A peace-full return to Manila

Just came back from the Peace Journalism Seminar of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR).

It was my first time to attend an actual seminar on peace journalism, although I had already finished a six-month online course on Peace and Conflict Reporting at the Konrad Adenauer Asian Center for Journalism at the Ateneo de Manila University. I am sure a lot of the participants, including the CMFR staff, learned so much from the seminar. The seminar made me think on how I look at reports on conflict and peace, and how I--whether subconsciously or not--still have ill-conceived notions and stereotypes against certain individuals and groups.

I'll tell you more details (and photos) later. Lots of news to read and things to do.

Meanwhile here's Janette Toral on a recent iBlog "mini" summit on blogging and the upcoming 2010 elections. The CMFR's findings on the media coverage of this year's senatorial and party-list elections were discussed in the forum.

Bloggers as Election Watchdog
Philippines Election Journal
November 25, 2007

When the idea of having a blogging and the 2010 elections forum first came to mind, Luz Rimban is one of those I consulted about it. Last Saturday, that finally happened with Luz, Atty. JJ Disini, and Rachel Khan in the panel.

Luz shared her perspective on bloggers acting as election watchdogs. She started by citing the various gaps noticed by CMFR in the 2004 and 2007 elections that includes:

* There were gaps in reportage in 2004 primarily on party-list elections, local elections, senatorial elections, and policy development issues.

* In 2007, coverage was not as extensive partly due public disinterest and skepticism over electoral institutions. Coverage were more focused on Team Unity versus Genuine Opposition.

* There were key issues that failed to turn out as election issues such as

• Hello Garci scandal
• Extra-judicial killings
• Corruption

* Linking of local issues and elections with national issues and contests did not happen either.

Read more here.

Guidebook on how to monitor media coverage of elections out

Technically speaking, I am now officially finished with our media coverage project of the 2007 senate and party-list elections, with its final component already completed.

From Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR):

Guidebook for media monitoring out

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), which has been monitoring election coverage since 1992, recently published a manual on monitoring media coverage of elections in the Philippine setting.

The manual, Monitoring Media Coverage of Elections: A Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) Guidebook, is the final component of CMFR’s media monitor of news media coverage of the 2007 elections. Last August, CMFR released its findings on the media coverage of this year’s elections, The CMFR Monitor: News Media Coverage of the 2007 National Elections.

The publication contains principles, guidelines, and methods for understanding the news media and the importance of media monitoring.

CMFR Deputy Director Luis V. Teodoro, Prof. Danilo A. Arao of the University of the Philippines Mass Communication, and PJR Reports Assistant Editor Hector Bryant L. Macale prepared the manual.

For more information about the project, click here. Thanks to Prof. Arao for posting about the book. He even made a writing contest on who can give the best answer to a hypothetical ethical situation concerning a journalist. The winner gets a copy of the election manual. If only I could join the contest. Haha.

And thanks to Malaya reporter Anthony Ian Cruz for writing an entry on it. "(G) iven the track record of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility in producing well-written and amply-researched books... (the election manual) will be a worthy addition to its growing list of bestsellers among journalists and media watchers," he wrote. Thank you for the kind words, Tonyo.

A more relaxed pace (and a Harry Potter check for journalists?)

Thanks to the people who attended last Friday's roundtable discussion on monitoring the news media coverage of the 2007 elections. It kept raining last Friday, but more than 50 people attended. Thank you, thank you.

Here is a short report of what happened.

Improvement noted in media coverage of 2007 elections Source: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

There was widespread awareness of the professional and ethical responsibilities of the press among the major media players. TV networks ABS-CBN 2 and GMA-7 and the leading Manila broadsheets seemed very much aware of the importance of their role in the 2007 elections.

The leading media organizations in both print and television also prepared their staffs for the coverage through seminars and briefings, in which the ethics of reporting the elections was emphasized.

These were among the conclusions of the study on media coverage of the 2007 elections conducted by the non-governmental Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR). The results of the study were released today during a roundtable discussion at the Filipinas Heritage Library in Makati.

