3 ms·

> In case a mistake happens (as it sometimes does, as it seemingly did here), reporting outlets issue erratum That would seem that they reported fake news that

> In case a mistake happens (as it sometimes does, as it seemingly did here), reporting outlets issue erratum That would seem that they reported fake news that could have caused panic but later on just conveniently issued an erratum. > You can check them yourself So, it's a standard that "journalists" can disregard with impunity. > Duterte is in a position of power to actively act against these journalists But Pres. Duterte does not as this Bloomberg article clearly shows. Maria Ressa still speaks freely and accuses him openly. That's one less reason to label him as a dictator don't you think? I think I will commend him for that. For upholding freedom of speech. > Examples: [1] [2] Regarding the live updates[1], He called it out because it may endanger the soldiers. How should you call them out and get them in check instead? Regarding the NUJP's condemnation[2], Nieto seems to be joking. Well, I consider jokes and figure of speeches as gray areas in freedom of speech. I don't have to defend him anyway. He can do that for himself. > Again, you _do not_ peddle opinion to hold people accountable I just playfully used your words peddle and opinion. Calm down :) That may have made it vague. What I meant is that he effectively raises issues using his words such as the Dengvaxia scandal. Now that it has gained awareness, we may now expect accountability to those who administered it during the past and the present administration. I hate it that the people responsible did it to the children out of greed. > I'm not saying Duterte is credit grabbing but that people are giving him more credit than he is due. There's a difference there. Well, I'm giving Pres. Duterte credit because he delivered what the previous administration did not. That's the big difference there. > Because even in legislation, there's a due process that must be followed and the previous administration followed it. Even if for a bill like FOI which I fully support, I will be critical of Aquino had he dubiously manipulated the legislative process just so he could claim the FOI under his belt. Maybe you should be critical of Aquino if you really fully support FOI. Knowingly that legislative is slow, he should have at least issued an executive order just as Pres. Duterte did. You just gave me another reason to give Pres. Duterte credit because he found a way to do it quickly in his first few months what the previous administration wasn't able to do after many years in office. Maybe you should too ;) [1] http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/10/04/1745517/blogger-slammed-false-claims-vs-photojournalist http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/10/04/1745517/blogger... [2] http://www.mindanews.com/statements/2017/11/statement-nujp-on-thinking-pinoys-threat-against-female-journalist/ http://www.mindanews.com/statements/2017/11/statement-nujp-o...

skytreader 9y ago
> That would seem that they reported fake news that could have caused panic but later on just conveniently issued an erratum. You are taking excerpts of my response out-of-context to argue your point. Again, they had reason to believe it was true, because the information came from a source they trust (AFP/the news wire). I would not call it "fake news" if they admitted the case from the other side later on. If you'd sneer at people admitting their own mistakes (like by issuing errata)...well I hope you don't make mistakes of your own. > So, it's a standard that "journalists" can disregard with impunity. You are the only one saying that. If their reporting does not check out with their references, they lose credibility at best or get sued for libel at worst. > But Pres. Duterte does not I am not claiming that he is doing it. I am claiming that he _can_ do it. He CAN dictate the police/influence regulating bodies to strangle institutions. In contrast, these institutions do not have any similar influence. That is why, unless you are using the word "dictator" in a context other than political, you cannot label institutions as dictators. > Regarding the live updates[1], He called it out because it may endanger the soldiers. Now this, my friend, is a clear example of what you are calling "fake news that could have caused panic". Quoting the article: "But Aznar stressed that if Nieto's accusations of him endangering the troops were true, why is the Armed Forces of the Philippines still allowing him to cover the Marawi siege?" Surely, on-the-ground AFP units know better than Nieto on whether Aznar is endangering them? And yet Nieto saw it fit to raise an online hue-and-cry. Errata/apologies from Nieto: 0, nil, zilch, nada. Makes it hard to believe that his intentions were for the best interest of the AFP (and in fact, had that been the case, would it not make more sense to discreetly raise the matter to AFP, seeing that he has contacts in the government the ordinary Filipino does not?). And also, > Regarding the NUJP's condemnation[2], Nieto seems to be joking. Imagine if a professional journalist made "jokes" in bad taste like that. Imagine the professional backlash they would face. And yet Nieto who keeps passing off his opinions as "fact" is not held to the same standard. Point: any professional journalist who value their own credibility would be careful not to say things like this, joking or not. > What I meant is that he effectively raises issues using his words such as the Dengvaxia scandal. Ends do not justify means. You originally raised Nieto's part in exposing Dengvaxia in response to me labeling Nieto as "fake news". I stand by my original assertion and that even if Nieto's role in exposing Dengvaxia is significant, that does not redeem him from all the other times he peddled baseless accusations or outright lies. > he found a way to do it quickly in his first few months what the previous administration wasn't able to do after many years in office Duterte would not have been able to implement it quickly were it not for the legislative foundations (House meetings, Senate deliberations, etc.) that happened in the previous administration. It is not as if all the work on this bill was done exclusively by Duterte's administration. To claim that the previous administration weren't able to do anything for FOI after many years in office is outright false. In fact, no amount of executive orders can will an ordinary bill into a strong law in a matter of months. Should any president try, there are checks and balances in the government (hi Supreme Court) that could question the process and hold the implementation. Heck the RH Bill took its sweet time before it even became a document awaiting a president's signature and it was still issued a TRO for over a year. Not to mention that today, the RH Law is a toothless version of what was originally passed.

