‘US troops out now’

MANY eyebrows, including mine, were raised late last week when President Rodrigo Duterte threatened to scrap the Visiting Forces Agreement with the US in retaliation to the latter’s cancellation of Sen. Ronald dela Rosa’s visa.

“I’m warning you, this is the first time: ’pag hindi ninyo ginawa ang correction diyan, I will terminate the basis of Visiting Forces Agreement. Tapusin ko’ng p**ang inang ’yan,” online news outfit Rappler quoted Duterte as saying last Thursday during a speech in Leyte, where he distributed aid to former rebels.

As a backgrounder, the VFA is a bilateral agreement between the US and the Philippines which consists of two separate documents — the VFA-1, and the VFA-2 also known as the “counterpart agreement.” The Philippine Senate ratified the agreement on May 27, 1999. The ratification of the Senate meant that the country regarded the agreement as a treaty. However, the US regards the documents as “executive agreements,” which meant that it did not require the concurrence of the US Senate.

With the enforcement of the agreement came the highly controversial Balikatan Exercises. These military exercises are designed to maintain and develop the mutual security of the two nations via crisis-action planning. These are done by conducting counter-terrorism operations and by promoting interoperability of the two countries’ forces.

These military exercises supposedly empower our country’s armed forces in rooting out the Abu Sayyaf Group and other terrorist cells operating in the country. However, after decades of these military exercises, our Armed Forces have yet to quell terrorist cells in the country.

I remember covering the very first Balikatan Exercises in Zamboanga City. I was working as a correspondent for Mindanews then. With another Mindanews correspondent Vanessa Almeda, we embedded with the convoy of some 20 plus buses of delegates from across the country who were against the agreement. We were pelted with rocks as soon as we entered the city.

Many protest actions sprung all throughout the existence of the agreement. There were rallies dubbed “US troops out now” in most of the major cities in the country. Those who opposed the agreement contend that it was disadvantageous to the country’s welfare. They claim the Philippines got the shorter end of the stick with the agreement.

Back to Duterte’s threat, this wasn’t the first time he threatened to abrogate the agreement. He did it five months into his presidency when the US didn’t renew an assistance package for the country. He felt the country is being short-changed.

The difference between the two threats is that the former was issued in anger over a diplomatic slight against his attack dog while the latter was issued with the country’s welfare in mind.

It is almost laughable, really. The wimped out Senate, as usual, relents the threat by saying last Friday that there is no need for the Senate’s concurrence in abrogating the agreement. In fact, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said they are already in the process of terminating the agreement after solons said a Senate action is not needed to scrap the agreement.

Believe it or not, I understand where Duterte is coming from. As petty as it sounds — VFA abrogation unless the reversal of Bato’s visa cancellation — the President has a basis for his threat.

Under the agreement, Philippine personnel is supposed to be exempt from visa formalities and further guarantees expedited entry and exit to the US.

I said I understand. I did not say I agree. I just hope that the President could sort out his priorities. The year of the metal rat greeted us with a volcano eruption, earthquakes, and an impending viral pandemic. I think it doesn’t need a genius to categorize which should be addressed first.

Don’t get me wrong. I say, go ahead and abrogate the agreement. But do so with the welfare of the country in mind and not because of some macho retaliation of a diplomatic slight against his minion. Pfft. 

Podcast project

I HAVE been meaning to try out other platforms for communications. You see I have been in print medium for the better part of my career in journalism. I guess the year 2020 is the best year as any to start something new.

Well, I have tried producing short videos and creating infographics during my almost five-year stint with the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. But that was mainly a one-man production team. I shoot the videos, the non-linear editing, and script. I do have to present it to our Executive Director Malou Mangahas for final editing and subsequent approval.

I remember one time while I was with PCIJ and was covering a press briefing on the germinal stage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law, my former editor Froilan Gallardo caught up with me in Quezon City. He asked me where was the rest of my team who were covering. I told him my DSLR camera, two video cameras, an audio recorder, a steno pad, and a pen was THE team. We both laughed after realizing how pathetic my answer sounded.

Jao Gumapac of RMN’s DxCC has been offering me a slot in his latest venture, the JaoTV as far back as 2017. He said I could just talk about the things I write in my column, My Wit’s End. He also said I could also include some live singing on my time slot.