Read more here. Other reports published in newspapers and online available on Monday.
To the interns and volunteers who attended -- Dana, Criz (with friend Xan), Rocel, Mark -- thanks again.

Now that the book on the project is out, I think I can breathe a little better and resume my work -- and life -- at a slower, more relaxed pace.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting entry from the Chicago Tribune. A Harry Potter check for journalists? "Perhaps it is time for each news organization, reporter and editor to institute a Harry Potter check," Patrick Reardon wrote in the Chicago Tribune last August 12. "Call it a human decency test."

What would Harry Potter do?
By Patrick T. Reardon
Source: Chicago Tribune

The extraordinary thing about the final Harry Potter book isn't that it has sold umpteen millions of copies. It's that the news media -- traditional and non-traditional, print and digital -- have treated the story with an unusual degree of human decency.

Maybe there's a lesson to be learned.

Although copies of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" were in circulation in the days leading up to its official publication date of July 21, news organizations and individual bloggers, almost unanimously, refused to disclose details of the novel. They didn't reveal the ending. They didn't make public even the usual plot and character bits routinely mentioned in book reviews.

In the weeks since, those same editors and writers have gone to extreme lengths to protect the book's secrets by splashing spoiler alerts prominently on any story that might give the merest whiff of the story's twists and turns.

In thousands of private decisions, writers, editors, publishers and bloggers have determined that they don't want to spoil the book for Harry Potter's fans. Maybe it would have been different if those fans had all been adults. But most are children. And the decision was made, over and over and over, not to break their hearts.

I'm glad. I think that was the right thing to do and a good instinct to follow. The world was better for it.

Normally, journalists aren't so mushy. Normally, the argument that the public has a right to know anything and everything trumps all other considerations. Behind this argument isn't just 1st Amendment pieties. There's also a competitive imperative. The rush to be first with news doesn't leave much room for consideration of whether a particular revelation is the sort of news that the public must know.

Usually, it's not a fictional plot that gets revealed but the real-world details of someone's private life.

This isn't the way it has always been. The famous example is Franklin Delano Roosevelt's polio-crippled legs.

Read more here.

On the local front, I am glad that the Philippine Daily Inquirer recently had a front-page report on the only winner from Ang Kapatiran Party in the last elections. Hats off to the Inquirer for continuously covering Ang Kapatiran even before the polls were already finished. In our monitoring project that monitored the country's three top broadsheets, Inquirer was cited for its exceptional coverage of the party.

Kapatiran’s lone winner keeps party’s flame burning
By Christian V. Esguerra
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines—The flame of Ang Kapatiran and its campaign for a God-centered politics did not die with its crushing defeat in the May elections.

Keeping it alive is a city councilor—the only one who won out of the 27 candidates that the party fielded—who is now engaged in a lonely battle against a key population control measure being introduced in Olongapo City.

John Carlos de los Reyes is fighting what he says is an attempt by foreign and local organizations to introduce a city measure to curb the Philippines’ runaway population growth “through the back door.”

Read more here.

Just shows money isn't everything

Watch out for the June issue of the PJR Reports, which is going to be available this week. The issue focuses on how TV stations covered this year's elections -- including one which, in a very strange move, had comics as segment hosts and reporters and psychics as guest panelists on its elections day coverage. The June issue -- which also looks at the online coverage of the elections, media quick counts -- is also going to be available during the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellence in Journalism on June 28. So guys, please grab a copy.

Speaking of elections, if senatorial bets like Prospero Pichay Jr., Ralph Recto, and Michael Defensor are still wondering why they lost despite pouring in millions of pesos for political advertisements, here's an interesting piece from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism explaining why:

Missing the Massage
(Or why some big ad spenders lost)
by Jaileen Jimeno

MONEY CAN’T buy you love — or votes, as some politicians who spent big on ads have found out.

