When misinformation and wrong logic bedevil tourism reporting

[Joe Carillo]

It goes without saying that we should be enthusiastic in promoting Philippine tourism, but the media should be careful not to botch it with false and illogical news reporting—even if done inadvertently. The world is watching out there and we don’t want to give the impression that our media can be so footloose with the facts about our tourism attractions.

The following piece of tourism reporting by The Philippine Star is particularly disturbing for its factual inaccuracy and sheer illogic:

Puerto Princesa’s tourist arrivals increase
 
MANILA, Philippines - A week after the Puerto Princesa Underground River (PPUR) was named as one of the world’s new seven wonders of nature, the city of Puerto Princesa registered an increase in tourist arrivals.

Puerto Princesa City Mayor Edward Hagedorn said the Underground River drew about 160,000 tourists annually but it ballooned to 425,000 last year. This year, he said they are expecting some 550,000 visitors.

“We are up to the challenge. We view the Underground River’s recognition as a perfect opportunity to again showcase our commitment to preserve our legacy to the whole world,” Hagedorn said.

The lead sentence above would have us readers believe that because some foreign PR promotions outfit had listed the Puerto Princesa Underground River as one of the world’s new seven wonders of nature, tourist arrivals in Puerto Princesa City surged just one week after that listing. From the supporting information given in the second paragraph, however, it becomes obvious that this is not only a careless misrepresentation of the facts but also an illogical statement.

The recorded ballooning of tourist arrivals to the Puerto Princesa Underground River from 160,000 to 425,000 was actually for the full year of 2010, which is long, long before the one-week time frame after that foreign PR promotions outfit named that underground river to its list of the world’s new seven wonders of nature. Moreover, Puerto Princesa City Mayor Edward Hagedorn’s expectation of “some 550,000 visitors” is for the full year of 2011, not for the past week after the underground river was named to that list. No data is actually provided for tourist arrivals during the touted one-week period since that listing—data that could support the tourist-arrivals increase being claimed. From all indications, then, the lead sentence of that news story misrepresents the tourist-arrivals picture for the Puerto Princesa Underground River.

I think that for Philippine tourism to really take off as fervently hoped and desired, the Philippine media should take great pains in avoiding this kind of haphazard and misleading news reporting. It would be such a shame and a great waste to squander the country’s great tourism assets and opportunities simply because our media cannot properly communicate them to the world.

Now that we have seen the fatal flaw in the tourism news story above, perhaps it’s also proper to ask this question: In the context of the available facts, is there really a legitimate story to be told in the first place? And how should that story be told?

I invite Forum members—and tourism beat reporters who might happen to read this critique—to  come up with their suggested versions of that tourism newsstory and then share those versions with us.
   
SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) Manila Bulletin: Garbled and grammatically flawed sentence

‘Fosarium’ infestation in Davao rising

MANILA, Philippines — The infestation by the deadly fungus Fosarium oxysporum of 634 hectares of banana stands in several provinces in the Davao Region is a little less than half the 1,200 hectare plantation ravaged by the fungus in Bukidnon.

This figure, which experts was based on a field study, may rise since the infestation has actually been going on since 2005, hitting smaller upland plantations and eventually filtering down to the lowlands where large plantations are located.

I’m sure that even after going over the lead sentence above several times, you are still puzzling over what it’s trying to say. I’ll admit that it took me at least three readings myself to grasp it and to figure out why it’s so difficult to understand what that sentence is saying.

The problem is that the construction of that sentence is so convoluted. It ends up comparing incomparable grammatical elements by saying that the “infestation” in the first noun phrase is “a little less than half” the “plantation” in the second noun phrase.

The first noun phrase is, of course, “the infestation by the deadly fungus Fosarium oxysporum of 634 hectares of banana stands in several provinces in the Davao Region,” where the head noun is “infestation.” As the head noun, “infestation” is the nominal subject of that long phrase, irrespective of the presence of so many other nouns in that phrase (“fungus,” “Fosarium oxysporum,” “hectares,” “banana stands,” “provinces,” “Davao Region”).

The second noun phrase is “the 1,200 hectare plantation ravaged by the fungus in Bukidnon,” where the head noun is “plantation.” As in the first phrase above, “plantation” is the nominal subject of that phrase, irrespective of the presence of the other nouns in that phrase (“fungus,” “Bukidnon”). (For a previous discussion in the Forum on head nouns and nominal groups, click this link to “How the mass media can lick errors in subject-verb agreement for good.”)

So what, in effect, that lead sentence is trying to do is make this comparison between those two head nouns: “The infestation is a little less than half the plantation.” This is obviously an invalid comparison, for we can’t logically compare “infestation” and “plantation”; that’s like the proverbial misguided comparing of apples and oranges. In this particular case, in fact, what should be logically compared is the degree of fungus infestation in the Davao Region and the degree of fungus infestation in Bukidnon.

We can render that logical comparison by rewriting and simplifying that flawed lead sentence this way: 

“The deadly fungus Fosarium oxysporum has infested 634 hectares of banana stands in several provinces in the Davao Region, a little less than half of the 1,200 hectares of banana stands infested in Bukidnon.”

(2) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Misplaced modifying phrase

Mindanao kidnappings continue as gunmen seize another victim

COTABATO CITY—Kidnappings continue with impunity in North Cotabato with one more victim seized by gunmen, a relative of a mayor of one of the province’s towns.

