• GMA Network clarifies, corrects Radikalchick ‘Media Mess’ column

    2

    Kindly allow us to address certain points made by your columnist Katrina Stuart Santiago about GMA Network’s coverage of the Vhong Navarro incident. [Radikalchick column “Media messes” on Feb. 6, 2014]

    Since this story broke, we have sought to get all sides and present them as fairly as we could. The proof is in our stories.

    Ms. Santiago makes this sweeping statement:

    “Between charges that Arnold Clavio was rude to Navarro’s lawyer on nationwide TV, and Jessica Soho seemingly dismissive of the woman’s condo’s CCTV, one is hard put to defend GMA.”

    No one is asking Ms. Santiago to defend GMA, but we do expect her to be fair in her observations. Did she actually see Arnold Clavio being rude to Vhong Navarro’s lawyer, or was she just repeating what she was reading on Facebook? We like to think that a media critic would make her own judgments based on a careful consideration of the source material. If she did watch the interview, she was not specific about when exactly in the interview Arnold demonstrated this rudeness. When we reviewed the interview, we did not observe a moment of rudeness. He was actually respectful and polite.

    As for Jessica Soho’s being “seemingly dismissive of the woman’s condo’s CCTV,” again, this refers to the exchange between Jessica and GMA News reporter John Consulta on SONA, January 30, 2014. We have transcribed and studied the exchange, which took place before the raw CCTV video was presented by the NBI at a press conference. The video material Jessica and John were discussing at that time was scanty, and Jessica at the beginning of the interview was skeptical about its possible impact on the case.

    But after listening to John explain the evidence so far, and what was about to be revealed by the NBI, Jessica had this to say:

    “Kung hindi ako nagkakamali, tugma ‘yan sa testimony ni Vhong Navarro na may biglang lumabas na mga lalaki within the condominium at tinutukan siya ng baril. Tama?”

    This does not sound like someone “dismissive” of the condo CCTV.

    Finally, regarding Gabriela’s objection to our reporting on their lawyer’s interview with GMA News reporter Sandra Aguinaldo, Sandra stands by her TV story that she did ask Gabriela lawyer, Atty. Alnie Foja, about Deniece and her rape charge, and has posted the entire transcript of the interview on her official Facebook page so any critic can make their own judgment.

    The online headline that Gabriela objected to was corrected as soon as they said it did not reflect the intent of the quote it was based on. Since we received a private complaint first, a GMA News Online editor sent a private explanation and an apology, before it was posted publicly. Both have been acknowledged by Gabriela.

    We deactivated both the TV and online stories while we were reviewing the complaint.

    Ms. Santiago can make her own judgment whether these actions were “deliberately misleading and malicious.”

    ANGEL JAVIER
    Vice-President for
    Communications
    GMA Network

    [Editor’s note: Attached to GMA VP Angel Javier’s letter is the Radikalchick “Media Mess” column that came out on Feb. 6, with the parts being clarified highlighted.]

    Share.
    loading...
    Loading...

    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    2 Comments

    1. on GMA Network’s clarification re the piece Media Messes, they say: “Sandra stands by her TV story that she did ask Gabriela lawyer, Atty. Alnie Foja, about Deniece and her rape charge, and has posted the entire transcript of the interview on her official Facebook page so any critic can make their own judgment.”

      “The online headline that Gabriela objected to was corrected as soon as they said it did not reflect the intent of the quote it was based on. Since we received a private complaint first, a GMA News Online editor sent a private explanation and an apology, before it was posted publicly. Both have been acknowledged by Gabriela.
      We deactivated both the TV and online stories while we were reviewing the complaint.”

      “Ms. Santiago can make her own judgment whether these actions were “deliberately misleading and malicious.”

      MY RESPONSE:
      well yes, i can make my own judgment, except that “deliberately misleading and malicious” were not my words, but Atty. Foja’s. in fact this part of the piece Media Messes was NOT AT ALL about whether or not the TV and online reports were “deliberately misleading and malicious.” instead I questioned the fact that it took GMA News Online forever to do that public apology for a charge that was also made publicly.

      the reports with that headline came out January 30, the charge of “misleading and malicious” was thrown their way on February 1, and they “deactivated the TV and online stories” upon hearing of the complaint, and the online headline was “corrected as soon as said it did not reflect the intent of the quote it was based on.” Media Messes came out February 4, and their apology was made public February 6. that’s a full week.

      i question(ed) the number of days it took them to apologize because to an online public, having taken down or revised those articles / headlines is tantamount to admitting their mistake. but apparently Sandra stands by her original TV story? and so was the February 6 apology only from GMA News Online for the online pieces, and NOT for GMA Network and the original Sandra Aguindalo story? pray tell.

      too, this begs the question: if Sandra stands by the fact that she did ask Atty. Foja about Deniece and her rape charge, then why did they deactivate / revise those articles? why apologize?

      and lastly, if that transcript is for “critics to make their own judgments” why is it not public? it’s not on either of the Sandra Aguindalo pages on FB, not even the one that was last updated January 11 2014. it’s not in the notes section of that FB account either (see screen caps of these pages in the comment section of this status on my FB account, all posted as public).

      NOTE: this is Atty. Alnie Fojas’s original Facebook post, dated February 1 2014:

      “Last Wednesday, GMA7’s Sandra Aguinaldo, interviewed me on RAPE 101. In that interview, I NEVER stated nor was I asked about Gabriela’s support for Deniece. I was made to understand that Sandra was to do a public information segment about rape in general. That GMA7 allowed the publication of an online article stating that Gabriela expresses support for Deniece based on Sandra Aguinaldo’s interview of me on RAPE 101 and that 24 Oras quoted my statement while showing footages of Deniece is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING and MALICIOUS.”

    2. been posting this series on my Facebook page, as public statuses. —

      a response in three parts to GMA Network’s clarification on the piece Media Messes. they say in their clarification that Jessica Soho “does not sound like someone “dismissive” of the condo CCTV,” speaking of course about how she concluded the conversation with John Consulta. my response are quotes from how that conversation began:

      (1) Jessica Soho, 4:42 to 5:35:

      “Ito ay kaso ng he said she said, the truth is out there sabi nga natin. uh, just to manage expectations, kase may cctv, kase may pagka-wow may cctv na. pero actually tugma yung timeline ng magkabilang kampo, hindi naman nila rine-refute ‘no.”

      “I don’t know dun sa appreciation ko ng kaso kung tama, pero dun sa flow of events version ng magkabilang kampo, walang magkaiba, consistent sila, pareho sila ng sinasabi, so i don’t know kung itong video na kuha sa lobby ng condo will amount to anything much.”