Indeed, only four of the 12 biggest spenders on ads for the recently concluded midterm elections have made it so far in the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) ‘Magic 12’ for the Senate. Two more from the list of those with deep pockets (as drawn up by the market research, information, and analysis company AC Nielsen) still have slim chances of sneaking into the Upper House at the last minute, but that means they spent a total of P242.9 million just to get to the bottom of the winners’ list.

Political and advertising experts say that’s because most of these candidates — or more accurately, their handlers — simply failed to come up with an effective campaign that would capture the imagination of voters. They forgot that the message, not money, is key to any campaign.

“You will see that many candidates did not study or plan their ads,” says Malou Tiquia, co-founder of Publicus, the only lobbying and political management firm in the country. “There was disconnect in communication framework and the product.” Tiquia handled the campaign of then senatorial candidate Mar Roxas in 2004. Roxas, who marketed himself via the popular ‘Mr. Palengke’ ads, topped the race.

Advertising producer Toto Espartero, who directed the ads of presidential candidate Eddie Villanueva in 2004, is more scathing in his review of the more recent batch of commercials for the 2007 candidates. He says of the ads, “Parang karnabal, walang laman, walang usapan tungkol sa mga isyu (They were carnivalesque. There was no content, no issues were discussed).”

Mercedes Abad, one of Pulse Asia’s analysts and head of TNS Global, a market information firm, says resonance, believability, and relevance should be the guiding principles in a political campaign. But these were not the only factors absent in most of the big spenders’ commercials. So, too, were, sound planning, accurate reading of voters’ aspirations, and respect for the intellect of the public at large, say experts.

Tiquia says that the lack of planning in particular was why several candidates dumped ads and changed slogans in the middle of the campaign. Tags and taglines that seemingly had no leg to stand on in terms of history and identification with the candidate were used liberally — and, it turns out, disastrously.

Read more here.

The killer project

Finally, after more than a three-week hiatus, I am posting an entry in this blog again. As some of you know, I have been busier since the news media elections coverage monitoring project of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) started in February. Well, when did I stop whining about how busy we have been at CMFR?

But man, this year so far has been a killer. And to think that we are not even finished with the final report of the news media elections coverage monitoring project. Then in June, it’s the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellence in Journalism. Don’t forget that we do publish the PJR Reports every month. Maybe Glenn and the other interns are right. I sure looked like mess over the past few months, haggard from all the activities in the office. Maybe that is why most interns preferred Bimbo as the hottest staffwriter, not me. Haha. I guess, these days, I’m the hot-headed staffwriter.

Don’t get the idea, however, that I am complaining. One thing I loved working at CMFR is that you get to learn a lot of things about the media and their role in the society, what journalists should be doing, and the ethical and professional issues involving the press. It’s like taking up an informal master’s course in journalism. Plus, you get to work with some of the best journalists I know. If you’re a journalist and media-monitoring work does not appeal to you, then the idea of working for the likes of Melinda Quintos de Jesus, Luis V. Teodoro, Vergel O. Santos, Chit Estella, Booma Cruz, and Rachel Khan might. And then you also get to work with the best young journalists (Venus, Don, Bimbo, Junette, and Melai, who came onboard last May 16) I know. And no, I’m not just sucking up to these guys. They are really, really great.

Well, since we devoted a lot of time and energy – and a lot of meriendas courtesy of Ate Carol – I think my first post after more than three weeks is about the news media elections coverage monitoring project.

As I’ve said earlier, the only thing we’re not finished yet with this project is the final report, which will cover the news media coverage of the whole campaign period including the last two weeks or so of the campaign. What is good with this project is that it is only the second time CMFR released periodic reports about the media coverage of the elections and included a review of the television coverage. The first time CMFR released reports about the media coverage while the campaign was going on was in the 2004 presidential elections, the only organization in the Philippines to do so.

In the landmark 2004 project, CMFR accomplished the project with the help of citizen and academic groups – the first time a media NGO involved such groups in a broader watch of media coverage. As in 2004, Prof. Danilo Arao and selected journalism students from the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication also helped in this year’s news media elections coverage monitoring project.

