it as the source of awareness.
Mangahas contends that newspapers and, by extension, the newspaper columns, could not possibly be the main source of the negative stories about Aquino, mainly because only a few people read them nowadays.
What Mangahas should consider is the fact that Google and Yahoo pick up these news items as soon as they appear in print and they become sources of information for anyone doing a search.
Additionally, the few newspapers readers whom Mangahas referred to may be passing on the new information they have picked up to the rest of the non-newspaper-reading population.
Someone I know literally sends out dozens of emails everyday, conceivably to all the people in his address book (I happen to be one of them). He is a sharer. He shares every new insight he gets, every photograph that catches his attention, every joke, every anecdote, every quotation and, yes, every interesting column item. The more controversial or novel or shocking, the better.
I have noted that many of what he passes on were also forwarded to him but similarly inclined individuals. Conceivably, those individuals received many of the tidbits from others who, in turn, got them from other sources.
Word-of-mouth has metamorphosed into word-of-online-media.
But, like Chicken Little who spread the news about the falling sky, these sharers source the information somewhere. The most likely sources are the media. And since the items passed on are top heavy with biases and personal points of view, the sources are more likely to be commentaries, whether in newspapers or TV or radio.
The hapless Willie Revillame knows how this works. The news about the kid doing the strip dance that spread like wildfire and torched his show was picked up by the columnists and, subsequently, picked up from the columns by FaceBook activists who felt concerned enough and agitated enough to pass it on and to urge others to protest the incident.
In effect, Lacierda is partly right when he blames the columnists for being the source of the negative commentaries about Aquino. But if you follow the metamorphosis of a column item as it is picked up by a reader and then passed on from medium to medium, you can be horrified at the way it is interpreted, added to, digested, exaggerated or distorted.
It’s pretty much like the Boy Scouts game where a piece of news is passed from ear to ear, from one end of a line to the other. If the news is about someone being sick, by the time it gets to the end of the line, the news is already about someone dying. And when passed back down the line again, it could end up as news about a resurrection.
Add to this volatile communications situation, the presence of many commentators with different points of view and different agendas. You can imagine what kind of opinions they feed into the pipeline and how these are understood, misunderstood, interpreted, misinterpreted, and recycled down the line.
The harsh reality is also that there are pundits who have preconceived notions about Aquino. The much-maligned hydra in Malacañang can have all three heads blue in the face, but that won’t change the bias of these folks. Some of them may be sincere in their negative perception of Aquino, but there are others who are dedicated torpedoes.
It only takes one knowledgeable propaganda specialist to poison the pipeline and give the likes of Lacierda nightmares.
Among DDT specialists, there is a practice called bisikleta. The term is derived from Tagalog movies where a film intended for showing in only one theater is illicitly shown in many other theaters in nearby towns. The film reels are relayed by a team riding bicycles.
In the practice of disinformation, bisikleta means feeding a piece of news to an outlet, say a radio commentary, then echoing it in a newspaper column, with attribution to the radio source. That item is further bicycled into other vehicles, including the social networks. At the same time, it is fed to public personalities eager to make a sound bite, most likely members of Congress and publicity-hungry politicians. Once they weigh in on the issue, the mainstream media have reason to pick up the news and comment on it. At that point, the little mole will have turned into a mountain.
What recourse does Noynoy Aquino have in the face of such a volatile media environment? Simple: Do the right thing. Put in a lot of productive working hours. And then deliver on his campaign promises.
When he delivers results, the commentaries of pundits and torpedoes will be irrelevant. But, if he fails, a ten-headed communications hydra will not be of any help.
To quote Abraham Lincoln: * "If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda has blamed the columnists for the drop in the approval rating of Noynoy Aquino. Reacting to this, Mangar Mangahas wrote an opinion piece that lectured Lacierda on the intricacies of research and drew the conclusion that newspaper columns could not possibly be the culprit since people hardly read newspapers and fewer still read the columns.
The columnists, expectedly, weighed in on the issue, some pointing out that Aquino has only himself to blame for his dip in popularity owing to his inability to deliver on his campaign promises. Others have placed the onus on Malacañang’s communications group for failing to effectively get the word out about the good work of the new administration.
To start with, any seasoned marketing practitioner will tell you that a new product introduction usually results in high positive perceptions simply for being new, on top of its unique features. But these high marks invariably drop to more realistic levels.
Aquino rode the crest of his mother’s popularity, as well as the unpopularity of his predecessor. With no track record to speak of but only the promise of a government that would be the opposite of that of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in terms of honesty and integrity, Aquino enjoyed rock star popularity.
