Privacy

Twice over the past few weeks, a broadcaster from the giant network ABS-CBN was involved in a high-profile controversy. The height of that profile was defined principally by the network’s own intensive coverage of the two events.

In both instances, the journalists of the giant network circled the wagons around their beleaguered colleagues. The broadcasters’ versions were highlighted. The network’s treatment of the news suggested the innocence of their colleagues even before investigators or, in the second, the courts had the opportunity to establish that fact.

One cannot fault, I suppose, the journalists of this network from rallying around their colleagues during a moment of challenge. They saw themselves as a family, and tended to be protective of their “ka-pamilya.”

But what is disturbing is that, in both instances, the reporting emanating from this network suggested that the difficulties confronting their colleagues were due to “political harassment” — or at least some form of vendetta against the network for the sometimes strident tone of their coverage.

This last characteristic of the network’s news coverage should be avoidable. The quality of professional journalists housed by this network should make us expect something better than indulgence in conspiracy theories or, worse, a severe case of persecution complex.

The tragic death, a few weeks ago, of Ted Failon’s wife threatened to deteriorate early on into a public melodrama. Rumors were rife; they were unhealthy. Most likely, they were unfounded and unkind.

Police investigators were under intense pressure to immediately resolve the cause of death. They were upset that the scene of the apparent suicide was tampered with. They were exasperated that the people they wanted to question appeared reluctant to submit to their hospitality. And they were more than a bit clumsy, dragging househelp and relatives in for questioning and charging the uncooperative with obstruction of justice.

Faced with a total public relations disaster, investigation of the incident was turned over to the NBI. The death was finally ruled a suicide. That was that.

But all through this sad episode, Failon and his colleagues in the network began suggesting that all the clumsiness on the part of the police in the first hours of the investigation was inspired by revenge. Worse, there was even a suggestion the high-handed treatment of the grieving relatives was inspired by a conspiracy directed by an influential person.

That, I thought, was uncalled for. It added a political tinge to a tragic private affair. But I was ready to charge it to the emotions of the moment and avoided touching on it in this space.

Until the other day, that is, when veteran journalist Cheche Lazaro went to court to post a P12,500 bail. This was in response to an arrest warrant issued by a court on an illegal wiretapping case filed, in her private capacity, by GSIS vice-president for communications Ella Valencerina.

Valencerina says she sued at her own instance. Her complaint, basically, revolved around an incident where a phone conversation with Lazaro was taped and then subsequently aired. Whether a violation of the Anti-wiretapping Law happened in this instance is, obviously, for the court to decide. The fact that the fiscal who looked into the complaint decided this was a case worth filing suggests Valencerina’s action is not entirely without legal merit.

I can empathize with Valencerina’s grief.

Once, my mobile phone rang with an unregistered number. When I took the call, I found myself on the air with two insistent female lawyers who happen to be hosting a television program. Without the courtesy of a forewarning, they began asking me questions about that controversial Venable contract. I told them I hadn’t seen the contract and had no basis for commenting on it.

Disappointed with my reply, and probably hoping I could add to their agitation about it, they began taking me to task for not knowing about the contract. I told them it was not in my usual business to do so. They wanted me to do a dissertation on it anyway, without bothering to inquire if I was in the toilet or driving a vehicle at the moment. Annoyed, I cut the conversation off, telling them this was a faux issue.

That unwelcome intrusion into my private peace became even more so the next day when they beat me up in blogs for being dismissive of the issue. Since then, I have avoided taking calls from unregistered numbers. In this age of phone patches, simply taking a call could land you in a broadcast.

The mass media could be intrusive. It could so easily break into anyone’s privacy and brazenly trample on rights to privacy. There needs to be a finer consensus in the journalistic community over the conduct of interviews and the use of phone conversations, outside the formal setting of an interview, for airing.

On this concern, there is public merit in hearing out the arguments in the case filed against Cheche. Ordinary citizens, not only journalists, have rights too.

Over a decade ago, US broadcaster Connie Chung was fired by her network for airing off-the-record comments made by Newt Gingrich’s mother. The comments were unfavorable to then First Lady Hillary Clinton. It was Mrs. Gingrich, not Hillary, who was the victim here.

Again, I thought ABS-CBN’s treatment of the Cheche bail filing was wobbly. The scene at the court was staged, with public school teachers holding placards in the background. The network’s broadcasters cried harassment and (wrongly) suggested the GSIS chief, who had a run in with the owners of the station, inspired the case.

Cheche is a friend and a journalist I profoundly respect. She should have discouraged her network from transforming this case into a heavily editorialized event.