Musings about interesting news and events and an ordinary life as processed inside the itchy mind of an average Juan
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Personality Complex Case #1
Sunday, January 17, 2010
No Trial With Publicity
Media groups and personalities have demanded that the proceedings of the Ampatuan trial be televised live. Their best argument is that it is in the interest of the public to be informed and to know the truth about the most-awaited trial in our recent history.
The end they are pursuing is noble. It is the true essence and fundamental goal of journalism. The means they are praying for, however and sadly, is not at all justified or acceptable.
We are well aware of how potent the power of the media is in influencing public opinion. Many theories support it and we have seen how it can happen, including its many repercussions. Just remember what happened in the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada. While something good came out of it, the fact is justice did not really take its full course. The people became the ultimate judge through sheer force and havoc. The rule of law was sideswiped by the rule of the mob. The result is that we were deprived of potential landmark jurisprudence in deciding a controversy with political color.
The judicial process should be solemn and insulated from a scrutinizing public in order not to be unduly influenced. If unbridled media coverage is allowed at a trial, our tendency is to make judgments as we are fed information when it should be after we have all seen and heard everything. The bigger problem is there is imminent danger of chaos if events do not transpire according to the liking of the majority. When the boiling point is reached, it is much easier to control tens of people in a courtroom than thousands who protest in the streets as we are accustomed to doing.
Fact is media reporters are not banned from attending the trial, only their cameras. They are allowed in to serve as the eyes and the ears of the public in court, in lieu of their cameras. Rightfully so because humans make a logical impression and interpretation of facts, something which machines cannot do. What we see from the cameras does not give us the complete picture and may cloud our perception.
More so, piece-by-piece commentaries out of live reporting will only make the trial a highly-partisan and circus affair. The media thrives in sensationalism, which has high commercial value. Live television coverage will only benefit the media themselves.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
What's the fuss?
MalacaƱang and its allies fear that the country would be in turmoil if the void to be created by the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on May 17 would not be immediately filled, especially since this would happen during a crucial period of political transition, hence they prefer that President Arroyo choose a successor despite the Constitutional ban on appointments.
Who are they kidding? The scenario, as many times been told in the media, is totally not that bleak and does not require an emergency action of thoughtless proportion that only people in MalacaƱang can devise.
The most logical move is for President Arroyo to do nothing and leave her post as scheduled without creating a last-minute hullabaloo to plunge her deeper into the abyss of unpopularity.
The country would be alright with an Acting Chief Justice, who would exercise the same powers and who would leave the post once the next President finally makes an appointment. This is a common practice in government and is definitely more legally sound than the action being contemplated by the Palace.
So stop the bullshit, please.