How Jimenez looks at media

Friday, August 18, 2006

THE 56-24 vote of the committee of justice to dismiss the impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for lack of substance is expected to again revive talks about the tyranny of the majority in the House of Representatives.

This might appear to be the case since, in issue after issue during the deliberation of the committee on the form and substance of the impeachment complaint, all the proposals of the minority were rejected by the majority every time an issue needed a vote.

However, one of the more astute congressmen has correctly pointed out that in impeachment proceedings, the minority is given a Constitutional advantage in the numbers game vis-à-vis the majority.

He said that in an impeachment, at least a one-third vote of the membership of the House of Representatives could prevail over two-thirds of the members. He said that this is one case where the minority could win over the majority in the voting so long as the former gets at least one-third of the vote.

The problem of the minority in the current impeachment proceeding against President Arroyo is that they could not muster the one-third voted needed to impeach the President. Even from the start, it did not even have at least 78 votes—the number needed to elevate the complaint to the Senate. House Deputy Leader Edcel Lagman described it as “dead on arrival.”

* * *

In coffee shops where journalists congregate, talk over the past few days invariably drifted to a recent column by Louie Logarta in the Daily Tribune, where he wrote about the unflattering remarks about media made by supposed philanthropist and multibillionaire Mark Jimenez.

The former Manila representative, who served a two-year jail sentence in the United States after being convicted for making illegal campaign contributions, showed his low regard for journalists, according to Logarta, with his candid remarks when he spoke before the Publishers Association of the Philippines.

Louie quoted Jimenez as telling publishers and editors present during the meeting: “I hate talking to journalists. Lahat ’yan bayaran. They will only write kung sino ang nagbibigay sa kanila ng mataas.”

Assuming that the quotes are accurate, what Jimenez said was he hates talking to journalists since all of them are extortionists who would write in favor of the highest bidder.

Louie wrote that the remarks of Jimenez were reported in the Tawi-Tawi Times by its publisher and editor Maureen Jones, who was present during the group’s executive session.

What we find a little curious here is that the story was carried only by the Tawi-Tawi Times, of all publications, but not by any other Manila-based newspaper even though it can be assumed that there were other publishers and editors present during that meeting. Most of them must heard Jimenez’ candid view of journalists and how they work.

It would be interesting to know how the publishers and editors present felt when Jimenez allegedly made those insulting remarks. Did they think Jimenez was just being facetious so they did not take his remarks seriously?

What would even be more interesting to hear is if Jimenez said something along those lines, and in the context he was quoted to have made those remarks.

Louie said that some officers of the National Press Club, particularly the club’s legal counsel, Berteni Causing, want to file a slander case against Jimenez based on his remarks, which heaped scorn and malice on Filipino newsmen.

Such a course of action is unnecessary. If it is proven that Jimenez indeed made those remarks, the best form of revenge on Jimenez is not to write or report anything about him. This would be the right thing to do since anyone who gives media space to Jimenez would be suspected of taking bribes, as he was quoted as saying, “lahat ’yan bayaran.”

Of course, it’s possible that Jimenez might have reasons to say what he said if he really said it. His remarks might be the fault of his media operator. It’s possible that his media operator is collecting money to be given to all journalists who have interviewed and written or reported something about Jimenez. It’s also possible that his media operator has a list of journalists supposed to be on Jimenez payroll. In all probability, most, if not all of the supposed payola would not have gone to the journalists but remained in the hands of the operator. This has happened before.

In any case, Jimenez might want to clarify if he really said those uncomplimentary remarks. If he did not say such things, then he is getting savaged in coffee shop conversations for no reason at all.