Aside from better media-monitoring instruments we used, what is exciting about this year’s project is that aside from monitoring selected broadsheets and news programs, CMFR – with the help of interns whom CMFR had trained for the project – also reviewed the elections coverage of selected tabloids, public affairs shows, and radio programs. In our March 5 roundtable discussion on monitoring elections coverage, some of the journalists present raised the idea that CMFR should not only monitor the elections coverage of broadsheets and news programs but also tabloids, public affairs shows, and radio programs as well. A gargantuan task, we thought back then. But lo and behold, monitoring these other platforms was done, even though it proved to be really difficult.

To further complement these in-depth reports about the news media elections coverage, CMFR also did an analytical study of the political advertisements in newspapers and TV (which is available online as well as the monitoring reports), as well as how the press prepared itself for the coverage, basically an update of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism study in 2004.

To read the reports, here are the following links:

CMFR Monitor of News Media Coverage of the 2007 National Elections

First Report (February 13 - March 2)
TV, broadsheets covered TU most in first three weeks of campaign

Second Report (March 3 - March 16)
Arrest of Ocampo triggers surge in party list elections coverage

Third Report (March 17 - March 30)
Scandals put party-list ahead in media coverage
But Team Unity retains coverage edge over Genuine Opposition

Consolidated report (February 13 – March 30)
Media coverage of elections declines in sixth and seventh weeks of campaign

Fourth Report (March 31 – April 20, 2007)
Senate and Party-list News takes a Backseat
Team Unity, Genuine Opposition still the most-covered subjects

Supplemental Reports

Tabloid and AM Radio Coverage of the
Senate and Party-List Elections (16-27 April 2007)

Public Affairs Programs' Coverage of the
Senate and Party-list Elections and Political Advertising in Print and Broadcasting

For more information about the project and reports, you might want to read the CMFR Roundtable Discussion on Monitoring Elections Coverage. Clips of the roundtable discussion are available here as well.

Just in case I forget

Philippine Eleksyon 2007, one of the must-read blogs this elections, posted about the second report of the news media elections coverage monitoring project of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

Click here for the post. The second report can be viewed here.

The third report is going to come out soon. Please watch out for it.

Dead journalists? Repressed press? The attacks continue

To those who have been following my Twitter posts lately, they know I've been terribly busy these days (since when did I stop becoming busy, my friends from PulpCommunity who have been egging me to join their swimming break on April 29 would say). I'm sure the frequent readers of this blog (if there are any) would notice how I have become slower in posting here. Plus, I'm out of Manila next week for a weeklong stay in Jakarta for the regionwide activities for this year's World Press Freedom Day. Sigh. I'm actually looking forward to it (visited Bali, but haven't gone to Jakarta), but half of me feels it is better for me to stay here, given the tons of work I'll be leaving here. Sure, I'm taking half of my work in Jakarta, but my Jakarta travel happens at a time when there's so much work in the office. Our interns at the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility can attest to this, I guess. (Note to myself: Have to convince Criz to help me convince our PulpComm friends that I won't be coming to the swimming-slash-reunion, even though half of my friends there would probably not understand and be angry at me for not going, even though the last time we met was ages ago.)

So here I am, just finished with that backbreaking discourse analysis of television news programs of the CMFR's third report of the news media elections coverage monitoring project. Wow. Even just writing that line makes me tired already.

But what makes me more disconcerted these days, however, is this latest stunt from Malacañang. The pattern of intimidating the media continues.

President Arroyo issues order further restricting access to information
Source: CMFR

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has issued an Executive Order (EO) that will restrict public and media access to official information. EO 608, issued on 20 April 2007, will create a National Security Clearance System that will "protect and ensure the integrity and sanctity" of classified information against "enemies of the state."

"It is the duty and responsibility of all government departments, agencies and offices to implement security measures that will protect and ensure the integrity and sanctity of classified or sensitive materials or information they have access to or in their possession," the EO said.

Heads of government agencies with access to classified matters are directed by EO 608 to implement and institutionalize the security clearance procedure approved by the office of National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales.

