THE scene is actually not new---its variations had presented themselves before.
We are referring to the latest twist in the effort of some sectors, including losing candidates, to make the public believe in claims of massive cheating in the May 10 polls.
A newspaper columnist presented a video of a supposed “whistle blower,” masked as usual, who claimed cheating did occur even if the elections were automated for the
first time in the country’s history.
The columnist, Buddy Cunanan, who said he got it from a friend whom the “witness” had approached to tell his story.
Claim
That was a variation of the Guido Delgado dud.
Delgado was the former National Power Corp. president who, at the height of the campaign, distributed at a press conference the second fake psychiatric report on presidential contender Noynoy Aquino.
“It’s the media’s role to confirm its veracity,” Delgado said of the fake document.
In Cunanan’s case, he presented the video without going deep into the background of the “whistle blower” and the truthfulness of the claim---passing on the task of probing the allegations to the government.
Again, this wasn’t the first time a “masked witness” challenged public sensibility and also not the first time journalists were party to the objectionable act.
Journalism ethics and even common sense will tell us that claims of anonymous news sources or “witnesses” should be treated with care and have to be counter-checked a number of times before these are presented to the public.
In this day and age, it seems to have become far easier to present unverified allegations to the media and create a furor, sacrificing objectivity and fairness.
Hope
On this, the reaction of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, blurted to a reporter of a Manila daily, is worth noting:
“He (the ‘witness’) says there’s cheating but he’s unwilling to show his face? If our system is like this, there’s no hope for this country.”
We hope Pimentel was only right on the credibility of the whistle blower and wrong on the matter of hope and this country.