Our erstwhile managing editor, Felipe Salvosa 2nd, did not resign; I asked for his resignation for betraying the interests of The Manila Times and for highly unethical behavior. While still under the employ of the Times, he tweeted Monday last week: “A diagram is by no means an evidence of ‘destabilization’ or an ‘ouster plot,’” he said, adding that it was a “very huge stretch for anyone to accuse” journalists of plotting to unseat the President. That tweet was picked up by ABS-CBN.
No self-respecting manager would allow such a transgression by an employee to go unpunished. The manager is duty-bound to discipline employees who screw up. In much the same fashion, no self-respecting employee or editor should speak ill of his employer while still working for the company. The honorable thing to do is to resign first before speaking unfavorably of his employer. That is called decency.
If he had really wanted to resign out of protest over the publication of the “Oust Duterte Plot Bared” article, why did he not do so immediately following the publication of the story that Monday? In an interview over ANC, he said he had wanted to resign, but “Naunahan lang ako (I was beaten to a draw).” Three days after the fact? For the record, I was the one who phoned our president and chief executive officer (CEO) to set up a meeting with Salvosa last Wednesday afternoon in my office.
That fateful afternoon
During that meeting, I waited for him to apologize for speaking ill of the paper in public. I tried no less than three times to give him an opening to just say sorry for his transgression, but he did not. I tried to prick his conscience by repeating the question no less than three times if it was okay for an employee to tweet ill of his employer while still in the employ of his employer. All in vain. So, after sensing no apology was forthcoming, I said: “I need your resignation.”
I told him that I was not happy with his performance and had wanted to fire him for tardiness. He would report for work at 5:00 p.m. when the 3:00 p.m. story conference was long over. Such arrangement was contrary to the principles of good management and in the short and long run would engender a morale problem among the staff, but I told him I kept my peace out of respect for our president and CEO.
Salvosa failed to do his job
Assuming he was against the publication of the report, he should have called me to raise his objection. He did not. If he did, I could have explained to him that my source did not support or explain the claims in the matrix. I merely quoted my source and simply reported the matrix without comments.
I would have also reminded him that the job of the newspaper was to call those mentioned in the matrix, time permitting. And we did; we tried to call the principal actor, Ellen Tordesillas, for comment. We published her reaction along with those from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Rappler and Vera Files the following day.
No malice
I personally phoned our publisher-editor, Neri Tenorio, on Sunday afternoon to seek a reaction from Tordesillas. One of her editors texted to say that she “is in [a province] and the internet connection there is weak.” The following day, Monday, she sent her reaction to the desk.
On Monday afternoon, our publisher phoned me to say that the NUJP, PCIJ and Rappler had also submitted their reactions and that they were personal and offensive. I gave specific instructions to have these published prominently and unedited, regardless.
Tenorio, in turn, instructed Salvosa to publish all the negative reactions, who could not believe that I would allow the nasty, vicious, personal reactions assaulting me to be included in the follow-up piece. “Are you sure DAA (Dante A. Ang) would like to publish these vicious reactions?” or words to that effect were asked Neri. My only request, I told Neri, was to also publish the other reactions from our readers to balance the negative comments from PCIJ, Rappler and the NUJP.
The PCIJ, Rappler and NUJP reactions were given prominent treatment, above the fold, beside the banner for the day.
The matrix is a story
The oust Duterte plot is a legitimate story. A solitary matrix, especially if it came from the Office of the President, is a story in itself. There was absolutely no need, or an urgent need on the same day, to have another source — as the PCIJ, NUJP and Rappler would say in criticizing me — before printing the story.
I did not accuse those named in the matrix as being involved in the plot against the President; I merely quoted the matrix. I did not even comment on it; just reported it. I did not fill in the inadequacies of the matrix because none was offered by my source.
I did not force my story on Salvosa or anyone in The Manila Times. The matrix came from a highly reliable source in the Palace and no less than the President, through the Presidential Spokesman Sal Panelo, has confirmed it. So much for the one-source story.
A running story
An editor worth his salt would have known that the oust Duterte plot story is a running one. His job was to call those mentioned in the matrix for their reactions the day after its publication. He did not.
If he thought there was still a need to widen the scope of the reaction, he should have done so. He was free to do that, nobody was stopping him. He did not.
Now he is saying that the story should not have been published at all until all those named in the matrix were called for their reactions. Bull. ANC, CNN Philippines, and other media outfits did not call me for my side of the story when they interviewed Salvosa. Up to this writing, ANC and CNN Philippines have not called. In fairness to GMA Network, it sought my comment immediately following Salvosa’s interview. It was followed by an interview by Anthony Taberna and Gerry Baja over DZMM radio on Friday or four days after the publication of the oust Duterte story.
Salvosa was also being mentally dishonest because he knows that publishing or airing stories even before reactions can be had happens all the time and that seeking reactions after the fact are commonplace. In many cases, reactions are printed or aired days after the main story is published or aired. He did not do his job. Despite what has happened between the two of us, I still respect Salvosa. I hope we can remain friends. I wish him well.
Shooting the messenger
Instead of answering the allegations, these so-called journalists assaulted my character. They turned their bile on the messenger just because they did not like the message. And they call themselves journalists?
The NUJP, in particular, seems to have gone overboard in its reaction. It issued what I consider to be an unadulterated, if personal “threat.” “Should any harm come to those he has maligned, Dante Ang should be held just as fully accountable,” the NUJP wrote. If this is not a threat, what is? Sorry, ‘Day, I don’t scare easily. Matagal na ‘kong takot. NUJP calls that journalism?
A dare to Maria Ressa
She called me a “Paid PR” twice in her reaction to the matrix story. Is name calling journalism? Also, what was her basis for accusing me of being a “Paid PR”? Does she have a source? Has she vetted her accusation against me?
My appointment as special envoy of the President is purely honorific. As special envoy, I do not have a line agency, no office, no salary, not even an allowance. If Ressa thinks I am in the payroll of Malacañang or anybody in the Palace, I challenge her to show me, or better yet the public, proof. She can’t because there is none. I am not a consultant of the President nor do I receive any remuneration from him or any of the government offices.
And she calls herself a journalist? Give me a break. Maybe I should sue her for libel. About time to put her in her proper place. This is not the first time she has maligned me. During a Senate investigation about the media, I can’t remember the agenda, she projected my picture on the screen out of the blue. I was not even in her narrative, for goodness sake!
If she can show me a single proof that I have received PR money from the President or I am in the payroll of Malacañang, I will gladly close The Manila Times. If, on the other hand, Ressa can’t come up with even a single proof, she should just get out of the Philippines and return to her native Indonesia, there to spread her brand of journalism.
Rappler ac-dc
What is the difference between Rappler and a journalist caught receiving payola from a businessman? None! When asked to explain, the journalist lamely said: “Sir, financial assistance po ito, hindi lagay (Sir, this is financial assistance, not a bribe).”
In much the same tortured explanation, Rappler, PCIJ and the NUJP claim that the money they receive from abroad are “grants.”
Put another way, these media organizations are conflicted. They are hardly independent at all. They defend and promote the interests of those foreign groups that finance them.
Talk of journalism!
https://www.manilatimes.net/a-postscript-to-the-oust-duterte-plot/546868/
No comments:
Post a Comment