Self-regulation

It was every professional journalist’s nightmare: bloggers taking over a story, running it without the facts, twisting it with the standard emotions of the moment, and, soon enough, a lynching mob set loose on cyberspace.

After that bizarre brawl the day after Christmas at the Valley Golf Club, the first recounting of the incident on the internet was done by a party to the incident. Bambee de la Paz’s version of the incident involving members of her family and the Pangandamans, was hysterical, agitated, foul-mouthed and, and subsequent investigation of the affair proved, grossly inaccurate.

Grossly inaccurate is, in fact, an understatement. She attributed to Sec. Nasser Pangandaman a statement seeping with hubris: Kilala mo ba ako?

As every witness to the event testified, it was not the Agrarian Reform secretary who made that statement. It was made by Delfin de la Paz as he poked Pangandaman’s son with an umbrella. This was after the younger Pangandaman graciously allowed the de la Paz’s to overtake them on the course.

Bloggers of every stripe were soon on the case, none with any careful inquiry into what actually happened. They took Bambee de la Paz’s version of what happened hook, line and sinker. All of them were entrapped in the powerful narrative of the powerful inflicting themselves on the powerless.

Soon, that standard narrative flowed out of cyberspace and spilled into the old media. Broadcasters and newspaper commentators were soon echoing the Bambee line and crucifying the Pangandamans.

It was bad enough that there was so much irresponsibility in the blogs. What was worse was when journalists echoed the unverified version on the blogs and jumped on the case with the same gross irresponsibility. Indeed, with the same unrestrained commentary that used to be the domain only of the most obnoxious bloggers.

Last week, the Valley Golf Club released its decision on the incident after careful investigation of all the witnesses. The conclusion reached was that the unseemly brawl in the golf course was caused by Delfin de la Paz and aggravated by his children.

The de la Paz family was banned from the course for life. Secretary Pangandaman’s two sons were likewise banned. The Secretary himself, a member of that golf club, was suspended for two years because his guests were involved in the brawl.

Most golfers agree with the wisdom of the Valley Golf Club’s decision.

The first time I heard about the incident and read the first commentaries on the internet, including Bambee de la Paz’s, I felt there was something odd about the initial version of what happened. As a golfer myself, I know that there is really no way a flight of players playing in front could possibly aggravate the flight behind them. It is the flight behind that could aggravate the ones in front: which is by hitting balls before the fairway was clear.

Hitting balls while the fore players were still within range is the most indecent thing a golfer could do on the course. It is not only impolite. It is dangerous. Golf balls hit from the tee could maim or even kill a player on the fairway.

As the investigation did reveal, the de la Pazes hit balls at the Pangandamans. That act alone merits suspension at the very least. Pangandaman Jr., instead of complaining about the indecency of the de la Pazes in fact allowed them to play through. But instead of thanking Pangandaman Jr. for the gracious act, Delfin de la Paz verbally assaulted them and then poked an umbrella.

I played Nasser Pangandaman several times. He is a low key person and is a happy golfer if there ever was one. Bambee’s inaccurate version of what happened was entirely out of character.

On the other hand, many golfers and a few golf course employees I have talked to felt that Valley Golf Club’s findings about Delfin de la Paz’s reported behavior was completely in character. The fellow apparently has not endeared himself to caddies and other players.

Going back to the issue I began with: in the light of Valley Golf Club’s findings, some of the journalists who had joined the bandwagon of hate against the Pangandamans have gone on record apologizing for coming on the case without the facts. Some apologized in their columns, others on a number of broadcast programs.

What I have not seen is a single ranting blogger from that lynching mob on the internet writing an apology for arriving at wrong conclusions in the absence of the facts.

In the “old” media, there are mechanisms in place that restrain professional journalists from going on an irresponsible binge. They may be imperfect mechanisms, but they are there. Anyone unfairly treated has some avenue of recourse.

To deserve their freedoms, the “old” media has mechanisms of self-regulation in addition to the code of ethics journalists are expected by their peers to live by. When, as in the Valley golf case, journalists and commentators were clearly misled, they apologize.

There is also the rule of equal space. Journalists as a matter of standard procedure should try to get the other party’s version of events. Or else, they are entitled to equal airing of their side when the main story if slanted to favor one side.

There are no such mechanism of restraint in “blogosphere.” Most of the bloggers hide under pseudonyms and are not answerable to editorial boards. Some have taken this as a license for irresponsible commentary.

But that should no be the case. The citizens of cyberspace should assume the responsibility for self-regulation either by criticizing an offensive and unfair commentary, by checking the facts themselves and by refusing to pass on irresponsible content. The freedom in this sphere can be deserved only if its citizens are vigilant on the side of fairness.