April 24, 2010

Today, the Inquirer front page is again about Sen. Villar.


While yesterday, the Inquirer seems to say on its own that Villar has a problem (Problem with Hellos) and the paper seem to have been misleading in headlining that the SEC said Villar manipulated stock rules (SEC Bares NP bet used influence to twist stock market rules), today, the paper left only Villar and his lawyer to defend themselves (Villar: I violated no Law). While the Inquirer is deeply involved in the main headline yesterday, today it seems they are saying "we are just reporting the news". While yesterday they say Villar is a bad person, today they say Villar is not bad, but that is according only to Villar himself.

There are other things that can be noted from the report.
> The paper did not focus on the direct rebuttal of the facts which would have meant that the Inquirer is wrong on giving a negative treatment to Villar yesterday
> The news reported the Villar camp as saying that former President Estrada had wrong information, they forgot to mention that their headline yesterday did not actually point to Estrada as the source of the news. The Inquirer is their own source of the negative news about Villar yesterday.
> The subtitle is still negative all the way for Villar (saying: "But critics say it was wrong for the NP Bet to pitch for his business interests"), pushing further the running issue against Villar (that even if it is legal, is it ethical?).

Did the headline report come out positive for Villar today? I cannot say so, because answering a negative would never result to anyone being a positive. The best that it can muster is a neutral effect. But I may be wrong, so I give it a little positive grade though going for Villar on the news report itself but negative on the headline.

The other news on the same topic refers to a response from the SEC and the PSE (PSE, SEC: Nothing irregular). Basically, the SEC and the PSE said there is nothing to it. It is not irregular, there is nothing wrong, there is no manipulation. The SEC and the PSE basically said yesterday's news is trash. For me, it indeed is. In the end, the news still gave space to Enrile's allegation saying that the PSE suffered credibility.

“Because of the short-cut committed by Manny Villar, many followed suit. Many more investors in the stock exchange could have been duped and suffered losses. Manny Villar and his conspirators in the PSE destroyed the integrity of the Philippine Stock Exchange,” Enrile said.

The Inquirer though did not ask if Senator Enrile has investments in and have since removed them (his investments) all from the stock exchange to prove that the PSE really has lost its credibility (as far as he is concerned). A news report like this show how little regard the paper has for the institutions that are besmirched by irresponsible statements coming from politicians. But since Villar's side is given space, I may say that the news is a little bit positive for Villar.

The third news (Vista Land ‘non-issue, can’t kill senator; it’s politics, he’s a survivor’) about the same topic seems to be coming out entirely from another paper. While the media outlet already has and know the explanation (although they did not say if it was acceptable or not), this other news seems outdated.

In a conversation with the Inquirer in May 2009—when talk first surfaced about his purported impropriety in pushing for the immediate secondary offering of shares of Vista Land, the parent company of his business empire, in July 2007—Villar said other presidential aspirants had been trying to do him in these past many years, and that this issue was just one more attempt to go for the kill.

Obviously, the Inquirer knew of the charges since May 2009, and should have dismissed the same then. As to why this rehashed story is given headline space since yesterday, we can only guess. Although this third story is majority from a Villar point of view, I still think it results into something negative for Villar as it kept reminding us (or it kept insisting) about the issues about him from "the C5 to the PSE".

Surprisingly, the news on Roxas and Binay (The race for No. 2 shaping up: It’s Roxas vs Binay) comes out negative for Noynoy Aquino as it has some valid points coming from an administration lawyer:

Macalintal reminded Aquino that it would be the “height of ingratitude” if he went along with Escudero’s endorsement given the “political sacrifice” made by Roxas in giving way to Aquino’s presidential aspirations.

This same news is of course positive for Binay, a little bit negative for Roxas. The title itself though is very negative for Legarda, saying in effect that the latter already lost its popularity and going down in the VP race.

The news on the DND last minute spending (DND chief buys arms in ‘last 2 minutes’) somehow comes positive for Noynoy Aquino with a quote from nowhere coming from him. Indeed, Sen. Noynoy is the luckiest of the candidates he is always given free press:

Aquino warning

Speaking before diplomats on Thursday, Aquino warned foreign governments and suppliers against entering into “midnight contracts” with the outgoing Arroyo administration.

Foreign offers

The Liberal Party standard-bearer said graft-ridden, “supplier-driven” deals to modernize the AFP were “being rushed even as we speak.” He said any such midnight deals would be scrapped if they turned out to be disadvantageous to the government.

We can only say that the politically innocent sounding headline silently endorses Sen. Aquino and comes out positive for him.

With nothing but quotes or a "he-say-she-say" news reporting regarding the failed coup plotter Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim (Lim retells it like it was: Esperon, Senga in ’06 plot), I say it just goes to promote Lim's candidacy and therefore is positive for the LP senatorial candidate.

I cannot find from the Inquirer.net the news in its front page about the Pasig LP Mayoral bet, although it was there earlier today (it was apparently removed, I am not sure why). Meanwhile, the news about the manicurist and the gardener appointed to some government posts (Search committee found manicurist, gardener qualified for gov’t jobs) still feels very negative to the President, although I might say rightfully so. It however doesn't have any fact to begin with, still the media does not really know who these people are while already feasting on it with harsh comments.

So who is the Inquirer going for today? I say the news stories comes out as a small rebound for Villar, a bit positive for Aquino, and a whole lot of disregard for all the other candidates. In the VP front, the news goes very well for Binay, a bit negative for Roxas, and a whole lot more negative to Legarda.

In the end, I still say the paper as a whole goes negative for Villar, because in reading the headline, the charges to him stays and given undue recognition. There is no one among the presidentiables apparently given clear positive coverage though and I cannot call who the Inqiurer favored today. So the score stays at Noynoy: 8, Erap: 1, All the rest: 0.

Update (April 25, 2010):
Late night yesterday, I got hold of a paper copy of the Inquirer and got to read the news I missed (the one regarding the Pasig LP Mayoral candidate). The news is, of course, a promotion for the said candidate. There is mention of Sen. Aquino who is treated as a very positive endorser. I say that bit of news gives positive favor to Aquino.

Meanwhile, when the headline news continued to the inside pages, there was a reaction from Sen. Aquino under another title regarding Villar's supposed PSE manipulation, wherein the former thanked Estrada/Enrile on coming out with the proof. The news is brazen propaganda however lost seemingly Noynoy's reaction. It clearly shows how Noynoy will cling on non-issues and try to enlarge them saying there is "proof". I give that news as purely Aquino's. So looking back to yesterday's post, the Inquirer Front page has tilted to be in favor of Aquino. But still the effect of the news on Villar, as to whether it is positive or negative is hard to determine. Being therefore a conservative observer that I am, I still leave it as a favor to no one.