All-Day Telenovela And Showbiz Marathon By Local Networks

These past few days, weeks, or probably months, I have been tuning a lot less on local television channels. Most of the time, the only local shows I watch are Basketball games, like the NBA, UAAP, PBA, and the like. Sometimes I wonder, WTF is Philippine TV so boring? Aside from the lack of variety offered by the local networks (its almost always drama most of the day, heck, even anime is slowly disappearing in mainstream timeslots), I believe that the quality of shows that the local networks are presenting to us are deteriorating with each passing day (our shows primarily consist of local spinoffs and mediocre renditions/versions of foreign telenovelas, "koreanovelas" and "chinovelas" in particular). Well, some people might be satisfied with that kind of quality of television that they get, and I have no objection with that as well. I mean, that's entertainment. If you're entertained, then by all means, its acceptable. However, when it comes to public service and investigative journalism, I believe that is unacceptable.

This week, correct me if i'm wrong, because there might be something wrong with me, but I can't help but think that the "headlines" and "content" of local news shows are somewhat "inappropriate", or to be addressed in a much appropriate word, "shallow", or even "over-emphasized". Why, you ask? Well, let's look into one of the headlines and content that garnered the mainstream media's attention:

1) President GMA and her companions' "exorbitant" food bill.

- Ok, so what's the fuss all about? So the President, along with her companions, ate at a foreign restaurant, and the bill reach a supposed amount equivalent to PHP900,000+. What's the deal? You might say that: Hey, that's a big amount of money, so why isn't it a big deal? You might even say that the money spent for the food bill might even come from taxpayers' money, right? So why isn't it a big deal?

I'll give you some of my main points:

1) How sure are the media people that, indeed, "public" money is spent, and not "private" money?

- Remember, if "public" money is spent, in this case, the "taxpayers" money is spent, then obviously, this would become a public issue, and of course, this certain issue would be relevant to the society. HOWEVER, if "private" money is actually spent, then what's the fuss? Public and private affairs should be treated separately. Even if the President is a public figure, what happens after her work hours, and what she spends using her own private resources, and what others spend on her that doesn't make use of public resources, should not be touched by the media, or rather, should not be focused upon by the media. Remember, let's not get out of my main point. My main point is: the media is over-emphasizing this issue. How or why? Because in some newspapers and even local news shows, this is their headline, when in fact, I don't think this issue is even worthy to become a headliner.

2) Supposing that this issue is a public issue, is the gravity enough to make it a headliner?

- OK, let's assume that the issue is supposedly a "public" issue (the journalists haven't verified yet if indeed public funds are misused, yet they report/make this issue a headline, which I would discuss later on), but is it enough to be the headline of the day, to become the main focal point of scholarly discussion? OK, let's assume that its true that the President and her companions spent an amount equivalent to PHP 900,000. Yeah, I must admit, that's a big, hefty sum of money. Just like the news say and "researched" about, it could probably build about three schools. Yeah, so this is investigative journalism? Of course we'd already figure that much out, that PHP 900,000K is enough to build three schools. Oh, BTW, I don't even think that's investigative journalism, I belive that's basic math/arithmetic. I don't mean to belittle the media, in fact, i'm saying that they're a bit "overqualified" to handle these types of issues, because probably, if you give me a calculator, I might come up with that same computation. I'm just saying, i'm just saying. Moving on...

Here is my main point: Yeah, 900K is a big amount of money. But if we talk about expenditures, shouldn't we focus on the bigger fish? And what fish is that? Well, correct me if i'm wrong, but i'll give you an example: How much do officials actually spent for buying their luxury houses and vehicles? 900k? Higher. 1m? Might be. Any more bidders?! 3... 2... 1... Oh wait, there's more! 3.5m?! 5m?! Any more bidders?! Going, going, gone. SOLD for about PHP 5,000,000! And that's just the tip of the iceberg. True, 900k compared to the 100 peso bill I have in my wallet is a great disparity, but I guess the same goes for 5m and 900k. Jeez, and here I am thinking that 900k is such a big deal. Bummer.

You might say, why the hell am I talking about houses and cars, those are private belongings obtained by private resources, right? Well, if you put it that way, that's right, exactly my point. Public should be separated from the private. Well, if you put it that way, then wouldn't this same point also be applicable to the "dining" expense of the President and her companions? Because if private funds were actually used to pay for the expense, so I ask you once more, what's the issue again? I don't quite get it. I guess that' the problem when you make so much fuss about unverified facts.

