No talk, no mistake
Todays’ column title is a statement often mentioned by CEOs and businessmen as a reaction to press statements and comments caught on camera that ultimately end up as “foot in mouth disease,†or something regrettable and results in undue publicity.
I recently received an email from Major Agnes Lynette A. Flores, spokesperson of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) after she read “Thy Lie Groweth upon Thy Nose,†the article I wrote about the case of Senior Superintendent Conrad Capa and the case of Cadet Cudia versus the PMA. In the spirit of fairness I’m reprinting the letter in full:
Dear Cito,
This is Major Agnes Lynnette A Flores, the spokeswoman you are referring in your article today. I write to be able to enlighten you as to the statement that triggered you to write about me.
“When the PMA spokeswoman announced that if Cudia fails to win his case and is kicked out of the academy, the cadet would have to reimburse the government approximately P2 million in scholarships, a lot of people raised their eyebrows! What was that statement in aid of? The statement certainly sounded like a clear attempt to blackball Cadet Cudia and make him look like someone who wasted taxpayers’ money and failed to make good on a P2-million scholarship. Why did the spokeswoman even have to mention such dire repercussion when Cudia’s case was still in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief? Had Cudia’s case been in the judiciary, the spokeswoman if not the PMA, would have easily been cited in contempt of court or violating sub judice rules.†This is how it went in your article.
With all due respect Sir, you have my admiration for being esteemed writer and very articulate commentator. However, Sir, to directly accuse me of categorically stating that I announced in the press that Cadet Cudia is to pay P2M does not have basis at all.
Probably Sir you were referring to the news report aired over ABS-CBN that carried the banner story about the issue you wrote about.
Have you heard me Sir in that clip stating that if Cudia will be kicked-out, he will have to pay P2M for it? When I was interviewed, I even asked the media where they got the idea about the pay-back as I did not know about it. And when hypothetically asked if in case indeed the decision will be upheld by the Review Board, will PMA require him to pay? I told them that “as to the case of Cudia, I cannot comment because there is no finality yet as regard his case,†however, this did not make it in the clip, rather, what they presented to the public was my statement which if I can remember, “Alam ng mga kadete na may obligasyon silang ibalik ang iginasto sa kanila ng gobyerno sa pagpapaaral sa kanila kung sila ang “at fault†sa pagkakatanggal nila sa Akademiya.†This statement I gave in clarifying to them that a cadet though, signs a contract to such effect when they enter the Academy. The statement Sir, was stated in generalization, including the rest of all the cadets in the Academy and not specifically referring to Cudia.
As to how the media outfit package the interview clip taken from me, is beyond my control.
“What was that statement in aid of?†— Nothing really on the part of PMA, but for the media, it can trigger something, like the outpouring of your sentiments in your article, Sir.
As the spokesperson of the Academy, I have been professional in my dealings with the media and have been responsible in any statement I give to them….but as to how my statement will be appreciated, it will depend on how media will treat it.
Thank you very much Sir.
* * *
Like many before her, Major Flores has discovered the unpleasant experience of being “edited†or rewritten for print and broadcast purposes. Time and again I have heard people claim that the many paragraphs or minutes of interview they gave were chopped up, sliced, spliced and what came out was not what they said or meant to say. Unfortunately if you give two sentences that complete one thought, you have given a statement. If you respond or reply to a hypothetical question, your response is a statement, and having issued it you cannot recall it or take it back.
Whether or not it was what you meant or the message you had prepared becomes your problem because you were the source and you had the opportunity to make the best of the situation when you were giving it. How the media or the public ends up appreciating or responding to your statement is the consequence of your act and your choice of words. What one utters and what others hear are not always exactly the same, much like 10 people can read the same article or love letter and have 10 different impressions.
A general statement or answer given during or in relation to a specific case such as that of cadet Cudia will always be used in the context of Cudia’s case and not as a generic answer. Context always sets the boundaries. A question can be hypothetical but once an answer falls within the context of a case, it is rarely treated as a hypothetical answer; it becomes part of the case. When the spokesperson said: “Alam ng mga kadete na may obligasyon silang ibalik ang iginasto sa kanila ng gobyerno sa pagpapaaral sa kanila kung sila ang “at fault†sa pagkakatangal nila sa Akademiya.â€
It was within the context of the Cudia case.
When I mentioned the actions of the PMA spokesperson, I was referring to her actions not her “person.†I can understand if she took my remarks personally, but that does not make them “personal†or “about her.†It comes with the job of spokesperson that one’s actions, choice of words, and context become subject to impressions and second-guessing because the speaker represents an institution.
As the great Omar Khayyam wrote: “The moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit
shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.†Add to that the lines of Falstaff in Henry the IV: Discretion is the better part of valor.†And to that let’s not forget what my Tsinoy Ninong says: “Less Talk — Less Mistake. No Talk — No Mistake.â€
* * *
E-mail: [email protected]
- Latest
- Trending
