Wednesday ∗ 11 Jan 2012

going to the dogs

two weeks since the discussion that had most everyone ganging up on UST and Lito Zulueta and siding with Marites Danguilan Vitug ang, where is the discourse on media (online and otherwise) at this point? rappler has quietly revealed itself to be about helping out government instead of being a critical voice that at the very least asks: how much was paid BBDO for this campaign and is it worth it? i guess no questions like that for “uncompromised journalism” now tagging itself as “citizen journalism.”

and i guess it’s not surprising. if there’s anything the lynch mob that was the middle class / educated online world revealed then, it was that a love affair exists among those who are holding the fort of “new media” | “online media” — self-proclaimed and otherwise. if anything i am reminded that in media, as with the literary world, and maybe every aspect of this Pinoy culture, what keeps the status quo are friendships: ones that run deep, ones that are unquestioned from within. the question for Ressa and Teodoro really is whether or not they could have at any point disagreed with Vitug on this and any story? the question for all of us who blindly want to be invited into the bubble of middle class media and sort-of-NGO work is how many questions will we then fail to ask?

Lito Zulueta was attacked — unduly i thought — for writing a news article on the UST’s statement on Corona’s PhD. the attacks happened online and on a Luis Teodoro piece, which the latter has since appended with a response to the accusation of plagiarism asking: can i be accused of stealing from myself? well yes sir, that’s called self-plagiarism.

and unlike Teodoro, i don’t think there’s anything petty at all about the issues that Zulueta raises here with regards transparency. in the same way that they call out Zulueta for being a UST professor writing for the Inquirer, why can we not question Teodoro for his own link to the CMFR and Business World? why can we not insist that everyone — especially the media personalities who are calling themselves watchdogs — be transparent about their own biases and links to each other?

so for transparency’s sake: i owe Lito Zulueta for getting my feet wet in arts criticism, and publishing me in the Inquirer’s Arts and Book section in 2009. I stopped writing for the Inquirer in 2010.

now let me dare the Ressas and Teodoros of this world: what are the personal links that exist for you? who are you friends with, and can you at any point critique them privately or publicly? does it matter at all that Teodoro is co-writer with Vitug in a CMFR book like Media in Court (1997)?

no answers? then online journalism as the future? it’s going to the dogs.

Who will watch the watchdog?
by Lito B. Zulueta

In his “Rule Makers and Rule Breakers” (BusinessWorld, Jan. 6, 2012), columnist Luis Teodoro commented on the public debate over the Jan.1 banner headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (“UST Breaks Rules for CJ”) by Marites Dañguilan Vitug, and the subsequent rejoinder of UST published by PDI the following day (“UST: CJ Earned Ph.D”), which this writer reported. He took to task the University of Santo Tomas, which was alleged in Miss Vitug’s report originally published online by Rappler, to have broken academic rules to confer a Ph.D in Law, summa cum laude, on Chief Justice Renato Corona, for refusing to subject itself to “media and public scrutiny.” He accused me of writing a “slanted” article in favor UST and failing to disclose my being a UST alumnus and faculty member “and being less than candid about his links to it.”

I have always considered my links to UST as perfectly obvious to the people who should matter in this case — the editorial authorities of PDI, who presumably perform the gate-keeping functions that stem and check the biases of my articles. In the same vein, Mr. Teodoro’s links to the University of the Philippines (he’s a former dean of the UP College of Mass Communications) are well known to people in the media and the academe, even if his candor in writing his diatribe against UST may not disclose them to readers of his column.

Mister Teodoro said that UST “attempt(ted)” to reply to the Vitug piece through an article I wrote that made UST and me a party to conflict of interest. The allegation is “disingenuous” (to use the word of the media watchdog Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility [CMFR]) which, like Mr. Teodoro’s column, had criticized the UST statement and defended Vitug and Rappler on its Web site). It seems to overestimate the power of UST. UST, Mr. Teodoro implied, was able to have its rejoinder published in the PDI because of me, a UST alumnus! I found this most flattering. Apparently Mr. Teodoro believed that through the sheer force of my sublime personality, I was able to compel the whole of PDI — from business management to the editorial board and central desk, down to the printing press — to publish the UST rejoinder, “slanted,” as the columnist said, to favor UST.

