Media Frenzy

En route to my regular Badminton game at Metro last night, I listened to the clearest AM feed on my car radio. Tado and the Brewrats had to take the backseat to the hostage-taking drama happening at Manila. The feed from the AM channel was very disjointed, on some occasions, the field reporters were out of breath, seemingly part of the whole action, and at certain occasions, the reports weren't so clear, with rain, gunshots and shouts echoing at the background. It really wasn't making much sense because I suppose, things were happening on site and people, whether it be policemen, media reporters, bystanders were all jumpy with excitement.

As far as I'm concerened, this was a fiasco, I've watched too many CSI and Numb3rs episodes to know that the circumstances surrounding this event could very well lead to a disaster.

Surely, this hostage-taker meant business. HE had a fully loaded automatic machine gun, and as a decorated cop, he probably knew what he was doing. Or so we all presume about him. As I checked fezbook this morning, I came across a reference to the case this hostage taker wanted reviewed by the ombudsman or whoever took away his privileges as a retired cop. Yes, he was accused of extortion, and through a viral email, was forever ruined. Down with his career went his AFPSLAI red book pension, perhaps he believed that these benefits were worth fighting for. But was that what he was indeed fighting for? I doubt it.

He wanted to be heard, he wanted to shake this viral email fiasco off him, if what he claims is true, that he really isn't a bad cop, then why this rogue method of fighting the system? Couldn't he just have used media to propel an assault on this Christian Kalaw instead of terrorizing the country and these Hongkong nationals with guns and the threat of having them killed? There are ways to fight a battle without guns, he should've known that because he was a victim of such. He can still regain the respect he so desperately fought for, only he should've used methods that were far less deadly in order to be actually heard. Can you actually listen to what an armed man is saying when he's pointing that gun to someone? In Filipino, we'll ordiarily say, "Um-oo ka na lang."

Then you have the media, jumping at every opportunity. Come on, the whole brother throwing a fit outside the police station, why blow that up at that instance when the media very well knew that the hostage taker had access to a television inside his locked up bus? The hostage taker had his finger at the trigger the whole time, give him a reason to pull it, he will. And so he did. The media, perhaps reflective of this, "usisero" culture we have as Filipinos was in a quandary. They were reporting what they felt compelled to report and yet, they were indirectly causing a chain events that could have very well been avoided.

The reporter at ANC today grilled Isko Moreno, asking him repetitively the What if's questions. What if the brother was contained right away and didn't throw a fit, could things have ended peacefully? What if the negotiators gave the hostage taker more than what they had given, would he have released all of the hostages? What if the SWAT team had better training, could less hostages have been killed? These what if questions are dried water under the bridge.

Again, let me repeat, he had a fully loaded automatic machine gun and a finger on the trigger. Alright, he had something important to say, but sadly nobody wanted to listen because all that everyone could see was that he had that loaded gun aimed at someone. His message of "Get my case reviewed! Now na!" fell on deaf ears because the situation was too tense, too scary and too inevitably deadly.

So what now? Learn. Policemen should have better skills, find a grievance box somewhere if you have something against someone. Choosing to be rogue will not get you anywhere. Mediamen please be careful with your actions, best in Tagalog perhaps, "Wag magpadala sa kaguluhang nagaganap."