By: Mark Christofer Manalo
AT first glance, the headline may look reasonable to readers: INC group asking for ‘Duterte intervention’ in church crisis? But, really, to astute readers, it is anything but that.
The post was published on Rappler on August 21 and was last updated on the same day, at 5:56 PM. I read the article when it came up on my Google Alerts and, boy, was I disappointed (or not, considering this is Rappler we’re talking about).
Full disclosure, I am an active Iglesia ni Cristo member. I think the press coverage about this “crisis” would have died down by now (and it mostly has, save for a few pockets of cyberspace). And I think this is all bunk. That being said, I think I can appreciate a good story when I see one.
And this article was poorly written at best (maliciously, at worst). Start with the headline. Who puts question marks at the end of headlines? In case you are not familiar with this typical headline-writing dud, this is called Betteridge’s law of headlines. It basically states that “any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
Adding a question mark to this article’s headline practically means, “hey, I don’t know what I’m talking about nor do I have anything to back this up, but don’t sue me, I’m just asking!” Insinuation and innuendo, that is what this is used for. If you need more examples of such headlines (mostly mundane, click-bait stuff), see http://betteridgeslaw.com/.
So let’s go on and dive into the article itself.
In the fourth paragraph, the writer quotes “’human rights violations’ of the church leadership,” even stating that the occupants of 36 Tandang Sora, Quezon City were “subjected to harassment.”
It goes on to enumerate these “harassments:” that the compound is “surrounded by armed security personnel,” that “a wall was also built to enclose the compound,” that the occupants “have been deprived of water and electricity.”
Nowhere in the article could one find any attempt at getting the INC’s side or even their comment regarding the Facebook group’s call for Duterte’s intervention. I would think that a disinterested, unbiased writer would at the very least ask for a comment.
And even if the writer gets a polite “No comment,” there are plenty of articles online that could provide a semblance of balance to this report. Here is a report from CNN quoting INC spokesman Bro. Edwil Zabala on armed personnel observed inside the compound with the occupants. Here’s another from the Inquirer quoting Bro. Zabala once more, this time when the occupants refused to let Commission on Human Rights investigators in. And another one from the Manila Standard about the same incident.
My point is, if the writer wanted to get a quote from the INC, if the writer wanted to provide a semblance of balance to the story, it is oh so easy. But the writer did not, which speaks volumes.
The writer then quotes the Facebook group’s statement calling on President Duterte to intervene and even painting the President in a good light, saying “We are fully confident that your government will be fair and just in your response to all the problems of Filipino citizens as you have declared you will not tolerate wrongdoing and wickedness because you were elected to serve all and not only one.”
If the President does not intervene (and how and why must he? What legal or moral basis would he have to do so?), I suspect the tone would shift from praising President Duterte to shaming him as a lapdog of an influential group.
The article concludes with this line: Will Duterte heed their call?
Ugh. Again with the question mark. The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the headline: No. Would any Facebook group that springs up and calls for presidential intervention get what they ask for? No. What national interest is served when the President intervenes in an internal Church affair? None.
I just couldn’t believe that this was actually published. I still can’t wrap my head around it.
But perhaps my standards are different from Rappler’s.
However, I stumbled upon this: How to check if online election-related information is reliable.
Yes, it says “election-related” but I figure, if these guidelines are good enough for determining reliability and credibility of election reports (which are notoriously unreliable and full of propaganda), they should be good enough for any story that is tainted with heavy doses of bias and subjectivity.
So let’s have at it. Rappler says to figure out the “purpose of the online article you are reading helps determine motivation for producing the material. This can help you decide whether what the author is saying is fact, opinion, or plain propaganda.”
Sadly, I could not (without indulging my bias) figure out what the purpose of the article in discussion is so we’ll call it a wash.
It also says “reliable material, more often than not, provides information about the author. A self-respecting author knows that credibility starts with being truthful about who s/he is. Every respectable author will always be willing to provide the public with his/her background, including his/her experience, credentials, and qualifications, among others. These pieces of information can help determine credibility.”
Alas, the writer is unnamed. Maybe because this is an Inside Track article, which is Rappler’s “intelligencer on people, events, places and everything of public interest.” OK, I can respect that, so basically it is a dumping ground of unsubstantiated tips and leads? Sure, why not.
Lastly, Rappler’s guidelines ask the reader to “see if the discussion seems to deliberately include or omit a specific piece of information.” Clearly, given all the available material online and given the fact that the side of the INC is glaringly absent from the article, this fails Rappler’s own guidelines on reliability.
I go back to my earlier judgement on this article: poorly written at best, malicious at worst.
