Reflection Paper: Children in the News

Before our second panel discussion in our Intro to Journ class we talked about the corruption on media an the corruption of media. It was a shocking and interesting discussion and made us think twice about becoming real journalists. Yet interesting as that was I couldn't help but be a little side tracked. After all what kept running in my head was our report on children, since it was me and my group's turn to be the main panel in the class' panel discussion later that meeting.

Of course, I had read the article by Cecille A. Balgos in her book, a Reporter's Guide the Child With a Fish for a Twin, on reporting on children. The article focused on how children and their issues or rather the issues that concern them, should be a more prominent discussion in the news and media. And how media practitioners should go about reporting on them. The article argued that kids need a voice, for though they occupy a large percentage of our population they are often silenced by matters we deem to be more important. Yet, in truth we should listen to what concerns them as these articles/stories will reveal much about our own society and more importantly since they are our future.

When I read the article I couldn't help but agree as I took into consideration what it said and meant. Stories on children do concern our own welfare and future so why do we not take the pains to report on them? But then again, how should we report on them without adding sensuality to the data and at the same time being sensitive enough the subjects of our story?

The article on children gave examples of reports on children to show how important these issues are and how we are to report on them to answer these questions it originally posed. Hence, my group mates and I divided these sub-articles amongst ourselves since there were five articles and five of us in the group. I ended up getting the first article. And so other than discussing the sub-article, I was assigned to discuss and explain the first part of the main article. So while my group mates read and re-read their cue cards as our other classmates prepared to listen and rebut our discussions, I found myself staring into space thinking about how to phrase my report. I did not look at my cue card at first, since I was afraid I had written too much for me to say within four minutes. Instead I used what I had written as a guide to organize my thoughts.

But when it was time to get the ball rolling our professor announced who our main peanut gallery was going to be. And lo and behold it was none other than the group me and my other group mate's close friends! Everyone else in the classroom knew that and I'm almost certain the thought on everyone's mind was, This is going to be interesting. And though I had sort of wished my friends' group would be our peanut gallery I was in for a surprise as me and everyone else saw just how interesting the discussion got.

I expected them to understand what I was talking about since I had already somewhat explained the article to them before class when they asked me to clarify. I think I did explain my main points clearly enough (which were basically the points I stated at the beginning of this entry). But as for organizing my thoughts, I got caught in my web of words once again. I knew what my friend from the peanut gallery meant when she rebutted one of my statements (not without a little help from our professor, mind you). And it later occurred to me, when I got the point (though a little too late) that is, that her point wasn't far from my statement. It's just that I had stated it differently which made it rather unclear as to what my implication really was and thus somewhat altered what I had meant. For, I did not really disagree with what she said, in truth I agreed that numbers do mean something in an article. Yet my statement implied that I did not think them as important and that the reporter should explain what it meant to the readers because the readers were likely to disregard numbers or the numbers were likely not to affect them. Which is a stereotypical view, really, if you think about it. And what I believe I had really meant was that the reporter himself or herself must know what it means in order to dig deeper. For if he or she is interested in his or her assignment than they are more likely to hook the readers in and get their work featured or published. But I got caught because I guess I hadn't fully organized my thoughts specifically when I made the actual statement in the first place.

And that's where I learned to mind what I say when making a public statement especially one that would be made under the scrutiny of others. And it's an important point to remember as a future media practitioner because what we say will be most, if not all of the time be under the scrutiny of others and will be likely to be discussed. And most of the time we'll only have one chance to make our statements, so we should make should they are clear and understood.

The rest of the discussion followed the pattern of the first. Our peanut gallery was so thorough as to refute every statement they found questionable or unclear. I found however their arguments to be oftentimes on the same track as ours. It was rather funny really, as we knew these girls and their ideologies quite well. Not only that but their line of thinking was more or less the same or in agreement with ours. Sometimes I found we were going round and round because they thought we opposed their views or vice versa when we were really trying to make the same point. It was yet another classic example of the eccentricities of communication that were oftentimes the product or result of miscommunication.

However, similar though our views, that did not make our discussion and arguments pointless. In fact it made things more interesting as had been predicted above. And it was really intense. For about an hour and a half the scenario in the classroom seemed to revolve around these two groups of friends and all else seemed to disappear or fade into the role of an attentive audience. Yet this only made our discussion more thorough and exhaustive. Which suited the topic which was one that was not to be easily trifled with.

News in which children are directly and extensively involved or affected is really a rather delicate yet relevant matter. And I don't just mean news items where children are mentioned. I mean real news that is all about them and not about a crime committed against one or more of them. For, these stories more often than not turn out to be cultural or societal issues. Hence we should be aware of these stories both as future media practitioners or recipients of the news. We should consider the amount and importance of the data yet at the same time realize the relevance of the issue and more especially what both these aspects of the article show. And we should be discerning enough to listen for the children's voice in the matter, for this reveals how they are affected and what it could mean for our future. Hence, whether reading or writing an article on children we should remember it is more than just reading material, more than just an assignment.