I have been putting it off for years. Honestly, I still feel it is kinda “hilas” to be anchoring some type of talk show on TV. So, yes, Jao, you win. I just met and organized my production crew. I’m thinking a video podcast wouldn’t be bad to start the new decade. However, I insisted that my “episodes” of this video podcast would my intellectual property for perpetuity. This means that I can use it anywhere I see fit. Well, Jao has yet to respond to that demanded proviso.

Last Sunday, I told my son and one of his biker friends about my plan to produce a video podcast. To my surprise, my son’s friend offered his equipment and services. Apparently, he also dabbles in audio recording and editing. So, that was it. I now have a production crew of three, myself included.

So, like any newbie, I Googled it off the internet. It suggested that I come up with a concept (i.e. a topic, name, format, and target length of each episode), design artwork and have a description to have some kind of “brand” of my video podcast. Of course, there’s the recording and editing phase, and finding a platform from which to broadcast each episode.

The last one is fairly simple. I do have a standing offer from JaoTV but I also got to thinking that why not broadcast it mainly on my YouTube channel. From there, Jao can just download the latest episode of my video podcast.

For the recording and editing part, I have already set up a meeting with my production crew of two people. So, all that’s left is the concept and the branding of the video podcast.

Allow me, my dear readers, to bounce off some ideas to you. You can always reply via email or comment on the comment section below.

I am thinking of calling, and in a way branding, my video podcast as “Crow’s Nest.” First, we will be shooting the episodes right at our home, which we have affectionately called Crow’s Nest. I’m thinking it has a nice ring to it. It being an opinion-editorial podcast from the highest part of a boat — the Crow’s Nest. So, it would be offering the widest view possible of any issue at hand.

Would it be tacky if I include some live music? Like, before I tackle an issue, I sing a song that somehow articulates the issue.

So, here’s to starting 2020 with a new platform of communications. Wish me luck.

NPC cracks crackling

THE second-oldest press club in the country, National Press Club, has been bombarded with flak late recently after declaring Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. as the Republic’s real vice president.

Worse, its vice president — the one who introduced the late strongman’s son as the real veep — issued a statement defending his pronouncement as just “basic courtesy.”

Last Friday, Paul Gutierrez introduced Marcos at its media forum as the person who should be the country’s rightful vice president.

“Because of the ‘magic’ that happened in the previous election … we all probably know that means, that he should be the sitting Vice President of the country, one position away from the position achieved by her [sic] father,” the Philippine Daily Inquirer quoted Gutierrez as saying.

Anybody worth their salt can see through that introduction as a tacit endorsement, the wrong pronoun notwithstanding.

Later that same day, Gutierrez issued a statement of “clarification,” which painted what he did more opaque than clearer if you ask me.

In the name of public service, I would like to post two points from his statement and my corresponding comments, if only to point out his skewed reasoning.

“This is farthest from the truth as the NPC remains an APOLITICAL media organisation. My repeated calling him as ‘VP’ is simply a show of basic courtesy to him, as a visitor to the NPC, a courtesy we extend to any politician or candidate seeking an office and whom we also address based on the position he/she is seeking.”

This is lame. “Sir” or “ma’am” (if he wanted to continue with his wrong pronoun for the former senator) would have been the more appropriate address if he really wanted to project the NPC as an apolitical media organization.

Social media activist Gang Capati best articulated this point on her tweet after the supposed forum: “The poll protest has been ongoing, three areas identified for (a) recount by Bongbong Marcos and in those three areas he still lost. You’re the National Press Club, use words like, ‘VP candidate presently protesting.’ Lots of ways not (to) be charged with untruth.”

Gutierrez further said that had “Ms. Lenny Robredo been our guest at the NPC, she would also be addressed as VP.”

Methinks that it is highly inappropriate to call the late strongman’s son as veep when he is still gunning after the position via an electoral protest. Please, humor me with this hypothetical situation. If Mar Roxas contested the presidency after the 2016 polls, would Gutierrez then — in the spirit of “basic courtesy” and being “apolitical” — address Roxas as “President” should he guest in one of NPC’s fora?

Also, Gutierrez addressing the elected veep as “Miss” in his statement betrays his own point. Like, c’mon, man! We were not born three minutes ago. The repeated mention of Marcos as the veep throughout the forum was anything but “basic courtesy.” If anything, it was a blatant display of boot-licking.

“In common media language, we call this ‘tsitsaron’ (to ‘tickle) to put the mind of our guests at ease; I believed that the majority of those present readily acknowledged this and never put any malice on it.”

