Without missing a beat he went on to the "meat" of his interview: "Don’t you think it’s wrong for people to belittle Angelo’s achievements as a new national hero?" It was a loaded question, if I ever heard one. Nonetheless I said what was on my mind, that everyone is entitled to his opinion about the man just freed by his cruel abductors. But I added that Angelo’s fellow-Pampango, Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos, was executed in the early days of the Occupation for refusing to kiss the Japanese flag.
Interviewer pressed on: "Don’t you think it’s wrong for the government to abandon Angelo after he fades from the limelight?" Another loaded query, and this time I asked for clarification. "Well, you know, Sir," he declared, "we’re sure that after giving him a house and lot, scholarship grants for his youngest children, free hospital treatment for the one who had bronchitis, and free eye surgery for the other one, the government will ignore him later, so we want to know if you think that’s right." Now what would you want the government to do, I shot back, take care of Angelo and family for the rest of their lives? Would that not rob them of their dignity? And what about other OFWs in need? What if there’s another hostaged OFW sooner or later?
I was agitated. I asked him back if he thought it was the government’s task to look after each citizen’s biggest and smallest wants, instead of just equalizing opportunities for all. Wouldn’t our people look sickly mendicant if we all pan-handled the government for our needs: education and medicine, a car or a new Play Station? I also asked if he had ever heard of what a US president once said, which rings true for all men of all nations: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Just imagine what a better Philippines we would have, I began to lecture, if we all worked for each other’s welfare, instead of solely for ourselves or constantly pestering the government for welfare.
"Sir naman," he noticed my irritation, "I was only seeking your opinion." Yes, I know, I apologized, but I’m worried about you spreading negativism in your hit show. It wasn’t only his show that was squeezing all it could from the Angelo affair. The two major networks had jostled for two weeks at Angelo’s barrio for exclusive rights to interview his kith and kin, showing everything from their private anguish to the leftovers that his pet dog ate. Two rival female broadcasters nearly came to blows, accusing each other of paying off Angelo’s relatives to appear in their simultaneous television programs.
Radio shows too made a killing from shares of text revenues by soliciting phone-in replies to such questions as: "Yes or no, is it just for the authorities to impose a news blackout on negotiations for Angelo’s release?" or "Should the government give a house and lot to Angelo, but not to millions of other OFWs?" or even "Should the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration give Angelo benefits even if he stopped paying contributions?" Of course, the show hosts can always say they were merely gauging the public pulse. Still the premises are all wrong. Any negotiation for a hostage’s release must be kept confidential, if only to not jeopardize the lives of the hostage and the negotiator. The government never gave Angelo a house and lot; it was a private developer, taking pity on him, who did. As for the hypothetical OWWA benefits, it can never be right, and thus should not even be asked, if a person must take anything he didn’t pay for. Opinions need not be asked for what already should be accepted as wrong or right.
It’s but natural for broadcast stations to squeeze eveything possible from the Angelo story. But there is such a things as responsibly squeezing out the best. For instance, the first public survey on the repatriation of the RP contingent showed a 50-50 Philippines. Half of the respondents said the government should not give in to the terrorist demand; the other half said bring them home. But all agreed that the government must do what is right to save Angelo’s life. Proof of that unifying sentiment was that Filipino Christians and Muslims of all denominations held vigils praying for the countryman’s safe return. A second survey showed that 70 percent of respondents subsequently supported President Gloria Arroyo’s tough decision to pull out. But that’s corn. National unity is not the sensational stuff by which broadcast programs can grab listeners. It’s disunity that spells ratings. Filipinos, contrary to Jay Leno’s remarks, are not cowards. They love to courageously express their opinion, even if it means having to fight for it.