Why is TV "idioting" the Phl with Dionisia?

I could not understand why Philippine television ran to Dionisia to solicit her reaction to the legislative debates on the pending RH bill that her boxer-congressman son Mannny Pacquiao has chosen to actively participate in.

As far as I can remember, this is the first time the media, whether in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world, has chosen to solicit the comments of a mother concerning the actions of a son or daughter who happens to be a member of Congress, or any other legislative body.

Has the sense of appreciation of Philippine media to what is important, appropriate, and beneficial fallen so low that it would lose no time in interviewing a woman whose only claim to primetime is that she happens to be the mother of the world’s greatest boxer?

Dionisia has absolutely nothing to do, at least as far as public interest is concerned, with the legislative matters her son chooses to engage in, and how other legislators engage her son as a consequence.

I am aghast that members of a profession who pride themselves in being arbiters of public interest would find it worth their while to dignify the rantings of a woman who got incensed that her son got plastered in increasingly nasty debates over the RH bill.

While the protective nature of mothers toward their children are understandable and highly appreciated, there is a need to put public displays of that protective nature in proper perspective.

Filipino audiences do not deserve to have their precious time squandered by the senseless direction to which Philippine television is bringing them each time it feels it important enough to consult Dionisia over matters she has neither rhyme nor reason to talk about.

For what appreciable gain and furtherance of public interest did the people behind the decision to interview Dionisia over the battering her son received in the course of the RH bill debates hope to achieve?

And to what perceptible measure of knowledge or enlightenment did the airing of the Dionisia interview for public consumption did Philippine television hope to elevate its captive but hapless audience?    

I can understand the practical benefits of media leaning toward the sensational because this is what sells and attracts audiences, but this must always be done without sacrificing the facts. There are ways of angling a story to make it attractive without distorting truth.

But leading off a story about how Pacquiao fared in the congressional debates with the tantrums of Dionisia, who got angry that the legislative credibility of her son got plastered, was stretching media discretion, and even press freedom, too much.

In a previous column, I already questioned the validity of Philippine television’s decision to constantly devote a huge chunk of its airtime to Dionisia before and after every Pacquiao fight, as if coverage of the fight itself would be rendered incomplete without it.

But to consult Dionisia on the legislative functions of her son and solicit her reaction to how the son is treated and regarded during congressional debates is too much. It is taking stupidity and madness to greater heights.

I once thought electing Noynoy president on account of his genes does not speak well of the people who elected him. Consulting Dionisia if she approves of the way son Pacquiao is being engaged by colleagues in congressional debates only validates such low regard for Filipinos.