I had a chance to view news reports on GMA's interview with Mike Enriquez over DZBB and i found myself agreeing with her thoughts on responsible journalism. But when the talk ventured into the difference between responsible and "seditious" journalism, my mind put on its "BS" brakes (whatthefeff!) i wont go anymore into a diatribe on the supposed difference between responsible and "seditious" journalism because there really is no conflict there. its more like comparing apples and orranges. responsible journalism is just that, its neither seditious or "unseditious," much like the fact that there is no "good" news or "bad" news. its all how we take the news. and of course, who is the President, or anybody in government for that matter, to judge what is responsible and what is seditious? its the public who will be the judge of that. media is the public's watchdog of government. for government to start complaining, railing and ranting about how supposedly "unfair" media is and actually start doing something about it like harrassing and muzzling media, is dangerous to press freedom. sure, media has its own problems like ethics, etc. but that is for media to resolve, and its being resolved. if a media entity is unable to do just this, it will have to be answerable to the market. if government has problems with how media conducts itself, then it should take a long hard look at the policies it is implementing, rather than shoot the messenger. if government thinks media is beginning to buck too much like a wild horse, it should realize that media is also searching for answers to the more essential problems plaguing our country today. two words here: Hello Garci! media is bucking because the government is being fudgy. anyway, the topic of the DZBB-GMA thing came up during a recent meeting with Carlos Conde and Vergel Santos, whose book I am enjoying immensely at present, at a recent forum. We agreed that Enriquez should have been more circumspect about how to respond to GMA's diatribe against GMA-7's rival ABS-CBN. I posited that Mikey-baby should have answered "Ma'am, di lang po kami ang responsible. ABS din naman ha, pati na rin Inquirer, ABC-5, PCIJ, etc." Mr. Santos said Mike E. could have come up smelling like roses then to the whole of media. i understand if it was difficult to slip anything in, knowing how GMA or any agressive source for that matter, can bulldooze you into a corner with her arguments to the point of submission. but i felt Mike could have slipped one in, like a Pacquiao punch coming out of nowhere. broadcasters can be so good at that. it was also classic Sun Tzu, divide and conquer. and i agree with Ma'am Chuchay, pitting one network over the other demeans the office of the presidency. of course, i didn't expect GMA would carry herself in the highest standards that the office demands, as we have all already seen. my point is, it was an occassion for Mike to defend the whole of Philippine media now that it is under attack from the Palace. And to show her that media is standing united, that its now no longer about rivalries, ratings and circulation. its about press freedom and the media's role. right there are then, Mike got muzzled by the President sitting right in front of him. she didn't even have to touch him. talagang naloko na!