No, sir, that is not a common media language. What do cracklings have to do with putting a guest’s mind at ease? Have you heard how cracklings sound when eaten? It’s noisy and doesn’t put anybody’s mind at ease. That sound of cracklings crackling is actually intended to trigger the hunger urge and make you crave for more of the same. If anybody put “malice” on the way Gutierrez introduced his guest, it was himself.

Gutierrez, by the way, titled his statement as “Huwag tayong masyadong malisyoso.” That title tickled me. Journalists, by nature, are “malisyoso.” That is part of being a watchdog. “Malisyoso” in the context of being critical and not “malice” in the context of libel laws.

That’s the reason why exactitude is important because we cannot afford to be painted as paid hacks. We do not take anybody’s word hook, line, and sinker. That’s the reason why we employ multiple sourcing on everything we print or broadcast.

Here’s the clincher: At the same forum, Marcos announced his bid for national office in the 2022 polls albeit not mentioning what specific elected position.

I say clincher because now we see the real reason for the supposed forum. It was nothing but an advance teaser for Marcos’s return to the hall of power in the Republic.

I offer one question to Gutierrez before ending this column: Was it all worth it, sir? Pfft.

Hindsight is 20/20

“Democracy will not reform itself by some hidden or automatic process. It takes citizens to awaken from their inertia, apathy, or fear. No one else will demand change for us.” — Larry Diamond, III Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency

LAST Sunday, I was browsing through my Netflix catalog of documentary movies when I chanced upon “The Great Hack.” It was released in July 2019. It is about the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

A private military contractor, SCL Group, was behavioral research and strategic communications company with expertise in influencing mass behavior patterns. The company had been contracted for military and political operations across the globe in the late 1990s, including electioneering in the developing countries throughout the early 2000s.

For the company to move into the US elections, it formed Cambridge Analytica in 2012.

The scandal stems from the illicit harvesting of personal data and was used to create massive campaigns albeit approaching users in a personal manner. However, the mined big data ended up being used to create a huge artificial intelligence that reached the point of the disruption of democratic processes in the countries where they operated.

Facebook entered the picture when Cambridge Analytica bought personal data from the social media platform’s users. But as what we have all witnessed during the televised US Senate inquiry into the matter, Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg denied any complicity. He offered to “look into it.” We haven’t heard since from Zuckerberg after that inquiry.

Allow me to digress, if only to share with you my “eureka” moment in the movie. Again, yes, I may be a voracious reader but I admit I am kind of slow when it comes to technology. Watching the movie, it is easy to get lost with all the technical terms.

My father, Emilio, used to work as a civilian consultant for a certain major general who was assigned at Camp Olivas in San Fernando, Pampanga.

It was the time when Emilio, then a director of the Philippine Information Agency for Northern Mindanao, was named one of the “frozen” regional directors under then-President Corazon Aquino through Executive Order 120, series of 1987.

As far as I can recall, he worked as a “communications specialist” for the major general. I do, however, recall some military jargon he taught me. Yes, I was that kind of kid — a kid who asked a lot of questions outside my sphere of formal education.

I learned from him the terms plausible deniability, low-intensity conflict, psychological operations, credible reality, and other fancy-sounding terms. For this column, I’ll focus on the terms of psychological operations and plausible deniability.

On one hand, psychological operations are operations to “convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals,” as defined by the United States Marine Corps in Fort Bragg.

On the other hand, plausible deniability is defined as “denying responsibility for the actions due to the lack of substantial evidence of direct involvement, allows to shift the blame and to minimize reputational losses while maximizing the result of such actions.” This phrase was coined by the Central Intelligence Agency in the early 1960s to withhold information from senior officers to shield them from possible repercussions of their clandestine operations.

From the definitions of the two terms above, it is easy to realize that these are the foundations of great propaganda work.

Propaganda work targets our biases and emotions. With the national elections in 2022, you can bet your sweet “A” that these two military terms will be employed again in what has become a “hybrid communications warfare.”

As a public service, I would like to share with you a checklist in fighting misinformation by Carl Sagan called the “baloney detection.”

a.) Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

b.) Arguments from authority carry little weight— "authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

c.) Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

d.) Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way-station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

e.) Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course, there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

f.) If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)—not just most of them.

g.) Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

h.) Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle—an electron, say—in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Let us remember that it was the weaponization of social media platforms that stunned us way back in 2016. Misinformation or its more ubiquitous and infamous term “fake news” target powerful emotions within you — wonder, fear, greed, grief.

It was the weaponization of social media platforms that stunned us way back in 2016. Let us all learn our lesson and start the new decade with a 20/20 vision.