What a month. A former president convicted on plunder charges; another president, in the vortex of the ZTE controversy, staring into the abyss.
I hope you will agree with me that the sheer amount of information available to us at this particular moment in our history has educational value: that is, they teach us (if we are willing to learn) valuable (if sometimes discouraging) lessons in citizenship and governance.
Because we are forced to process so much information, we find ourselves sharing in the work of reporters and analysts and opinion-makers. (This may well be the first lesson in citizenship; in the age of the blog, we are all, potentially, members of the fourth estate.)
But forgive me, I did not set out to talk theory. All I really wanted to do was to offer a reflection on something that has bothered me in the last four weeks or so. At the risk of leaving context behind, let me get straight to the point: I worry sometimes that we can easily mistake remembering for reporting.
In the first 24 or even 36 hours after the Estrada plunder conviction came down, speculation that the decision was “1,000-plus pages long” hardened. Indeed, in this blog, some of our commenters advised or teased or taunted their partners in the conversation to read the 1,000-page decision first, before jumping to conclusions. And yet—-and here is the worrying thing—-they themselves were jumping to conclusions, because in fact the decision was “only” 262 pages long (nowhere near the 1,000-page milestone).
I hasten to add that I saw this tendency, to accept something reported in the media and remember it as stock knowledge, at work in many other forums, too, especially in text messages sent to and read by radio news commentators.
After the first Senate hearing on the NBN-ZTE arrangement, when Joey de Venecia dramatically reenacted Mike Arroyo’s alleged intervention in the deal (”Back off!”), some included a superfluous, indeed non-existent, detail in their recounting. I read in one piece (which I cannot link to) and heard in a number of conversations that the young De Venecia had 1) stood up, 2) turned to his seatmate Vice Governor Rolex Suplico, and 3) pointed a finger at him, “two inches” from his face. Fine, except that there was no standing up involved. The two witnesses were seated the whole time.
And yet—-the worrying thing—-many of my friends (reasonably intelligent, I would think, at least most of them!) had remembered it differently.
If, weeks from now, one of us “remembers” Mad (este, Maid) Miriam as walking out “in a huff” from last Wednesday’s Senate hearing, let’s all do our bit of reminding. It did not happen that way. Yes, and contrary to Miriam’s later rationalization, she did walk out. But there was no drama in the actual, the physical, act. After her outburst (against the “commissioners,” and against the Chinese who “invented,” she said, both civilization and a culture of corruption), she stopped, drank from her bottle of water, puttered about for a few seconds, and then, while another senator was talking, left her seat. No huff, all puff.
Details, I know, and even minor ones. But facts, dates, the words actually said: It is these details that make the testimony. Granted, we do not need to be journalists to be reporters (and why should we want to be?). But we all need to be faithful “reporters” to be witnesses of history.
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (6)
- May 2009 (11)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (5)
- February 2009 (7)
- January 2009 (11)
- December 2008 (7)
- November 2008 (14)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (3)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (3)
- December 2007 (5)
- November 2007 (5)
- October 2007 (8)
- September 2007 (13)
- August 2007 (6)
- July 2007 (14)
- June 2007 (5)
- May 2007 (24)
- April 2007 (23)
- March 2007 (18)
- Foreign affairs (17)
- May 2007 elections (36)
- May 2010 elections (5)
- Media matters (22)
- Philippine politics (131)
- Religious issues (13)
- Rule of law (13)
- Terrorism (7)
- test (1)
- Uncategorized (41)
- US relations (16)
15 Feedbacks on "The difference between reporting and remembering (or One lesson from the events of September 2007)"
Nick Nichols
John - Excellent points. I was just reading a detailed account of the Battle of Hastings (1066). The writer shows that numerous historical accounts of what certain persons did or said during that battle were either absurdly untrue or highly likely to be untrue. It makes one aware of just how “false” so much of the history we know must be. The ZTE hearings were no battle of Hastings - but they were a significant event in Philippine history nevertheless.
It’s important to get the stories straight - for stories influence our thoughts and hence our actions … as all and propagandists are well aware of.
INQUIRER.net Blogs » Martin’s mom, reporting and PDI
[…] Nery blogs about the difference between reporting and remembering in […]
mystery
Here is the contrasts of a question between reporting and remembering, reporing examples like the PSE record stock exchange that has reach one trillion, remembering examples, like former president Erap record breaking 545 million collection of Jueteng payoffs resulting of his downfall of his presidency which has resulted the biggest scandal in the history of philippine politics.
Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose » Blog Archive » The Empire Strikes Back
[…] another note, in Inquirer Current John Nery clarifies some misreported details; this made me review my liveblogging account and whew, […]
INQUIRER.net Blogs » Mac-A-Doodle, Mazinger Z and Maggie Q
[…] Current : The difference between reporting and remembering (or One lesson from the events of Septemb… […]
pinoy investor
Manolo, you’re one of the best contemporary historians. You’re meticulous and reflective. Let me ask you this. When the honorable witnesses testified in the Senate, were they reporting actual events or remembering their scripts?
Bert
Our John here is very clear, he said; ‘in the age of the blog, we are all, potentially, a member of the fourth estate.’ Potentially yes, but not yet, not ever. That’s alright, John, we don’t mind. We bloggers here don’t pretend to be one, just to be perfectly clear. We bloggers, or me, to be more accurate, for accuracy seems to be the mode of the moment, most times we are analysts and opinion-makers only, very seldom reporters, even if we often express our analysis and opinions based from the report of the legit members of the fourth estate, reliable, or not reliable, the reason for which bothered John the past weeks. We are bloggers, it’s not our job to report, and be expected to report accurately, to make research and doublecheck the source of our data where we based our comments and analysis. That’s why most of us read the most reliable source and select the PDI as the source of our data, which reason the PDI is enjoying the number 1 rating. When real members of the fourth estate give us inaccurate data, our blogs will show a difference between remembering and reporting. Surely. So, please give us accurate report, because we don’t want to be bothering John forever lest he got fed up and do something drastic with our blogs, thus might put an end to one of those things we enjoy in our life most.
Bert
To: pinoy investor
Hi, pinoy! I KNOW THE ANSWER! Joey DV was reporting actual events, Abalos was remembering, Romulo Neri both-reporting and remembering.
christian Allarde
Just wanna leave a comment on Abalos’s resignation. It seems he knows a lot about the ZTE Broadband deal and the only way to get out of the frying pan is to resign. But I say if he knows far too much then why doesn’t he just tell what he knows and save the whole country. I mean if Estrada would get punished for his actions why is this guy any different than Estrada.
Fred S of LA
I guess the very first person requested by GMA to tell Joey to back off was his father. When JDV did not succeed, she had to order the FG to do the job. This time it really pissed off the young JVD.
I just hope that Abalos will play the role of Guingona’s “I ACCUSE” and the role of Chavit as STAR WITNESS.
This this will be the “TRIAL OF THE CENTURY”, of course unless GMA does a NIXON and VP de Castro does a FORD’s gesture of reconciliation and forgiveness with an INEVITABLE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON. WHAT A COUNTRY!
rosse gamban
Miriam Defensor hit it right on the nail when she said ” pinagaawayan lang ang kickback ninyo!!!!!!!”
Everybody else was thinking the same -too bad, she had the authority and the guts to say it. The viewers may have roared with laughter - BUT - that is the truth.
If only for that - stay in the senate , please. You have more guts than those gentlemen - senators.
I am sure -this issue will take months or years to finish - then another issue will come up - so goes the life in senate. Kawawa naman ang bansa - nabubuhay sa telenovela ng senado at gobyerno.
We will never get better from being listed - least country to do business with.
MC_90
All of you here will surely make a good President hehehe
Why dont you all start planning for the next presidential election?
Or some of you may want to join the senate..your analysis and forensic type of comments here just shows you can be a senator…and imbestigador na wala namang nagagawang mabuti…
Reading your comments..I cant help but say…I AM PROUD TO BE A FILIPINO!!!! Puro matatalino…puro magagaling..
hehehehe
(kaya laging magulo kasi walang nagpapatalo..lahat tama)
INQUIRER.net Blogs » ‘Desperate Housewives,’ holiday travel tips, Gamehopper and Dennis Trillo
[…] Current : The difference between reporting and remembering (or One lesson from the events of Septemb… […]
INQUIRER.net Blogs » Teri Hatcher, the peso, Sputnik, and Fred and Barney
[…] Current : The difference between reporting and remembering (or One lesson from the events of Septemb… […]
mystery
if the final decision will be handed over by the Sandigan Bayan regarding President Eraps plunder trial. then The Business Firm Belle Resources Company can Sue the Sandigan Bayan for Destroying a legally formed Business designed to eradicate Jueteng activities, which if it was not derailed, it would have benefitted the SSS and GSIS members as what was the basis of Conviction of Eraps Plunder Trial as what is being said in the Editorial today There’s no contrition about what the verdict documents: In November 1999, crony Jaime Dichaves deposited P189 million into the Jose Velarde account. That was the 10 percent commission for P2 billion worth of Belle Corp. stocks bought by the Social Security System and the Government Service Insurance System on Estrada’s order. Velarde and Estrada were one and the same persons, the court found. Funds from Velarde’s account paid for the Boracay mansion, etc.
Please Leave a Comment!