An Expose With Nothing to Expose

UPDATE, 2/5/2011: The Internet and Mobile Marketing Association of the Philippines (IMMAP) recently reacted to Margaux Salcedo's article in light of the growing tension within the local blogosphere.  Read their statement here.

Additionally, JJ Yulo of Pinoy Eats World tweeted last Feb. 3 that Ms. Salcedo might reveal the truth this Sunday, Feb. 6.  Let's hope she really does.

------------------------------------------------

Last night, this new article on Inquirer.net, "Please Don’t Give Blogging a Bad Name", began making the rounds in the local social media world.  It's a very long read, but not a difficult one at all.  How is that?  Because it lacks substance.  The first half of the entire article definitely engages the reader but, in my case, I soon lost interest because it ended with a cliffhanger, an important detail: who is "The Firm"?

I don't care about knowing who "Georgia" is; there are many entrepreneurs like her, unfortunately.  When you're new to running a business, you learn some things the hard way.  But how can people like them learn, or future entrepreneurs be aware, if "journalists" like the Inquirer do not do their jobs completely?

What is Journalism?  What does a journalist do?  A writer, or even a blogger, cannot and should not call himself/herself a journalist unless s/he has been thoroughly trained and experienced in this craft.  Just because you have a huge ID that says "MEDIA", it doesn't entitle you to making your audience believe that everything you say/write/post/publish is 100% truth.

Back in my college days as a Communication Arts student, my Print Journalism professor said to us that you should never go ahead with a news bit unless you've checked your facts and sources thoroughly AND they should be named if possible (since we know there are cases where doing so will endanger the sources' well-being).  Otherwise, it's all just hearsay.  Moreover, there are ways to report news that will get your audience's attention immediately but without compromising your integrity and responsibility, and without ending up like a "Da Who?" showbiz-style scoop.

Going back to the Inquirer's article: what were the writer's or publisher's motives for publishing an "expose" that lacks substantial information and a backbone?  Don't you have solid proof that will support everything you've said so far in the article?  The way it's written, it sounds like you were deeply familiar with Georgia's situation and The Firm's shenanigans.  So what's keeping you from informing the citizenry?  If you published this as a "warning" or "FYI" for us, your readers, then let me give this piece of feedback -- you helped no one.

Additionally:
This is exactly what disgusts me about many of our local journalists' practices.  Why hide your subject in cryptic descriptions?  "A restaurant in the 2nd floor of an upscale mall in Makati caught fire", "A jewelry store in Chinatown was robbed of P1 million worth of jewelry", etc.  Meanwhile, on social media networks like Twitter and Facebook, citizens who are eyewitnesses are stating the facts outright, many doing so with solid evidence such as pictures taken with their camera phones.  That is more informative! That is more helpful.