But what happened was something more mundane. I was assigned by the editor in chief herself, Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, to get the UST rejoinder, write a report, and submit it to the editors.

Therefore, I and my story passed through the gate-keeping of honest-to-goodness print journalism. UST didn’t attempt to have its rejoinder published: PDI sought it out. I didn’t commandeer the coverage: I was assigned by Madame Magsanoc to get the UST side and write about it. I stuck close to the UST statement and didn’t editorialize. And if I “slanted” my copy to favor UST, it went through the editors and whatever “public relations” tendencies it might have were checked. In short, my report went through the editorial wringer.

Mister Teodoro’s and CMFR’s claim that UST should subject itself to “media scrutiny” has no ontological basis. If UST and other private institutions subject themselves to public scrutiny through the press, it is because of a social contract that recognizes the relevance of the press in reporting truthful information and cultivating public discourse.

It is in this light that UST’s reservation about online journalism should be seen. It does not belittle Rappler and online media. It merely asks whether they could fulfill credibly their part of the social contract. Their callow practice reveals they cannot yet: in just 24 hours after the UST rejoinder was published, Rappler came out with a slew of articles and a caricature attacking UST. One article had the malicious head, “Who is Lying: UST or Corona?”

Incidentally, there are striking resemblances between the CMFR statement and Mr. Teodoro’s BusinessWorld column. For example:


“The argument that as an example of online journalism Ms. Vitug’s article did not go through the gate-keeping process standard in print journalism is similarly misleading. Gate-keeping is indeed an issue in online journalism, but as editor-at-large of Rappler, Ms. Vitug is herself one of the site’s lead gatekeepers. Vitug, who has been a journalist for 30 years, is also the founder of Newsbreak…”

BWorld column:

“The insinuation that as an example of online journalism the Vitug article did not go through the gate-keeping process standard in print journalism is misleading. Gate-keeping is indeed an issue in online journalism, but as editor-at-large of Rappler, Vitug is herself one of the site’s lead gate-keepers. Vitug was also the founding editor of Newsbreak.”

If academic rigor were to be applied here (academic rigor which Rappler and its supporters like Mr. Teodoro and CMFR accuse UST of lacking when it allowed Corona to get his Ph.D sans the traditional dissertation), then we must have a curious case of intellectual theft.

Who will watch the watchdog?

Lito B. Zulueta, Faculty member, UST Journalism


Note: The complete article was excerpted in BusinessWorld. Here are the other similarities between Luis Teodoro’s BusinessWorld column and the CMFR statement:



“An autonomous institution can indeed change its own rules, but not so that someone unqualified under the old ones can benefit from the change, but in furtherance of what is both fair as well as just in that the new rules can equally apply to everyone else.”

BWorld column of Mr. Teodoro

“Can UST, as an autonomous institution, change its own rules . . .? The answer is yes . . . But it would be reasonable to assume that it can’t do so to accommodate someone unqualified under the old ones, only in furtherance of what is both fair and just, and on the assumption that the new rules can apply to everyone else.”



“CMFR notes that Ms. Vitug’s attempt to get the side of UST and Corona, and her disclosing that she was either rebuffed or ignored, were both in keeping with journalistic ethics and protocol.”


“But the Vitug attempt to get the side of UST and Corona, and her disclosure that she was either rebuffed or ignored, were in keeping with journalism ethics and protocol…”



“The real question is whether the UST attempt to reply to Ms. Vitug through an article written by one of its alumni who has in the past written extensive and glowing public relations stories on UST and its achievements—does not constitute a conflict of interest between, on the one hand, the school’s interest in protecting its image before the public, and on the other, the public’s right to an unbiased, accurate and fair report on a matter of public interest.”


“Two issues are more relevant to ethical media practice . . . The first is whether the UST attempt to reply to Vitug through an article written by one of its alumni (Zulueta) did not make it a party to a conflict of interest between, on the one hand, its interest and protecting its image before the public, and on the other, the citizens’ right to an unbiased, accurate and fair report on a matter of public concern.”


