The changing face of showbiz news

It used to be the village crier who went about spreading information — usually a royal decree or any development within the locality. That was the setup in the old days, not only in our archipelago but anywhere in the globe already populated with people.

During the Spanish era in the Philippines, there were already newspapers, but they were in the Castilian language. Aside from the Spaniards, the “ilustrados” (the enlightened ones) and the “principales” (the rich, but not necessarily highly educated) subscribed to these periodicals.

So much changed in the dissemination of information during the 20th century. Since the islands were ruled by the Americans, newspapers were already being published in English. Publications in Spanish, however, stayed on until the late 1960s, generally patronized by older people who had already grown accustomed to the Hispanic ways of their youth.

Then came radio. But the population still trusted the printed word. Besides, not everyone could afford to buy radio sets before the war. Newspapers and, especially, magazines could also be read at one’s own pace. People bought these reading materials for leisure.

In today’s column, this writer will trace the methods of disseminating news and information through the decades, particularly in entertainment media. How did each medium — newspapers, radio, television and now social media — affect the culture in this country? Let’s go back to the past and then move to the present to see how media shaped the sensibilities of people in this country.

Radio only became powerful after Liberation. People tuned in because of the commentators, particularly the hard-hitting ones.

In the 1950s, the most popular radio announcer was Rafael Yabut. Anyone who had a grievance against anybody went to him. He was like the Tulfo brothers rolled into one person.

When Nida Blanca was starting her reign as a movie queen, she decided to enroll at the College of Philosophy and Letters at the University of Santo Tomas after finishing high school at Adamson. Nida had always been a good driver, and she drove herself to UST for night school.

While navigating España Boulevard one late afternoon, she got into an altercation with a jeepney driver who cut her off on the road. Fortunately, Nida was able to step on the brake and avoid a collision with the jeepney. Harsh words were exchanged. The argument got so bad that both parties decided to get out of their respective vehicles and confront each other angrily.

The jeepney driver allegedly insulted the actress’ profession. To get even, Nida slapped him. No one messed with her in those days.

The next day, the jeepney driver went to DZRH to complain to Yabut about Nida. Yabut denounced the LVN star every day. Hate mail poured in, accusing Nida of being arrogant. In today’s lingo, she got bashed. The letters were even forwarded by the radio network to Nida Blanca’s home studio, LVN Pictures. Her showbiz career was in peril.

To her relief, there were also newspaper columnists and, especially, entertainment writers who came to the actress’ defense. There was a balance when it came to media exposure. While she was criticized on radio, the dailies and magazines defended her position during that incident. Her supporters justified her action because the jeepney driver had “insulted her job in the movies.” They also noticed that the jeepney driver was “pa-victim,” in current social media parlance.

But were newspapers always decent? Not really. There were already scandal sheets before. In the 1950s, there was a publication called Tiktik that featured salacious stories. Well, there was Tik-A-Tik in the 1990s, and it featured mostly showbiz scandals. Today, there is supposedly a Tiktik tabloid with sensationalized headlines, but apparently, it is not making a dent among readers.

The scandalous tabloids made a comeback toward the 1980s. Much feared was a gossip columnist who was hated by everybody. He was the great-grandfather of the proponents of fake news.

One time, he wrote something about Christopher de Leon that was so far below the belt. This could be true or an urban legend, but the story went like this: In his rage, Christopher went to the National Press Club to hunt down the gossip columnist. The actor had an “orinola” (chamber pot) with him and was all set to throw its contents at the gossip columnist, who was said to have been tipped off by a colleague in media about Christopher’s presence at the Press Club. That gave the gossip columnist a chance to escape.

The reign of terror of that gossip columnist lasted until the new millennium. He became even more vicious when he was given a nightly show on radio. Starting in the mid-1990s, Rosanna Roces’ showbiz career began to peak. And so, Rosanna became the favorite target of the gossip columnist. Oh, the awful, awful things he said about Rosanna! When that gossip columnist died, Rosanna was actually tempted to throw a party to celebrate his demise.

Of course, being jubilant over a person’s death is never good, which was why Rosanna never pushed through with her plan to hold that party. But believe it or not, there were other celebrities who were willing to chip in and also wanted to party when they heard about the gossip columnist’s death.

Could those showbiz personalities be blamed for rejoicing over the death of that gossip columnist? Let’s put it this way: Those celebrities also died a thousand deaths every time that gossip columnist maligned them on his radio show and in his newspaper column. To be decent about the whole thing, the death of that gossip columnist was not something to be happy about. But it was surely a relief to the victims of his vileness. Maybe it is best said that his death was unlamented in show business.

That showbiz columnist, incidentally, also invaded television. He did not last long in this medium because his home network could not restrain him. He really got drunk with power.

Now, let’s go to television as a source of news and information. It was called the idiot box for a long time. But after the EDSA Revolution in 1986 came the Golden Age of television. There were socially relevant shows — the likes of Public Forum, hosted by Randy David; the public affairs programs of Louie Beltran and Teddy Benigno; and even the gag show Sic O’Clock News, which parodied government officials, including President Corazon Aquino.

EDSA I also brought tabloid television — TV Patrol, which sensationalized the news. 24 Oras jumped on the trend. The way these news programs delivered the news changed the language of the masses. All of a sudden, there was “ka-pulisan” to mean police force. Or “ka-lupaan,” which describes a landmass or terrain. Well, language, particularly Filipino, continues to grow. And so, that is acceptable — although hearing a news reporter say “ka-pulisan” on TV some 20 years ago just did not feel right. Pinoys have learned to embrace it now.

But could news anchors on TV, radio broadcasters and newspaper reporters please stop saying or using “riding in tandem”? Just say “riding tandem.”

Wrong grammar, of course, is more prevalent on social media. Oh, the internet! This is now the fastest way to get the news. But do we get everything right? How many of us have fallen victim to fake news?

Today, anyone can be a journalist and a commentator. But is everyone qualified to dish out comments publicly? Apparently not. There’s no better proof than the hosts of the now-canceled program Machong Chismisan. Yes, those are the guys who poked fun at Kris Aquino’s son, Joshua Phillip, a person with special needs.

There are so many more like them. YouTube has become the playground for bigots, attention-seekers and those who just want to make a quick buck.

The internet should be a welcome medium for the dissemination of news, information and opinions. It is beyond the reach of the MTRCB. No censorship. Of course, sites could be flagged by YouTube or Facebook, but there’s so much more freedom on social media.

But here’s the difference between mainstream media and social media: In mainstream media, there are editors — both on TV and in newspapers — to check whether the information being disseminated to the public is fair, factual and even grammatical. Social media usually doesn’t have editors to police the unpalatable, and that is the reason why we had people like the hosts of Machong Chismisan. They threw decency and values out the window.

Social media and its platforms have democratized the dispensation of public opinion. But with the emergence of irresponsible social media users — the likes of the hosts of Machong Chismisan, for example — shouldn’t we be wary of just anybody who has access to keyboards? And, yes, especially microphones — unless they’re for karaoke sessions?