"Mag-ama sa Marikina natagpuang patay!" (with accent on the last word!) "Uma ayaw sa mga taga-probinsya!" "Pangulo nagsinungaling!" "SEA Games dinaya!" These are the kind of headlines we are usually bombarded with daily on print or on TV. They do call attention; making one want to listen or read the rest of the story only to find out that there's more to the headlines than one actually perceives. That when one goes through the context of quotes recorded or footages taken, a not too apparent story affronts the prejudgment of the receiver.
This makes me wonder, what is the role of the media? By definition, media is a mechanism to convey a message or a story. It is a medium, the intermediary between reality and the people. By its power, it can amplify a small detail as is done in the movies, for instance, when a drop of sweat is magnified a thousand times over, slow-mo, to build suspense while Ethan hangs from the ceiling of a sealed chamber in Mission: Impossible. It can also hide from the viewers whatever flaw a singer has by panning away while he lip syncs poorly in a production number. Or it can relay in raw whatever is recorded on tape or on camera as is done in senate hearings. It is powerful sans doute but the thing is, it can be misused and it is being misused!
What is the media's role? Is the media there to relay what's real or to get the scoop and weave a new narrative out of the ordinary? In the former, I purposedly did not use ferret out the truth because I absolutely believe that this is the role of the justice system and the state. The media conveys what is brought out in the open and not the active agent in spelling out the truth or interpreting the facts. I guess, I've just stated my position. Yes, media men engaging in public service that is, active and actual involvement in advocacy and social service under the banner of Serbisyong Totoo is already out of bounds. Acting as the Imbestigador or being the Bitag just to get a fresh story is confusing media being a medium to being that specific thing which needs mediation. Here the media is in itself the story with the victim as front.
My position is that it is not in the league of news anchors (entertainment reporters and hosts included) to air their opinions about what's being reported. Doing so will muddle clear lines between facts and opinions. Sure they have their biases, their manok's and all but that gives no fair chance to guests, interviewees, and the subject in general since after the latter has been aired, the former holds the mic and thus, can either galvanize or refute, interpret, re-interpret or purposely mis-interpret the subject's position to the confusion of the viewers. Truth then will depend on the final word of the reporter.
Take the case of Uma saying he didn't like Racquel because she's a probinsyana (both characters are from the series Pinoy Big Brother). Viewing the original footage and the interviews that follow, Uma meant that their lifestyles stemming from their backgrounds were bound to clash. But the good hosts of a talk show glossed over the idea of Uma hating probinsyanas and judged his whole character as being arrogant. Worse than the spoken negative interpretation of the soundbyte, the hosts rolled their eyes and wore sour faces. Such images will definitely affect how the story will be perceived by the viewers. Even Uma's interview which has the objective, as the hosts claimed, to help him clarify his statements was very hostile [to the interviewee]. It was actually more a cathartic moment for the hosts, one of whom a victim of Uma's candid frankness, as they confronted Uma with their personal issues. The hosts too, as a prelude to the interview skewed public sympathy to their side as they lashed below the belt comments on Uma like having dirty fingernails, defending their ranks for image's sake rather than for truth, value, responsibility, and professionalism. This is the media as they practice it--media is not there to mediate but to stir up controversies, the so-called, buzz.
Media is no truth factory. Or perhaps, it's better to remind us that the media should be no truth factory. It cannot weave for us the events we will put ourselves in. Otherwise, media becomes a demi-god creating its own truths distorting our reality, stigmatizing individuals to stereotypes and/or whimsical characters in a world-wide studio or broadsheet. The media is only a tool to transmit a message to the people. The message comes from what's real and not from an edited idea of what will rate or what will click.
We've heard people say that the audience is now more intelligent, more picky with the shows they will watch. But it also remains to be a fact that no-brainer shows click best with the masses. Are our shows and news like so because of the audience? Or are the audience like so because of what is being fed to them by the media?
Seriously, I don't know. All I know is that I cannot allow myself to be desensitized and overrun by media sensationalism and gross misconduct. Probably that's one of the reasons why people blog--to seek alternative forms of re-dress and relay their own truths wittingly or unwittingly snubbed by the mainstream media.
Does Uma have a published blog? Maybe we can hear more of his thoughts through that page.
Read blogs and you'll know.