ADDENDUM (January 11, 2012)

Did Luis Teodoro plagiarize the CMFR statement or did CMFR steal from him when it published online its critique of UST’s alleged “specious” and “disingenuous” reasoning to defend its handling of the Corona issue and escape media scrutiny? Or since Mr. Teodoro is a member of the CMFR, did he write the CMFR statement, tweak it, then submit it to the BusinessWorld as his column?

Do we have a case here of “self-plagiarism”? If so, if media critics like Mr. Teodoro and media watchdogs like CMFR, could readily flout the rules on intellectual honesty, who should take them to task and remind them that the rigors of the practice apply to them as well? — LITO B. ZULUETA

this is from the UST Varsitarian official FB page, posted here with permission from Lito Zulueta. a shorter version of this was posted as a letter to the editor at Business World online

Posted in: aktibismo, bayan, ibang boses, komentaryo, media

Tagged: , ,

15 Comments/Pingbacks

  1. Lbrto
    January 15, 2012 at 12:20 am

    gumugulo na ang issue na’to…

    pero napako ang attention ko sa sinasabing self-plagiarism.

    meron palang ganung konsepto? san ba makakahanap ng reference material tungkol dito? ala kasi ako makita sa oxford dictionary at merriam-webster…

    salamat ho!

    • katrina
      January 15, 2012 at 1:07 am

      una ko itong narinig sa academe: ito yung dahilan kung bakit hindi puwedeng mag-submit ng iisang papel sa dalawang subject, unless papayag ang guro sa dalawang subject na ito. and even then, it’s frowned upon.




      tila sa kasong ito ni Teodoro, kinailangan lang niyang sabihin na naisulat na niya ito para sa CMFR, na mula sa CMFR statement na siya rin ang sumulat yung sinasabi niya sa article. that would’ve made a difference. :)

      • Noel Pascual
        January 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm

        Sa akin naman, hindi ako sigurado kung nag-aapply ang ideya ng self-plagiarism sa labas ng graded schoolwork. O kung kasalukuyan mang ginagamit itong konsepto na ito sa labas ng schoolwork ay kung dapat pa rin bang ginagamit ito.

        Ang posibleng downside lang na nakikita ko sa pag-uulit ng text sa 2 statement, isa bilang indibidwal at isa bilang organization katulad ng cmfr ay maaari itong magbigay ng ideya sa hindi nakakaalam na involved si Teodoro sa CMFR na may at least 2 entities na hindi related sa isa’t-isa na ganoon pareho ang pananaw. Pero hindi ito plagiarism in the sense na may “ninakaw” kahit kanino, parang redundancy lang talaga. (Kung “pagnanakaw” pa rin ang ibig sabihin ng self-plagiarism, para na itong hango sa plot ng isang nobela ni Philip K. Dick na A Scanner Darkly.)

        • katrina
          January 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm

          sa tingin ko yung pagtukoy ni Zulueta sa self-plagiarism ni Teodoro ay nakabase sa usapin lang ng disclosure of biases and the institutions one works for. kasi tama ka, may problema lang naman para sa mga walang alam sa koneksyon ni Teodoro sa CMFR, at iisiping either kinopya niya ang statement, o dalawang magkaibang entity nga ay pareho ang iniisip. pero yun din, mahalagang aspekto nito yung fact na nasa broadsheet at regular column si Teodoro, at may iba siyang bitbit na kredibilidad do’n na to some extent nagde-demand ng transparency pagdating sa biases, kinabibilangang organisasyon, etc.

          kakapublish ko lang ng sagot ni Zulueta kay Teodoro re self-plagiarism, na ang CMFR pa pala mismo ay nagpublish ng artikulo tungkol rito dati.

          PS: Philip K. Dick! hahanapin ko ang nobelang yan.

  2. Bhabes Ortiz
    February 2, 2012 at 1:47 am

    Ms Katrina Ms. Vitug questioned UST in giving CJCorona the Phd, can I asked her (Vitug) if she has questioned Ateneo University for allowing Penoy Aquino the degree on Economics when our economy suffered a tremendous decline at the end of 2010 just after six months of his presidency? Does Penoy deserved to be given the diploma?
    Thanks po at keep fighting for the truth!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© Katrina Stuart Santiago  ·  Contact Me
Wordpress theme and web development by @joelsantiago