"Any unauthorized disclosure, sharing, publication or use of the information contained in the classified documents or materials shall be considered a grave offense and shall be punishable in accordance with civil service rules and regulations," the EO said.

Departments are also ordered to designate a security officer who will assume responsibility for holding classified information.

Read more here. Meanwhile, physical attacks against journalists continue. Another reporter gets killed. I think I should ask CMFR for a raise. Journalists in this country have become an endangered species. While the Philippines can claim it has the freest press in Asia on paper, the reality speaks otherwise. To borrow the words of CMFR deputy director Sir Louie, God bless all of us.

Meet the news photographers, journalism world's second class citizens

Journalists like Alex Adonis are not the only ones worrying in the world of journalism about the low pay they are getting. News photographers too -- considered in the profession as "second-class citizens," as Luz Rimban had written in the March 2007 issue of the PJR Reports -- often get meager salaries, with many of them getting paid per photograph. The average price for a published photo? For tabloids, it's a whopping fee between P75 to 125; for the broadsheets P200 to 250. And that is if your photo, indeed gets published. And to think that those rates are given by Manila papers. I am quite sure the pay gets less in community papers.

Some who are regularly employed by major news organizations get around P9,000, about the entry-level rate for a reporter. Still, that's not enough to cover all the expenses that come with the job -- the pricey camera equipment, film, transportation, food, and other expenses. And what about the family waiting home for your salary to pay off daily expenses?

It would have been better if the pay increase is faster. But in the case of photographers... let's just say your old circa-1990s dial-up internet connection is faster than the salary increase. As one photographer had told Ma'am Luz, "In 1987, the pay of a photographer per month was P5,000. After 10 years, in 1997, it became P7,000. In 2007, it will go up to P9,000. Just imagine, every decade, we get only a P2,000 increase. How will we live decently on that kind of money?”

Frankly, I love this issue. It gives us a peek on the world of news photographers -- often out of the media limelight, "discriminated" against by the profession where they work, underpaid, overworked, and yet very much needed.

And oh, while you're at it, please do read the story Venus Elumbre and I co-wrote on the recent forum the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility organized regarding its elections coverage monitoring project.

Main Story

The life and (hard) times of the news photographer
The Other Journalist
by Luz Rimban

Other Stories

Monitoring the coverage of the May '07 elections
Will Media Do a Better Job This Time?
by Venus L. Elumbre and Hector Bryant L. Macale

TV anchors and the news
What You See and What You Get
by Junette B. Galagala

The UN envoy on th political killings:
'In a State of Denial'
by Rachel E. Khan

Reporters Without Borders on the Philippine press
by More Murders and a New Enemy

The life and death of a crusader
The Ghost of Dong Batul
by Yasmin D. Arquiza

The rewards and heartaches of photojournalism
Life Behind the Lens
by Mike Perez

Buhay ng Photographer
(the original version as submitted by Mike Perez)

The press and the demonization of Ka Satur and Bayan Muna

Hot news yesterday was the release of Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Satur Ocampo. Going by the second report of the media coverage of this year's senatorial and party-list elections of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), it seems that Ocampo and Bayan Muna would continue to be the top party-list subject in the coverage in the next few weeks or so.

But the question is: Sure, there maybe more coverage of party-list groups and candidates this year than in the 2004 elections, but do reports explain enough or at least attempt to provide background and explanatory material on the significance of party-list issues, including Ocampo's arrest -- or in CMFR's words, "what was evidently a heightened government effort to demonize Ocampo and his party?"

CMFR's findings: There was little evidence -- at least in the fourth and fifth weeks of the campaign -- showing as such.

Second Report (March 3 - March 16)
Arrest of Ocampo triggers surge in party list elections coverage
Source: CMFR

The filing of charges against Bayan Muna's Congressman Saturnino "Satur" Ocampo, his arrest, the attempt to fly him to Leyte, and his detention at the Manila Police District headquarters triggered a surge in media coverage of the party-list elections during the period March 3–16, 2007.

