Where we stand is a lonely perch

It was quite a relief to see that none of the news anchors at the ABS-CBN News Channel lost their sense of objectivity when former Comelec commissioner Virgilio Garcillano refused to talk about the Hello Garci tapes.

For I can still remember distinctly how they, almost to a man, or woman, wore mourning black when the House of Representatives threw out the move to impeach the president on charges of electoral fraud.

I have been a journalist for more than 25 years and I would be too much of a sucker if I believe anyone who will tell me that black simply happened to be the coincidental choice of color of the ANC news team that day.

All of us, journalists included, have our own views on issues affecting the country. But it is in the open and public expression of these views that differentiate journalists from the rest of the citizenry.

Journalists, except the opinion-makers who are paid precisely to speak their mind, are supposed to maintain their neutrality in the exercise of their profession. Such neutrality is essential if the very exacting public demand for objectivity is ever to be credibly met.

In fairness to the ANC news team, all of them did try to conduct their coverage in accordance with these exacting demands, but their image before the public was simply as black as the color they chose to publicly manifest their personal sentiments.

In its coverage of the Garcillano testimony before a joint hearing of five congressional committees looking into the Hello Garci tapes, there was no more of the public manifestation of personal sentiment by way of a given color.

But there was a repetitive insertion by ANC during its coverage of the congressional hearing of a video taped discourse by former NBI officer Samuel Ong that was just as indicative of where its sentiments lie.

To be sure, journalistic balance requires that the public be appraised of what Ong has to say at this point, considering that he is the supposed whistle-blower (although some see him as a mere stool pigeon of somebody) in the Garci tapes controversy.

But to be persistent about the insertion of the Ong discourse, to the point that it, at times, would eat into the coverage of the hearing itself, suggests a witting or unwitting further destruction of whatever is left of the credibility and dignity of the hapless Garcillano.

For there was Ong, having a field day with his own version of events, trying hard but never succeeding in producing a tear in his eye no matter how hard and often he blinked and squinted in the attempt.

Tears just do not come in handy as an accomplice in brazen charades, even with such powerful allies as the media. Even his invocation of the members of his family just could not summon enough sincere emotional tuggings in the heart of Ong to well up even a single tear.

What a pathetic guy. And what a waste of valuable air time. Yet, in addition to Ong, ANC also inserted voice clips of Senator Panfilo Lacson, the man many secretly believe is not as innocent or as good as he looks.

But did ANC, with the vastness of its resources, ever lifted a finger of extra effort or initiative to find other news sources who can also speak on behalf of Garcillano and not just those who are expected to discredit him?

To be sure, it may be unfair to condemn ANC on the basis of the color its news team chose to wear on a particular, if significant, date, as well as how it chose to cover a news event. But well, the entire country is yapping about truth, not knowing if it is still even here.