Even if it was true, go back to my main point: 900K is weak sh*t compared to other issues involving bigger sums of money. Why the hell is this even a big issue? I'll give you a scenario: you've heard about the chicken and the egg? Let's put it this way, the egg is the 900k dining expense issue, while the chicken is 900k+ issues about corruption, diversion and mismanagement of funds, and other bad practices of governance. Now, given this scenario and possibly taking away the history of which came first, what would you rather hunt first: the chicken, or the egg? Ask me, and i'll tell you i'll hunt the chicken. Why? 'Coz I prefer Fried Chicken more than I prefer Fried Egg. Besides, without going into the history of which came first, one of the things I do know is that: Chickens lay eggs, and if you kill the chicken, production of eggs will stop. Some might say that: if you leave the egg be, it would grow into a chicken, and if there would be more chickens, there would be more eggs. Well, you might be right, but... what's inside the eggshell, we'll never know until it hatches. It might be a chicken, it might even be a dinosaur, or worse, it could be what it is, nothing but an empty eggshell. Why? Because what's inside the eggshell is not yet verified. So that is why i'll hunt the chicken before I hunt the egg: because it is a bigger issue, it is a occuring and undeniable issue, and it could possibly eliminate the existence of lesser issues when adressed.

You might say, aren't there ways of verifying issues? Yeah, there is. One of which is investigative journalism. But this issue is unverified yet, of which I can only come to one conclusion: there is no investigative journalism done regarding this issue. If ever there is, it is a weak or misguided investigation. Which leads me to my last point...

3) Regarding this issue, how was data gathered and verified? Are the sources reliable? Is the data sufficient enough to conclude, or even to have relevance in the society?

- I'm no PRO-GMA, and I admit, i'm a little bit inclined towards the opposition (not sure which is which in the opposition, for they themselves are a heterogenous bunch). But then again, what strikes me in this issue is that, this issue was given so much attention, wherein it might not be an issue to begin with. There's no indication that public funds were used, there's not even a legitimate proof presented, like the true receipt of the dining expense. From what I know, the reference that the media used was a "theoretical" approach, wherein based from the menu of the restaurant, a "theoretical" computation was made of what and how much the president and her companions ate. In fact, from what I know, the media even just ripped off, or to be more appropriate, made reference of that "theoretical" computation from a blog. I mean, where's investigative research there? Using blogs? Well that's cool, since they are harnessing the potential of Information and Computer Technology. However, were the references verified? I think not. They just took that reference and presented it. Poof! Here's the headline for today. Wow, and this is supposed to be the headline? I think this belongs to the "Comics" section. If there's no more space for another comic, then just scrap it. Its not probably even worth the space.

Well, judging from this incident, I have come into a conclusion: All local tv networks can show to us people are nothing but showbiz and telenovela marathons. Why showbiz? Because investigative journalism is replaced by "gossiping", unverified rumors, which is appealing to the public, presented in such a way that it looks like it is relevant to the society. Besides, even if it is an issue, the gravity of the issue may not even be of national concern. Why telenovelas? Because this is what we want: a little drama and emphasis on private realms. Heck, people are social creatures. And what's more interesting for the people than a little bit of issue and gossip? Politicians acting in front of the camera, all while the media captures every moment of this historic event in Philippine Primetime History. Wow. Blair Waldorf, is that you? I didn't know you were interested in journalism! I guess everybody's into the gossip girl fad! Not that its bad, but mind you, this might entail the end of investigative journalism.

Going back to the topic of food, we are what we eat, right? And if the media feeds us all this crap sh*t, then what does that make us? Crap sh*t. If the media is a restaurant, and this crap sh*t is their specialty, what does it make us? Malnourished, misinformed, and misguided Filipino people in terms of social awareness.

Damn, if this is what I will ind in the local news stations every day, i'd rather pick up my remote and turn it off. Its such a waste of electric energy.

I might even sell-off my TV and spend my money for much meaningful objects.

Such as for buying/accquiring nutritious "food".

Because I don't eat crap sh*t for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

I need my daily dose of nutrients, informative nutrients, unlike what the local media feeds me.

And if I can get it from websites and blogs,

Then I guess I have to say goodbye to you, my dear TV.

It was nice knowing you.

Arghh... I don't know how to end this anymore. Sabaw na ako ang haba ng tinype ko.

Anyways, I hope you get my point.

I'm not saying i'm absolutely right.

My point is: this is what I think about that issue...

You can critique me if you want.

I want to learn, so its okay.

As long as its constructive.

But if its crap sh*t...

Go get horned by a Bull on your as*hole or something.

^_^