This was among the findings of the ongoing Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) monitor of media coverage of the senatorial and party-list elections. CMFR is monitoring the TV news programs TV Patrol World and Bandila (ABS-CBN 2); 24 Oras and Saksi (GMA-7); Sentro (ABC-5); Primetime Teledyaryo (NBN-4), as well as the front pages of the Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star.

CMFR is issuing two-week reports on the media coverage of the elections. It issued its first report on March 16.

Check CMFR web for more details, including the findings of the first report. Ocampo's photo from Tonyo.

Interesting, interesting

Forgot to include the reports from Tarra Quismundo of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and ABS-CBN News on the first report on the "Monitoring the news media coverage of the 2007 national elections" project of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

The second report is going to be out soon, maybe sometime this week. Interesting findings, I must say.

Anticipating the second report

Add the prominent Halalan 2007 blog to my list of journalists, media organizations, and bloggers that posted about our project (posts here and here). The second period (which covers March 3 to 16) is going to be available sometime next week in the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility site.

And the press says: "What party-list elections are you talking about?"

Thanks to GMANews.TV (for this and this), Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism's Avigail Olarte (for this) and Lala Ordenes-Cascolan (here), Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) consultant and Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists coordinator Ma'am Rachel Khan (here), and The Philippine Star's Marichu Villanueva (sorry, I couldn't find any online version of her recent column). I hope more journalists and media organizations write about the latest CMFR project, "Monitoring the news media coverage of the 2007 national elections."

The latest CMFR study showed that the media coverage of the first three weeks of the national campaign barely reported on and discussed the party-list elections, despite these elections' being national in scope. Like in 2004 when CMFR did its a citizens’ monitor of the national elections -- a first in Philippine electoral experience -- there was the usual emphasis on celebrity and celebrity-related news.

As I have posted earlier, CMFR held a round table discussion last March 5 discussing its 2004 study findings and recommendations before coming out with the first analysis of the coverage of this year's elections.

Click here for a short report about the March 5 event. The discussion that followed afterwards was very interesting, I tell you.

I also posted video clips of the round table discussion in my Youtube account. Sorry if they are quite grainy -- Ate Carol (our office finance manager and overall rah-rah girl), I think we need to buy that new videocam I saw the other day. And Venus, Don, Bimbo, and Junette, I think we need to practice more on how to shoot videos (lol).



Click on the clip and this will lead you to my account, containing the rest of the videos.

Speaking of my dear colleagues, Nathan, dude, I'm sorry If I and Venus did not join the chat session with the staff earlier. Toxic PJR Reports work.

The Team Unity takes the initial lead -- in TV news

Sorry if this blog has gotten quite old, as I've been awfully busy these past few days doing PJR Reports and the elections news monitoring project of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility/CMFR (which by the way has a new look, thanks to old pal RV).

CMFR's monitoring project of the news media coverage of the 2007 national elections showed that the leading television news programs and the three largest Manila broadsheets covered the Arroyo administration’s Team Unity (TU) candidates most in the first three weeks of the campaign.

Here's CMFR on the results:

CMFR MONITOR OF NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE
OF THE 2007 NATIONAL ELECTION

First Report (February 13 - March 2)
TV, broadsheets covered TU most in first three weeks of campaign


The media advocacy group Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) has found that the six leading television news programs and the three largest Manila broadsheets covered the Arroyo administration’s Team Unity (TU) candidates most in the first three weeks of the campaign. CMFR is monitoring the 2007 elections coverage of selected media organizations.

But CMFR deputy director and University of the Philippines journalism professor Luis V. Teodoro said no bias was evident.

“The TU’s getting more coverage was driven by the conventions of newsworthiness,” Teodoro said. “One indication is that due to his prominence, opposition leader and former President Joseph Estrada was more frequently quoted in the news accounts than administration personalities.”

The CMFR March 12 report also said the Genuine Opposition (GO) was a close second to TU in the coverage by both television and the broadsheets from February 13 to March 2.

