Bias: Care and Feeding of the Beast

Blogger Ellen Tordisillas has come to be a fascinating case study for me. I've written several blogs about her.  I'm perplexed because I hold her to be a reasonably reasonable and well-intentioned person, yet we come down on opposite sides of the opinion line on many issues. Furthermore, I don't think she is pursuing a destructive agenda as are other anti-bloggers. Maybe it just comes naturally for her, hahaha.

It seems that President Aquino is rather a litmus test for the two bloggers, Ellen and JoeAm. The President will make a statement or take a position on an issue, and the two of us invariably read it completely the opposite. Two examples:

• ASEAN: President Aquino made a forthright statement subsequent to a recent ASEAN meeting that called host nation Cambodia to task for asserting a "consensus" had been reached regarding a statement to be issued. President Aquino said no consensus had been arrived at as the statement did not reflect Philippine complaints about Chinese claims on Philippine territory.

• Ellen ridiculed President Aquino for making the Philippines look divisive and foolish and for undermining ASEAN.

• JoeAm praised the President for having the courage to stand up to China's effort to get ASEAN nations to comply with her wishes (essentially China drafted the conference statement). Joe claimed this represented a strong and independent Philippines, something most Filipinos want.

• Sabah: President Aquino held a press conference and gave a group led by Sultan Jamalul Kiram III an ultimatum to leave Malasia or he could be charged with crimes. The Sultan, believing he is the rightful title-holder to land in Sabah and Sulu, had led a band of almost 200 Filipinos into Sabah, which is governed by Malaysia. Ownership of Sabah is a very intricate and delicate matter.

• Ellen wrote the following about President Aquino: " . . . the language he used reeks of arrogance that could only come from ignorance of the root of the issue." She added: "This standoff came about because the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu decided to do it their way after Malacañang snubbed Kiram’s request for a meeting."

• JoeAm read of the President's firm stand and said to himself "yes!" The Sultan first requested that the U.S. intervene in his defense and then requested an audience with President Aquino. In other words, the Sultan believes he can do as he pleases, stir up trouble for Malaysia and the Philippines, and summon other nations to his cause. President Aquino spoke firmly on behalf of the nation.

Here is a link to the President's statement of February 26 so you may read it for yourself.  It is short and to the point.

Why do two people see the same statement and the same set of facts so differently? The known facts are the same. The Sabah issue has boiled hot and simmered cool for over a century. It is complex and has been made more complex by armed conflict in Mindanao.

Certainly Malaysia does not buy the Sultan's claim. And President Aquino mentioned that there are conflicting claims about ownership. He further said that the Sultan's letter requesting a meeting had come during the President's entry into office and had been misplaced, not ignored.

So at that point, we get to speculation. In Ellen's discussion thread, two commenters said they did not believe the President's "excuse" about the missing letter. They believe it was a snub. They have no facts. It is guess. And it belies the "filter" through which people react.

Therein lies the real reason Ellen and JoeAm disagree. They operate with different fundamental assumptions or beliefs or "trust" about President Aquino.

• Ellen's starting  assumption is that President Aquino is arrogant and ignorant.

• JoeAm's starting assumption is that President Aquino has a very difficult job and is handling it responsibly.

All the President's acts and facts get filtered through two different belief screens. Same acts. Substantially the same facts.

Different readouts.

It is actually rather amusing. We can conclude that the President's acts are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevance is the bias of the audience.

The President has the backing of a sizable majority of Filipinos. Therefore, he should simply do what he believes is correct, and most will filter those acts through a favorable lens.

• That is why the LP senatorial candidates have risen in the Pulse Asia survey rankings.

• That is why the Binay camp committed a huge mistake going to Cebu to pray with the petulant and misbehaving governor there, flaunting the beloved President.

• That is why the Catholic Church's political priests are undermining the Church in the Philippines by challenging, not President Aquino, but the people who support him.

The only way that President Aquino could lose would be if he became deceitful and manipulative. That is, if he let the people down.

As long as he is earnest and forthright and working hard, he has nothing to fear. Not even the complaints of those with a different agenda or different set of assumptions. Perhaps the only real flash points he has to deal with are the economy, FOI and China.

As I reported in a prior blog, transparency is more than simply reporting reams of facts. It is an attitude of being frank, honest, candid. Not sugar-coated or puffed up (beware a SONA with too much braggadocio).

Take the Sultan's missing letter.

It would be a mistake for President Aquino to say it was "missing" if it had been set aside for a reason. It would be better to explain why it was set aside. And, indeed, if it went "missing" it would be wise to reprimand whoever let it slip between the cracks. Because it was a mistake.

But most of us will shrug. Small point. The bigger point is that President Aquino remains President of the entire nation and does not submit to the demands of a Sultan of no confirmed authority.

And he does not need to submit to the demands of those with a starting point that presumes "Mr. President, you are arrogant and ignorant." 

Listen? Yes he should.

Bow to the critics? No he should not. Shrug them off? Yes he should.

And those of us who are in the business of being critics need to take a mirror every once in a while and hold it up for a good stare. Are we being genuine and factual and forthright? Or are we filtering and manipulating the facts unfairly or irrationally?

To justify ourselves.