[Readings: 07] The World’s A Bus

Ten things the Philippines bus siege police got wrong

Analysts: Philippine leadership wilts under crisis spotlight

I feel really deprived of news because I was not home when the hostage crisis took place. I went to a place without television and all I had was internet connection. The next few days after, though, made up for what I’d missed during the 10-hour televised coverage of the incident.

When I listened to the stories, I’m not only being told what really happened but I’m already hearing what the person talking to me thinks of the event. For example, on one moment I am inclined to say that the media is at grave fault because they failed to recognize that they are actually hindering the police operations. The supposed discretion of the locations of the police and the snipers were televised by the broadcast networks, which, it goes without saying, gave the hostage taker immense advantage he should not be having at all. The media was not also able to limit themselves, as they were too close to the crime scene that it was also possible they can be harmed.

My ethics professor pointed out that the media seem to have forgotten that they could not be any more ignorant than the viewing public. If they don’t know what’s happening, they can’t go on air and start panicking. It was probably better if they delayed the broadcast or stopped covering altogether. When the public perceives the supposed stewards of information as clueless as they are, the trust vanishes. The hostage taker might even have felt a certain degree of confidence because he was able to put everybody on his wit’s ends.

The major networks all competed to get the most compelling, the most action-filled footage, forgetting their codes of conduct, and their ethical standards, going so close to the scene compromising not only their safety but of the hostages as well. They should have respected the police, no matter how competent or incompetent they perceive the latter to be. As my prof said, “Media people are not trained to be negotiators.”

But I could not put all the blame on the media, of course, no matter how *tongue-in-cheek* the coverage seemed to be. After my ethics prof pointed out the lapses of the media, here comes the ACLe in which our speakers were media practitioners who, unsurprisingly, said that it’s primarily the police force’s fault the crisis ended up so badly. And I agree with some of their points. One of these is the fact that the nature of the media’s profession is to narrate as vividly as possible. Who would want to be outscooped in this jungle called ratings competition? If the police wanted to restrict the media’s access and thereby ensuring that the operations will go according to their prescribed protocols during crisis situations, then the restriction should be all-out—meaning no one gets the footage. Fair and square.

Another lapse is that the police arrived some time AFTER the media did. It’s the media people’s instinct to get as close to the story as possible, and because of arriving late, the police was not even able to cordon-off the place! One speaker int he ACLe said that, however, if those police wanted to get the media away from the scene, they could have done so—they have guns, they can threaten the unarmed reporters even just for posterity’s sake. They are not called the authorities for nothing. But instead, what did they do? They took pictures with them news anchors, followed what the celebrities said and so on.

I could not also blame the media for covering the arrest of Mendoza’s brother, which was said to have triggered the hostage taker’s rampage. As another of our speakers said, “The scene was dramatic, it was colorful. It had to be on the camera.” Now if the scene never happened at all, if the dozens of police present were able to restrain the lone man in a more composed manner, the media wouldn’t have been able to heighten the tension in the incident.

Both sides have lapses. Even the bystanders have lapses. And perhaps, the President himself had a lapse as well. Whereas the media and the police erred because they did certain things they should have not done, P-Noy is now seen as passive in a situation that needed all the attention it could have—including diplomacy. I think it was good if the President immediately dispelled uneasiness in the international community by issuing a statement—an apology, a promise, whatever. But I do understand that he meant it good when he did not intervene during the operations. He was leaving it to the (supposed) experts hands. He does not have to say “This incident will be investigated, those at fault will be punished.” He did not need to say that because  it will happen, it has to happen, naturally—hierarchically if I may say so.  I had to go without saying. But because we are so used to seeing these social institutions not work unless told to do so, the people felt P-Noy was too lax and was taking the issue for granted.

 I am definitely not  defending what the Palace did or did not do. What I’m saying is that the media, the police, and the President all have clearly defined roles. In crisis situations where a minute can make the difference, where an uttered word could trigger gunshots, and some sort of consolation (even half-assed) would be of grave importance, all we could do was trust that the person beside us will do his job, and will perform because it’s what he’s trained for or elected for.

Now, many Hong Kong nationals could not wait to hit some random Filipino guy on the street, or fire their Pinay domestic helper. TT________TT

The fault of one compromised the entire country.
I think it’s about time that  each one think and act for the sake of everybody else.

Yep, sorry for the lame title. XP