It was inevitable for his approval rating to dip. Whether or not it has dipped to the level that he deserves, is still unclear. But the public has begun to get over the novelty of a brand new president and is now more closely checking out the merchandise. That is understandable.
On the other hand, perceptions are influenced by media, mainly because media are the main sources of information about national events. But a new element has been added that Noynoy Aquino’s mother and past presidents did not have to deal with.
This is the new, interactive media environment, characterized by the social networks, the email, the blogs and the search engines like Google and Yahoo.
These days, anyone who has something to say, from the sublime to the ridiculous, has a platform from which to deliver his piece. And not just to his immediate family and the next door neighbors but, potentially, to the whole world.
But for someone to make a comment on something, there has to be a stimulus. In marketing, we refer to it as the source of awareness.
Mangahas contends that newspapers and, by extension, the newspaper columns, could not possibly be the main source of the negative stories about Aquino, mainly because only a few people read them nowadays.
What Mangahas should consider is the fact that Google and Yahoo pick up these news items as soon as they appear in print and they become sources of information for anyone doing a search.
Additionally, the few newspapers readers whom Mangahas referred to may be passing on the new information they have picked up to the rest of the non-newspaper-reading population.
Someone I know literally sends out dozens of emails everyday, conceivably to all the people in his address book (I happen to be one of them). He is a sharer. He shares every new insight he gets, every photograph that catches his attention, every joke, every anecdote, every quotation and, yes, every interesting column item. The more controversial or novel or shocking, the better.
I have noted that many of what he passes on were also forwarded to him but similarly inclined individuals. Conceivably, those individuals received many of the tidbits from others who, in turn, got them from other sources.
Word-of-mouth has metamorphosed into word-of-online-media.
But, like Chicken Little who spread the news about the falling sky, these sharers source the information somewhere. The most likely sources are the media. And since the items passed on are top heavy with biases and personal points of view, the sources are more likely to be commentaries, whether in newspapers or TV or radio.
The hapless Willie Revillame knows how this works. The news about the kid doing the strip dance that spread like wildfire and torched his show was picked up by the columnists and, subsequently, picked up from the columns by FaceBook activists who felt concerned enough and agitated enough to pass it on and to urge others to protest the incident.
In effect, Lacierda is partly right when he blames the columnists for being the source of the negative commentaries about Aquino. But if you follow the metamorphosis of a column item as it is picked up by a reader and then passed on from medium to medium, you can be horrified at the way it is interpreted, added to, digested, exaggerated or distorted.
It’s pretty much like the Boy Scouts game where a piece of news is passed from ear to ear, from one end of a line to the other. If the news is about someone being sick, by the time it gets to the end of the line, the news is already about someone dying. And when passed back down the line again, it could end up as news about a resurrection.
Add to this volatile communications situation, the presence of many commentators with different points of view and different agendas. You can imagine what kind of opinions they feed into the pipeline and how these are understood, misunderstood, interpreted, misinterpreted, and recycled down the line.
The harsh reality is also that there are pundits who have preconceived notions about Aquino. The much-maligned hydra in Malacañang can have all three heads blue in the face, but that won’t change the bias of these folks. Some of them may be sincere in their negative perception of Aquino, but there are others who are dedicated torpedoes.
It only takes one knowledgeable propaganda specialist to poison the pipeline and give the likes of Lacierda nightmares.
Among DDT specialists, there is a practice called bisikleta. The term is derived from Tagalog movies where a film intended for showing in only one theater is illicitly shown in many other theaters in nearby towns. The film reels are relayed by a team riding bicycles.
In the practice of disinformation, bisikleta means feeding a piece of news to an outlet, say a radio commentary, then echoing it in a newspaper column, with attribution to the radio source. That item is further bicycled into other vehicles, including the social networks. At the same time, it is fed to public personalities eager to make a sound bite, most likely members of Congress and publicity-hungry politicians. Once they weigh in on the issue, the mainstream media have reason to pick up the news and comment on it. At that point, the little mole will have turned into a mountain.
What recourse does Noynoy Aquino have in the face of such a volatile media environment? Simple: Do the right thing. Put in a lot of productive working hours. And then deliver on his campaign promises.
When he delivers results, the commentaries of pundits and torpedoes will be irrelevant. But, if he fails, a ten-headed communications hydra will not be of any help.
To quote Abraham Lincoln: * "If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
