MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

If you are a new user, click here to
read the Overview to this section

Manila rally vs. Reproductive Health Bill: interfaith or ecumenical?

There’s no question about the broad particulars of the event. As consistently reported by the leading Metro Manila broadsheets, some 40,000 people rallied at the Rizal Park last Friday (March 25) against the Reproductive Health Bill that’s pending in the Philippine Congress.

In its news story about the event, The Manila Times described the event in a photo caption as “an interfaith anti-Reproductive Health Bill rally [italicization mine]” and its participants as “pro-life advocates and members of various religious groups.”

The Philippine Daily Inquirer, on the other hand, described the event in a photo caption as “an ecumenical rally [italicization mine] led by the Catholic Church against the reproductive health bill” and its participants as “opponents of the controversial Reproductive Health Bill.”

The Philippine Star, for its part, didn’t describe the rally as either ‘interfaith” or “ecumenical.” Instead, it categorically captioned a photo of the rally crowd as “Thousands of Catholics attend[ing] a Mass against the Reproductive Health bill.” Its report focused on Pope Benedict XVI’s call to the Filipino faithful to oppose the bill and on how Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales “led the thousands of faithful in the prayer rally with around 600 priests taking part in the ceremony.”

So, from both the language and journalistic standpoints, the big question that comes to mind is this: Was the March 25 rally in Manila really an interfaith or ecumenical affair, or was it an undertaking solely of the Roman Catholic Church? I think a truthful answer to this question can give us a clearer idea of the strength and extent of the opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill among Filipinos as a whole.

To arrive at that answer, let’s clarify the meaning of the terms “interfaith” and “ecumenical” first.

My Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines the adjective “interfaith” as “involving persons of different religious faiths” and the adjective “ecumenical” as (1) “worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application” and (2) “a: of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches” or “b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation.”

I went over the Times, Inquirer, and Star stories about the rally several times to find any indication that the event was either “interfaith” or “ecumenical,” but to no avail. There wasn’t any reference to any religious sect participating in that rally other than the Roman Catholic Chuch.

Here’s the Times describing the composition of the rally crowd: “According to the organizers, those who attended the rally came from the parishes and shrines of the Metropolitan See, from all Catholic organizations and sectors, transparochial communities including El Shaddai and Couples for Christ, pro-life groups, catechists, students, youth and the urban poor.” Frankly, I don’t think this composition of the rally crowd justifies the Times description of it as “interfaith”—unless, of course, we consider “El Shaddai” and “Couples for Christ” as breakaway religions of the Roman Catholic Church, which by all indications they are not.

In its news report, the Inquirer described the event as a “prayer-for-life rally organized by the country’s Roman Catholic Church.” Nowhere in the report was there any mention of other religious groups—like, say, any of the Protestant denominations or the Muslim faithful—participating in that rally. From all indications, therefore, that rally was a Roman Catholic undertaking through and through, and it would be extremely difficult for the Inquirer to justify its description of the event as “ecumenical.”

The reportage of the Star admirably gave no room to the idea that the rally could be either “interfaith” or “ecumenical.” This was made clear by the very lead sentence of its news story: “As the Catholic Church continued to wage battle against the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, Pope Benedict XVI yesterday called on the Filipino faithful to support the campaign for protection of life.” The rest of the Star report dwelt exclusively on Roman Catholic pro-life sentiments and on the various Roman Catholic rites and rituals undertaken during the rally. 

In sum, based on the news reporting of the three broadsheets, the conclusion is inescapable that it’s grossly inaccurate to call that March 25 anti-Reproductive Health Bill rally either “interfaith” or “ecumenical.” In truth and in fact, it was a wholly Roman Catholic “show of force” against the Reproductive Health Bill.