skytreader 9y ago

> That would seem that they reported fake news that could have caused panic but later on just conveniently issued an erratum. You are taking excerpts of my response out-of-context to argue your point. Again, they had reason to believe it was true, because the information came from a source they trust (AFP/the news wire). I would not call it "fake news" if they admitted the case from the other side later on. If you'd sneer at people admitting their own mistakes (like by issuing errata)...well I hope you don't make mistakes of your own. > So, it's a standard that "journalists" can disregard with impunity. You are the only one saying that. If their reporting does not check out with their references, they lose credibility at best or get sued for libel at worst. > But Pres. Duterte does not I am not claiming that he is doing it. I am claiming that he _can_ do it. He CAN dictate the police/influence regulating bodies to strangle institutions. In contrast, these institutions do not have any similar influence. That is why, unless you are using the word "dictator" in a context other than political, you cannot label institutions as dictators. > Regarding the live updates[1], He called it out because it may endanger the soldiers. Now this, my friend, is a clear example of what you are calling "fake news that could have caused panic". Quoting the article: "But Aznar stressed that if Nieto's accusations of him endangering the troops were true, why is the Armed Forces of the Philippines still allowing him to cover the Marawi siege?" Surely, on-the-ground AFP units know better than Nieto on whether Aznar is endangering them? And yet Nieto saw it fit to raise an online hue-and-cry. Errata/apologies from Nieto: 0, nil, zilch, nada. Makes it hard to believe that his intentions were for the best interest of the AFP (and in fact, had that been the case, would it not make more sense to discreetly raise the matter to AFP, seeing that he has contacts in the government the ordinary Filipino does not?). And also, > Regarding the NUJP's condemnation[2], Nieto seems to be joking. Imagine if a professional journalist made "jokes" in bad taste like that. Imagine the professional backlash they would face. And yet Nieto who keeps passing off his opinions as "fact" is not held to the same standard. Point: any professional journalist who value their own credibility would be careful not to say things like this, joking or not. > What I meant is that he effectively raises issues using his words such as the Dengvaxia scandal. Ends do not justify means. You originally raised Nieto's part in exposing Dengvaxia in response to me labeling Nieto as "fake news". I stand by my original assertion and that even if Nieto's role in exposing Dengvaxia is significant, that does not redeem him from all the other times he peddled baseless accusations or outright lies. > he found a way to do it quickly in his first few months what the previous administration wasn't able to do after many years in office Duterte would not have been able to implement it quickly were it not for the legislative foundations (House meetings, Senate deliberations, etc.) that happened in the previous administration. It is not as if all the work on this bill was done exclusively by Duterte's administration. To claim that the previous administration weren't able to do anything for FOI after many years in office is outright false. In fact, no amount of executive orders can will an ordinary bill into a strong law in a matter of months. Should any president try, there are checks and balances in the government (hi Supreme Court) that could question the process and hold the implementation. Heck the RH Bill took its sweet time before it even became a document awaiting a president's signature and it was still issued a TRO for over a year. Not to mention that today, the RH Law is a toothless version of what was originally passed.