The six monitored television news programs’ coverage of the senatorial and party-list elections ranged from 8.74 percent to 41.90 percent of total airtime during the first three weeks of the senatorial campaign, according to CMFR.

There were 158 newspaper reports about the TU candidates, while GO candidates were among the subjects of 128 reports.

But the reports were mostly about the controversies involving candidates in both teams, said CMFR. Among these was the decision by former oppositionists Edgardo Angara, Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, and Teresa “Tessie” Aquino-Oreta to join TU.

CMFR is monitoring the elections coverage by the Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star. The TV news programs CMFR is monitoring are TV Patrol World (ABS-CBN 2), Bandila (ABS-CBN 2), 24 Oras (GMA-7), Saksi (GMA-7), Sentro (ABC-5), and Primetime Teledyaryo (NBN-4). It has trained 30 journalism student-volunteers from the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication (UPCMC) to generate the data.
CMFR said that while coverage of the Senate elections seemed ample, the party-list elections seemed to be getting little attention.

The gay-lesbian group Ang Ladlad was the party-list group most covered by all six TV news programs, with a total airtime of only 4.28 minutes. It was followed by Bayan Muna, Gabriela Women’s Party, AnakPawis, and Kabataan Party.

Of the twenty senatorial candidates most covered by the TV news programs during the period, 11 were from TU, eight from GO, and one independent.

TU’s Cesar Montano – who replaced Leyte Gov. Jericho Petilla in the administration’s senatorial line-up last February 16 – had the most combined airtime coverage by the six television news programs at 79.32 minutes. Ralph Recto (also of TU) was a far second with 58.57 minutes, followed by Alan Peter Cayetano (GO), Francis Pangilinan (Independent) and Prospero Pichay (TU).

The most reported senatorial candidates in the three leading Manila broadsheets were almost exclusively from either the administration or opposition parties. There were only 26 reports on the independent candidates. Most of these focused on the decision by Pangilinan to run as an independent bet despite a previous GO announcement that it was adopting him as a guest candidate.

Much lesser coverage was given candidates of the Marcos-era party Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) – with practically all the reports focusing on the party’s controversial candidate, Joselito Pepito Cayetano and his adopting the nickname “Peter”. The campaign jingles of various candidates and the ad spending of various candidates were also noted in the reports, particularly in the Inquirer. The Inquirer covered extensively the marital spat between celebrity couple Kris Aquino and James Yap, and its effect on the senatorial campaign of Ms. Aquino’s brother, Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III.

The feud between couple Vilma Santos and Sen. Ralph Recto with the latter’s brother, Batangas Vice-Gov. Ricky Recto, over the gubernatorial contest in Batangas was also consistently covered by the paper.

The Inquirer was the only paper that reported on Ang Kapatiran Party and its candidates, focusing on its advocacy of non-traditional politics. Although the Inquirer gave the party and its candidates much-needed public exposure, the reports did not include the party’s program of action.

Among the senatorial candidates of the administration, the most covered by the broadsheets were Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay (20 reports out of 101), Recto (18), and Cesar Montano (13).

The most covered GO candidates were current Senate President Manuel Villar (20), Sorsogon Rep. Francis Escudero III (12), and Taguig’s Alan Peter Cayetano (12).

Pichay, Recto, and Villar were cited in a recent study by Nielsen Media Research Philippines (NMRP) as the biggest television advertisement spenders in the first two weeks of the campaign.

Of all the senatorial candidates, according to NMRP, Pichay spent the most, at about P33 million, for TV ad spots in the first two weeks of the campaign, while re-electionist senators Villar and Recto spent P30.29 million and P22.79 million, respectively.

The CMFR monitor will continue until the end of the campaign period in May. It is issuing reports on its findings every two weeks, to culminate in a final report by June. CMFR has been doing elections coverage monitors since its founding in 1989. It did a first ever citizens’ monitor of the national elections in 2004, the findings of which it published that year (Citizens’ Media Monitor: A Report on the Campaign and Elections Coverage in the Philippines, 2004).

Visit the CMFR website for the report and other details.