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) Philippine Star: Wrong form of the subordinate clause; dangling coordinate clause

In the first sentence of the lead passage above, the subordinate phrase “after they were caught carrying an undetermined number of sea turtles…” is in the wrong form. The operative verb in that subordinate phrase shouldn’t be in the passive voice form “they were caught” and shouldn’t refer to the arrested six Chinese; instead, it should be in the active voice form “after catching them” and should refer to the marines and police as doers of the action. As it is, that subordinate clause creates the wrong impression that the arrest and the catching of the six Chinese are distinct and independent events rather than part of a continuing action of the marines and the police. It also leaves open the possibility that the arrest might have been done by law enforcers other than the marines and the police.

Here’s that problematic sentence as rephrased correctly:

“Marines and police arrested six Chinese on board a speedboat after catching them with an undetermined number of sea turtles off the coast of Palawan Thursday afternoon.”

In the second sentence of the lead passage, the second coordinate clause “they are still validating reports that the group came from Hainan province in China” dangles because it couldn’t grammatically connect to the first coordinate clause “Lt. Gen. Juancho Sabban of the Armed Forces Western Command (Wescom) yesterday confirmed the arrest of the six.” It needs an operative verb and a valid doer of the action to make that connection, as follows:

“Lt. Gen. Juancho Sabban of the Armed Forces Western Command (Wescom) yesterday confirmed the arrest of the six and said that the command is still validating reports that the group came from Hainan province in China.”

(2) The Manila Times: Faulty phrasing; wrong placement of modifier

In the first sentence of the lead passage above, the phrase “yet to be identified gunmen” is semantically faulty and sounds oddly presumptuous. Indeed, it begs the question as to who will make the identification of the gunmen in due time. The proper and more circumspect usage is, of course, simply the word “unidentified,” as follows:

“A 45-YEAR-old radio broadcaster was gunned down on Thursday morning by unidentified gunmen near her residence in Malabon City.”

In the second sentence of the lead passage, the phrase “the killed radio anchor” improperly uses the past participle “killed” to pre-modify “radio anchor.” The correct pre-modifier to use for persons who are killed is the past participle “slain.” The sentence itself has a very choppy, halting construction and needs a total overhaul.

Here’s a reconstruction of that problematic sentence:

“Authorities identified the slain broadcaster as Marlina Flores Sumera, an employee of radio station dzME and a resident of Silonoan Street in Barangay Maysilo, Malabon City. She was declared dead on arrival after being rushed to the Valenzuela General Hospital.”

(3) Manila Bulletin: Wrong subordinating conjunction; semantically faulty sentence

The first sentence of the lead passage above doesn’t read right—it sounds illogical, in fact—because of its wrong use of the conjunction “after” to link the subordinate clause “company officials announced that all three ALI brands are speeding up residential and commercial projects here.” It gives the wrong idea that Ayala Land became bullish over the Cebu’s real estate industry only after its officials announced that all three ALI brands are speeding up residential and commercial projects here. It’s the other way around, of course: Ayala Land turned bullish over Cebu’s real estate industry first before its officials announced that all three ALI brands are speeding up residential and commercial projects here.

Here’s a simple reconstruction of that problematic sentence that fixes its wayward logic:

“CEBU CITY, Philippines – Ayala Land Inc. (ALI), bullish over Cebu's real estate industry, announced that all three ALI brands are speeding up residential and commercial projects here.”

(4) Manila Bulletin: Wrong word choice; mixed up sentence; wrong preposition usage

In the first sentence of the lead passage above, the phrase “to further motivate employee morale and service” is semantically faulty because of a wrong word choice. You don’t “motivate” a desired attribute or virtue; you “enhance” or “promote” it. It’s people you need to “motivate.”

The second sentence is literally a mishmash of words that’s extremely difficult to comprehend. This is because of the faulty wording of the overextended noun phrase describing the committee that oversees the rewards program.

In the third sentence, the phrase “the guidelines of” is grammatically and semantically faulty because it uses the preposition “of” instead of “for.”

Here’s that entire badly written lead passage as corrected and fine-tuned:

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section