Friday, August 19, 2005 [ 12:26 PM ]
I watched Debate last night and saw how the guests defended their belief on the issue of Impeachment or Truth Commission. The guests stated their different points of view in the issue and in my perception; the Impeachment side got it although the televotes showed that it only lead by a single point.
What I noticed in the program that somehow irritates me was the moderator. Oscar Orbos and Winnie Monsod are supposed to be the mediator of the program, to give it a formal and proper flow. In fairness to Oscar Orbos, he behaved well enough as a moderator but Winnie Monsod…
As a moderator she is allowed to throw certain questions that would start the debate and some intelligent queries that would put the stand of the guests into test. But what she did is directly contradicting the guest, as far as saying phrases as “I don’t believe you” “What you said is not true” etc. I think that was very unethical for a moderator. In the name itself, a moderator should moderate and not to take a stand regardless of her belief on the issue. If she wants to air her side and to make certain pronouncements of her principle then she should be on the side of the panelist and not as a moderator.
In some scenes on that debate, one of the panelist said that the only proper venue for the president to answer all these controversies is through an Impeachment proceedings, the questions to her in cheating, stealing and lying can only be resolved in an impeachment court. At this point Winnie Monsod take her stand, she said that “So what if she cheat? So what if she steal? So what if she lie? Would that resolve the problem of the country? I don’t think so.” Monsod means that whether GMA is proven guilty or not, that would not change anything in the country, still the problems will remain. What should we do now? Let it pass and ignore it? If we leave the issues unresolved then the political crisis will continue, if we would not mind such allegations for the reason of nothing would change, then we will be on chaos. Everyone will just do whatever they want however grave it is and say, so what? Nothing will change even if they do otherwise. Huh? If a murderer was caught in the act of killing, should the police not arrest him? Besides nothing would change, there were other murderers somewhere else so nothing would change if they arrest this killer. That’s nonsense. If a criminal whether it is an ordinary citizen or even the president of the Philippines, that has been proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt suffered the appropriate penalty of what they have done, then at least others would hesitate to do such delinquency, at least obviously.