Reflection Paper: The Power of the Tragedy

Last Wednesday we had two separate panel discussions on how media reports tragedies. We discussed two different articles that focused on how tragedies or disasters and calamities are or have been reported on. You see, it seems these news stories on disasters seem to draw attention. Yet have we thought about why? Does that mean we are a bloodthirsty people only interested in gory tragedies or does it really have a relevant impact on our lives and in society? And what is the relevance of all these stories? Well, that's what we aimed to discuss with the help of the two articles, "Kapamilya Drama: The Tragedy of the Spectacle" by Louie Jon A. Sanchez and "Pagbagsak ng Flight 387 at Edad Ozone: Ang Disaster ng Ating Pang-araw-araw na Buhay" by Rolando Tolentino, in our class' panel discussion.

When I read the two articles I'll admit I was able to identify with and understand the former more. But discussing both articles in class, especially when it was explained and dissected by those in the panel, made it easier to understand and even made the articles more effective. I guess there really is something about stating your views rather than just chewing on them by yourself. And the discussion really got my mind moving and my blood flowing.

Our first discussion was more specific since the article talked about one specific tragedy and focused only on one aspect of its reporting. This was about the tragedy at Philsports Arena aka Ultra that occurred last February 2006 due to the ABS-CBN produced show, Wowowee. And since this obviously involved a big time media organization the article focused on how the television network angled it stories and brought out this tragedy in the news.
The second article was more general as it involved separate disasters and their presentations. It also took on a more scientific approach, analyzing the tendencies of the news recipients in terms of their amount of initial interest and how fast they lose interest and so on. And it was angled in such a way that it was a study of the indications of the publicity of tragedies or disasters in the Philippine society in light of culture vs. pop-culture.

When the discussion got underway on the Wowowee incident, concerns about the issue were expressed and not so much the message of the article itself was discussed. I guess that's because the incident is still rather fresh and many had a lot to say about it. But when we got back to the article we found ourselves discussing more about the credibility of the media and the great cover-up or "crisis management" that ABS-CBN was able to pull off. The fact of the matter is, television is a very powerful media. And indeed it was this power of words that caused the incident. The explicit advertising that Wowowee did to broadcast the event of their first anniversary is what caused that many people to fill up Ultra and thus cause a stampede. Yet, ironically this same medium was used to correct the mistake, divert people's attention and cover-up the real tragedy.
The article also argues that ABS-CBN's "kapamilya" slogan is an example of how people seek to find escape in the non-reality of TV. People's dreams and concepts of a family seemed to be realized with that slogan. Thus, when the hope of that actually being fulfilled in the form of the promised prizes, people clamored and fought for the realization of those dreams. Yet at what cost?
Conversely, there is a part in the second article about how the movie, Titanic used that analogy between the main characters' dreams, goals and love and the ship itself. This was what added a dramatic aspect to an already tragic, yet nonetheless past event. And this is what made it more identifiable to the audience.

So is our undying interest in tragedies, disasters or calamities part of an escapist culture of our society? If so, what is the role and responsibility of the media?
Well, this doesn't have to mean there is a general rule of thumb that follows that our culture or pop-culture is one that is bloodthirsty because of the amount of attention the public pays to the gory and sad stories about disaster stricken areas or people. No, in fact the later article states that these disaster stories catch out attention "sa ayaw at sa gusto". Meaning whether we like hearing these stories or not, the simple fact that we like or dislike them still means our attention is drawn to them. It also doesn't necessarily mean we are all escapists. After all, how much more real can you get with a disaster news story? But maybe they do do something to make us who live on to hear and tell the stories, feel real and alive ourselves. When it happens to someone else you can't help but think, along with all your mournful sighs (sincere or not), "Thank God it wasn't me."
And that's natural. As natural as people finding comfort in something that takes their minds away from their current problems even for a little while. And no, I'm most certainly not talking about drugs, alcohol or any of those vices. No, I am referring of course to the vice that is media. And when you think about it, this has been going on for centuries. Think of the gladiators fighting off lions in the great Colosseum of Rome. Did it not function on the same principle? Caesar knew his subjects were hungry, so he gave them a show. Yet even his show was one of power---Caesar's power. But it's sheer reality reminded people that they were alive and made them grateful they were not the ones there in the arena with the lions. At the same time they forgot their hunger and their anger against Caesar. Again, the power of media (and its controller) asserted.
But on the other hand, there is another aspect in the grounding in reality that disaster news stories provide. Other than reminding us we are alive, it provides us with relevant issues that concern us. They keep us up-to-date with what's going on in our disaster-ridden country and keep us informed on the livelihood and welfare of our fellow countrymen and possibly even our relatives in far flung areas of the Philippines. At the same time, these stories become part of our history and teach us to learn from them.
Still there is the question of our becoming numb to these stories because of the number of these types of news items. And that's where the responsibility of the media lies. Thus bringing us back again to our discussed articles.
In the end of our discussion we concluded that one, we must be careful about what we listen to or read because the media is very powerful and can still be objective in terms of news items or even advertisements; and secondly, as future media practitioners we must realize the power of our medium and make sure we use it responsibly. Tragedies are part of our everyday lives, if you think about it. Yet it is no mundane thing and we must watch out how we view them and take care to avoid or prevent them.