Questions for Montalvan, Cruz
On Antonio Montalvan’s “Kris is back” (Opinion, Inquirer, 4/8/13), I have not heard yet of Kris Aquino wanting to run for vice president. Of course she has the right to run for the post. Like my driver. But should I say so without any basis in the case of either? Like checking with the party concerned? Would that be responsible or “fire!-aim!-ready!” journalism?
So may we ask what was the basis of Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz in saying what really goes without saying? To intrigue? To gain publicity? Another “kulang sa pansin”? To make “pahanga”? (Another attention-starved case? Out to impress?)
At least we have in the Aquinos a nonlying, noncheating and nonstealing dynasty in this scofflaw nation of hecklers, pilosopo (philosophizers) and madunong (know-it-alls). Tsismis (rumor-mongering) remains a growth cottage industry.
And many columnists validate Arthur Hoppe’s definition of one (I am one myself), as someone who reads the papers and once he finds something he does not know or understand, he proceeds to proclaim or explain it.
Our Wild Wild Press should grow; in the Washington Post on Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein would not use anything explosive without double corroboration. Did Archbishop Cruz ask even for one? If not, that’s par for the course in a culture where the term “media” is often defined as the plural of mediocre (Rocky Bridges and/or Jimmy Breslin).
—RENE SAGUISAG,
