By: Modesto P. Sa-onoy
It is the nature of bees to sting and for fish to swim. For humans, it is each according to its style. We can curse the bees for stinging and complain that the fish are fleeing when we approach. And so, to complain against another person’s style is an exercise in futility. Of course, for the bees and the fishes we can do nothing, but for humans, with its capacity to rationalize and change, there is a need for better understanding and acting accordingly.
The brouhaha that erupted in Bacolod prompted by the way people perceived the actuations of radio and television journalist Ben Tulfo, is a case of looking away from the issue and focusing on the personalities. An ad hominem debate never ends except in creating a wound that takes a lot of time and effort to heal. Anybody that stirs the honeycomb can get stung and the more one gets into the fray the more people get hurt.
The case of Ben Tulfo lambasting Bacolod Mayor Evelio Leonardia has gone from a badly handled matter to a full-blown conflict that seeks to destroy the other. Tulfo has promised to take special interest in Bacolod, especially its mayor and probably in a fit, certain media practitioners in the city.
The media should have taken a professional posture even if they judged Tulfo’s tirade against the mayor as unprofessional or abusive. That is the nature of his program – aggressive and hard-hitting, no holds barred. By directly confronting Tulfo and coming to a clear “defense” of Mayor Leonardia, some local media diverted the issue.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippine and several media personalities joined the fray to defend the mayor prompting Tulfo to describe the local media in a bad way. A replay of his statement said that the local media “kneel before the mayor” as if all are the mayor’s sycophants.
That is not only a generalization but false and unfair. Anybody can get hurt with Tulfo’s statements. However, there is a saying, “ang wala pilas indi mahapdian.” Indeed, if one is not a lapdog, why think of being that dog? Nevertheless, Tulfo went overboard on this but how many journalists never generalized?
Fueling the ire of Tulfo are the mayor’s lawyer, a barangay council and the city sanggunian that declared Tulfo persona non grata. Would these cow Tulfo to silence? On the other hand, these people merely entered Tulfo’s trap door in a situation where he is at his best. It is his game in a national scene and with wide connections to source information against the mayor. And he promised he would do so – dig up dirt and in fact invited the mayor’s critics to come forward and give him information.
It is claimed that Tulfo insulted the mayor in an interview. His action is improper but what triggered the alleged insult?
I am no better than all the consultants and media people around the mayor but from my view this disgusting situation should not have happened at all if the mayor’s retinue had given him the right advice to avoid this situation. In brief, I believe this case should not have escalated at all but the approach or response to Tulfo was mishandled or worse, they misjudged the situation. More catastrophic if some were just trying to prove their value to the mayor.
Tulfo expectedly perceived them as idol worshippers of the mayor. Though incorrect the style is common in journalism – generalization as it is with profiling. If indeed a writer or speaker goes overboard, he or she carries a reproachable stigma.
For instance, information from within said that the statement of the NUJP was issued without general consultation. How true is that? Did NUJP issue the condemnation of Tulfo using unparliamentary language cleared by all its officials?
This statement probably made Tulfo believe that the media in Bacolod supports the NUJP position, which is not correct. Thus, Tulfo’s generalization about the Bacolod media. I am not a member of NUJP and I know how selective on issues it can be. Sadly, its knee jerk reaction placed the Bacolod media in a bad light and gave credence to Tulfo’s incorrect claim about Bacolod media’s obeisance to Leonardia.
Sidetracked in the dispute is the root of the issue – where’s the money? Who are responsible? Instead of clearing up, Leonardia became the issue.
