Training required

Last Monday, I read the “Letter to the Editor” sent by DPWH Secretary Rogelio Singson, in response to a couple of articles where he was given honorable mention concerning his efforts to convince the Department of Justice and the Office of the President that the DPWH should have control and supervision of all infrastructure projects particularly those concerning the NLEX and the SLEX.

In those article I raised the question why Secretary Singson persisted in gaining control over the projects in spite of the fact that the Department of Justice and the Office of the President had said NO to his arguments. I wrote the second article, because in spite of the rejection from the DOJ and the Office of the President, an appeal was once again filed on the same subject matter.

Not only does Singson want control and supervision of all infrastructure projects including those under the PPP, he has also questioned the legality of projects already approved by President Noynoy Aquino. According to Secretary Singson, his efforts are all part of due diligence required for such projects. If that is the case, does this mean that the NEDA, DOTC, TRB, PNCC, DOJ, Office of the Executive Secretary and the Office of the President did not exercise the same due diligence in the matter?

While I am glad, and welcome some form of response from the very busy Secretary, the Secretary’s “Letter to the Editor” was a classic example of why government officials need constant training regarding media relations and media management.

For many years, I have conducted training seminars on the subject and one of the lessons I try to teach participants is that when you become the subject of a report or an opinion column, do your best to meet up or have “Face Time” with the reporter or the opinion writer to clarify matters. By doing so, you are actually sending a signal that you take their report or opinion seriously, that you are concerned enough to make time, and that you have nothing to hide as shown by your willingness to meet in public. Making an effort to meet up also gives people the impression that you are humble enough and unaffected by your title or position.

Meeting up or having “Face Time” will also allow you and the writer to compare notes and clarify points. The fact of the matter is that no ten people will read an article or an opinion 100% the same way. Whether it’s a love letter, an expose or a “Dear John” letter, people don’t always get what the writer means especially if we don’t know the writer well enough or if we happen to be smarting or hurting over some comments made in the past by other writers. Whether we like it or not, our perception is often affected by our past hurts, fears, expectations, position and environment.

Several opinion writers will agree that meeting up with them does more good, while writing a letter to the Editor will most likely cause the subject more grief if not pain. In fact the letter to the Editor often times escalates matters because letters to the Editor effectively challenges the accuracy or integrity of the reporter or writer.

As a consequence, the reporter or writer will either go on a tit-for-tat mode or respond with an even harsher article or because of human nature begin to put you on their personal watch list. 

When you send a letter to the Editor, you are in a way making “sumbong” (being a tattle tale) while ventilating your grievance or correcting the writer. What many of them fail to realize is that the very “Editor” they send their letters to, are also the same editors who had approved the publication of the report or opinion being complained about. In effect, it is a courtesy extended to the subject of the report or the opinion, but it does not change what has been said or written about them.

It is a common mistake to assume that a reporter or a columnist writes things on their own without any accountability. Yes, we file the report or write the opinion based on our knowledge and sources, but whatever we send in for airing or publication is subject to review, verification as well as grammatical correction. Then it is subjected to review of an even more senior and experienced working journalist as well as legal review. From time to time even the publisher goes through our work to determine accuracy and compliance with house rules. So by the time an opinion piece gets printed it effectively comes with a seal of approval.

Another piece of advise I give participants is don’t wait until the fire starts. If there is smoke there will soon be a fire and in the case of Secretary Singson’s letter, it was clear that he waited until I wrote a second article on the same subject before reacting with a Letter to the Editor.

It is ironic that the good Secretary does not take a dose of his own medicine. When I wrote an article about the highway expansion project in Lipa City, the DPWH central office immediately sent out instruction to the regional or district engineers to respond to the article in writing. What Engineer Nestor Cleofas did was to meet with me personally. That effort saved Cleofas having to write a “Letter to the Editor” because once I learned the whys and wherefores of road expansion, I gladly wrote about it.

Secretary Singson may not know it, but there are a handful of people at the DPWH central office who actually underwent media training at the Development Academy of the Philippines. Maybe they can train him.