No, they do not have a great relationship to one another. Or do they? hmmm
Of HonestyA friend's boredom Thursday last week, ended with an invite to catch a non-thinking, chick flick in the nearest mall, Eastwood. Despite Signal #1, we got into the mall with about 5minutes to spare before the published screening time at 1:55PM. We forgot though that there are already 2 malls in the area and the movie we were seeing was on the new mall.
Not really rushing, we walked to the other mall. We knew we would be able to easily catch up with the movie even if we missed the first 10minutes or so. She had 1k, I had 200 so I gave her my payment and she used her 1,000Php bill to pay for our tickets. We were a bit excited to be catching our first film in the new mall/new cinema so we were chatty while paying and walking toward the cinema.
Fast forward to about 4 hours later, my friend texts me if I noticed if the cashier gave her change and honestly I couldn't remember. She only had 200 in her wallet, which was the money I paid her so that easily means, the ticket seller wasn't able to give her, her change.
Yesterday, my sister was going to the gym across the same mall and I decided to go with her to do some errands. I kept our movie tickets and the name of the teller was in it so I thought maybe I ought to see her and ask if she remembers not giving 650php change last Thursday. She was on break when I first went so I came back 30minutes after.
I showed her our tickets, told her what happened,etc etc. There were only about 5-6 people in the cinema who watched with us so she might just remember us. Her side of the story was, she gave us our change because her accounting of the past days earnings were always balanced. She didn't go "over" so she feels she's given us change. I don't believe her.
I knew I had slim chances of getting back my friend's change, but I thought it was imperative that the ticket seller knew that we know that she failed to give us our change. And if she had some greater sense of honesty and integrity, she would have come after us inside the cinema or called us back when we passed by the ticket counter after the movie. It was a very slow day last Thursday. I'm not saying it wasn't partly our fault because we were not paying attention, but still it wasn't her money and I have always disliked people taking other people's money.
Of Cheche LazaroShe is definitely one of the very few people in the media industry whom I respect and idolize.
I was waiting for my sister to finish when I read an article about her supposed warrant/bail. It was a commentary though, of a writer I don't even like and who I feel is totally overrated, but since it had CheChe Lazaro's name in the title, I read it.
The allegation, more the case filed against Ms. Lazaro, was her violation of Republic Act 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
The law declares it unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all parties to any private communication or spoken, to knowlingly possess and such record, or to replay the same for any other person, or persons, or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or portion, to any other person. (What a long sentence and too many ORs. Sometimes I really wish our laws can be rewritten simpler and in shorter sentences. The common tao will understand it more easily and perhaps follow it more if they did)
Anyway, the case was filed by GSIS VP for PR and Communications Office, Ella Valencerina. This was with regard to a cellphone conversation she and Ms. Lazaro had last November 10 in relation to a story PROBE was doing on the complaints of public school teachers against GSIS. I don't know the full story, but Ms. Lazaro claims that she warned Ms. Valencerina that the conversation they were having was being recorded - "I'm telling you that we are recording this," Lazaro said.
On that issue, I think it is quite clear that no "secret" recording of the conversation happened. I think the more pressing question is if there was approval of the airing of the said recorded conversation. Early on, GSIS refused an on cam interview be done because of prior negative experiences with the channel where PROBE airs. The whole transcript of their conversation is in the possession of Branch 47 in Pasay so we don't really know if there was consent on Ms. Valencerina's end for the conversation to be aired.
I do not have a particular stand on this yet, especially since I have very limited knowledge on the case, etc. I still have the highest respect for Ms. Lazaro and I sincerely believe she has more than enough experience and intellect to know what the law permits and that she knows what lines not to cross. But I also know that all people are capable of making mistakes, making wrong decisions or even taking things easily because they have done it before and ending up missing an important step or two.
I guess this news left me at a point of reflection on the lines media crosses just to get to the bottom of things and be able to deliver the most comprehensive investigative piece on air. I also remember how I dislike most news on TV now as they have managed to make reports too dramatic and feature like - I like my news Straight and just the facts! I'm thinking now if shows like Imbestigador and XXX, even if they do exposes are already too aggressive and have managed to step on the citizens' civil liberties. And I wonder if the hosts think of themselves as people who can be above the law because they are seen on TV catching the "bad guys."
I have always been particular on the major role that media play in educating the public. Despite the proliferation of internet social networking sites, the telly still beats them in terms of influencing the people, especially the Masang Pinoy. *thinking*