Monitoring news media coverage of the elections; and why journalists should blog

What a tiring day. We just held earlier our round table discussion on monitoring the news media coverage of the elections. Will update you on what happened. Right now, I just want to sleep -- except I have to finish something for Mr. Vergel Santos first (about it, won't tell you that yet).

Anyway, here's Tarra Quismundo of the Philippine Daily Inquirer reporting on the forum:

Media watchdog monitoring poll coverage
Source: Inquirer.net

Underlining the media’s role in helping the electorate vote correctly, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) has begun a three-month review of the election reportage of leading media outlets in order to assess their performance in this election.

Despite limited manpower and resources, the CMFR has started monitoring the election coverage of three major dailies and six television news programs, reprising its effort during the 2004 elections.

“It’s important because we want to know how the media are providing the public the information it needs so that it can make informed choices. The usual complaint in the Philippines is that we haven’t been choosing our leaders very well, so one of the ways the media can help in that area is by providing the information that the people need,” CMFR deputy director and journalism professor Luis Teodoro said.

Read more here.

I think BusinessWorld also has a report ("Media challenged to pursue depth in election coverage") on the forum, but I can't access the online version because I am not subscriber of the newspaper's website. Oh well. Will check it later in the office.

For the meantime, while I am so so busy these days, here's a piece on why journalists should blog. Got this item from cyberjournalist.net.

Why journalists should blog

Chris Cobbler, publisher of the greeleytrib.com, says all journalists at newspapers should blog.

Blogging helps you better understand your audience. The hallmark of any blog is the ability for readers to post comments to what you write. By having this regular conversation with readers, you learn what hits and what misses.

Read more here.

After the Kris Aquino-James Yap issue, can we now talk about media coverage of the elections?

Please do not forget to attend tomorrow's round table discussion on monitoring the news coverage of the elections. Luis Teodoro, deputy director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), will present the findings and recommendations from CMFR's Citizens Media Monitor of the 2004 elections. He will also talk about the ongoing monitoring project of CMFR on this year's senatorial and party-list elections.

In 2004, CMFR -- together with several civil society organizations and academic groups -- monitored the elections coverage of three papers -- the Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star, six news programs -- TV Patrol, Insider (ABS-CBN 2), Frontpage/24 Oras, Saksi (GMA-7), News Central (Studio 23), and The World Tonight (ABS-CBN News Channel), and two public affairs programs -- Dong Puno Live and I-Witness. In the 2007 project, CMFR is still monitoring the three papers and six programs (although there were changes in the program selection). The six programs are TV Patrol World, Bandila (ABS-CBN 2), 24 Oras, Saksi (GMA7), Sentro (ABC-5), and Primetime Teledyaryo (NBN-4).

Are we getting relevant information about the senatorial and party-list candidates from the press? Is the press helping us decide who to vote for on May 14? Or are we just getting more confusing and misleading information? If you're concerned about these things, please attend the round table discussion tomorrow.

Is the press helping us decide who to vote for on May 14?

The campaign season is officially on. Are we getting relevant information about the senatorial and party-list candidates from the press? Is the press helping us decide who to vote for on May 14? Or are we just getting more confusing and misleading information?

Watch for the results of the 2007 Media and Elections: Media Monitoring—the latest project of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)—which will be released soon, to find out how the press is covering the 2007 senatorial and party-list campaign and elections.

CMFR has been monitoring the performance of the press since 1989. Its landmark citizens’ media monitoring project in the 2004 presidential elections, which included coverage of television, was a first in the Philippine electoral experience. The 2004 citizens’ media monitoring project, which included citizen groups in a broader media watch of press coverage, was also the first time that reports were released during the campaign period.

Visit www.cmfr-phil.org and www.cmfr-phil.blogspot.com to know more about the project. You may also call (894-1326/894-1314/840-0903/840-0889) or email (staff@cmfr-phil.org) CMFR for details.

CMFR is holding a round table discussion on the media coverage of the 2004 elections on March 5. Please call or email CMFR for details.