Authorities said the latest kidnapping happened yesterday when unidentified gunmen seized a man mistaken to be the son of Mayor Loreto Cabaya of Aleosan, North Cotabato.

The lead sentence above has misplaced the modifying phrase “a relative of a mayor of one of the province’s towns.” It’s supposed to modify the subject “victim,” but it has been wrongly positioned to modify the subject “gunmen” instead. The only saving grace in this modifier misplacement is that the noun “relative” is singular, so it can’t possibly refer to the plural noun “gunmen.” Nevertheless, the misplacement is undesirable because it causes needless—if only momentary—confusion to the reader.

Here’s that lead sentence with that misplaced modifier moved to its proper place:

Kidnappings continue with impunity in North Cotabato with one more victim, a relative of a mayor of one of the province’s towns, seized by gunmen.

Here’s an even better construction for that lead sentence:

“Kidnappings continue with impunity in North Cotabato with gunmen seizing one more victim, a relative of a mayor of one of the towns in that province.”

(3) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Misuse of the verb “rue”

2 years after massacre, pain lingers

GENERAL SANTOS CITY—Nanay Nancy rues at the sorry state of her family since she lost her daughter, Gina dela Cruz, nearly a year ago in what has been viewed as the darkest moment in the history of Philippine journalism—the Maguindanao Massacre.

“Our situation has turned from bad to worse,” the 64-year-old woman said when the Inquirer visited her at her ramshackle house in Barangay Labangal in General Santos City last week.

The lead sentence above misuses the transitive verb “rue.” Since it has the noun phrase “the sorry state of her family” as direct object, the preposition “at” is unnecessary in that construction.

That sentence therefore should read as follows:

“Nanay Nancy rues the sorry state of her family since she lost her daughter, Gina dela Cruz, nearly a year ago in what has been viewed as the darkest moment in the history of Philippine journalism—the Maguindanao Massacre.”

(4) Manila Bulletin: Confusing lead sentence; wrong wording for infinitive phrase

Geographic information system promotion pushed

MAASIN CITY, Southern Leyte, Philippines – In its efforts to promoting awareness on the use of Geographic Information System (GIS), this city’s local government together with the University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College-Regional Environmental Information System (UPVTC-REIS) last November 17 celebrated the international GIS Day.

The celebration was also joined by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH – Environment and Rural Development (EnRD) and Decentralization (DP) Programs.

GIS Day is an annual global event held every November showcasing technology’s real time applications which can therefore create positive impacts in society.

The lead sentence above is very confusing—a cliffhanger construction that unduly delays the appearance of the operative verb until the very end of the sentence. It must be kept in mind that a sentence begins to make sense only when its operative verb makes its appearance; delaying that verb for no valid reason can be confusing and irritating to readers.

Also, that lead sentence uses the grammatically flawed phrase “to promoting awareness”; the correct form is “to promote awareness.”

Here’s that lead sentence reconstructed for clarity, conciseness, and grammatical correctness:

“MAASIN CITY, Southern Leyte, Philippines – To promote awareness of the geographic information system (GIS), this city’s local government celebrated International GIS Day last November 7 together with the University of the Philippines-Visayas Tacloban College.”

(5) GMA News Online: Wrong wording of verb phrase

Ex-President Gloria Arroyo placed under hospital arrest
 
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was served with an arrest warrant late Friday after the Commission on Elections filed an electoral sabotage case against her and two others at a Pasay City court, Sr. Supt. James Bucayo of the Southern Police District told GMA News’ 24 Oras.

The well-established usage is “to serve a warrant,” which means to read the warrant and seize the person against whom it is issued. In the passive voice, that phrase takes the form “was/were served an arrest warrant,” not “was/were served with an arrest warrant,” so the lead sentence above should read as follows:

“Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was served an arrest warrant late Friday after the Commission on Elections filed an electoral sabotage case against her and two others at a Pasay City court, Sr. Supt. James Bucayo of the Southern Police District told GMA News’ 24 Oras.”

(6) Manila Bulletin: Anticipatory “what” pronoun with no antecedent subject

Misuari holds talks with Kato

MANILA, Philippines — In what could have significant effects on the peace processes with Muslim groups, Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founding Chairman Prof. Nur P. Misuari held Thursday a one-on-one meeting with Commander Ameril Umra Kato, chieftain of the newly formed Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement (BIFM).

The Manila Bulletin learned about this Misuari-Kato meeting from a source in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) who said the two Moro leaders' meeting lasted about an hour, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.

In the lead sentence above, the front-end prepositional phrase “in what could have significant effects on the peace processes with Muslim groups” is grammatically defective because the anticipatory pronoun “what” has no antecedent subject. The correct form for such constructions is “in + subject noun + that could have,” as in the following rewrite of that lead sentence:

“In a move that could have significant effects on the peace processes with Muslim groups, Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founding Chairman Prof. Nur P. Misuari held Thursday a one-on-one meeting with Commander Ameril Umra Kato, chieftain of the newly formed Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement (BIFM).”

(7) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Using a newly coined word in a news headline
   

‘Most successful’ ad congress ends in ‘coopetition’

NAGA CITY, Philippines—Having pulled off a gathering of more than 2,000 in a place where no convention that size had ever been held, the organizers of the 22nd Philippine Ad Congress (AdCon22) were moved to declare this year’s edition of the gathering as “the most successful” so far.

Andre Kahn, chair of the Advertising Board of the Philippines (AdBoard), said they all learned a lot from the biennial gathering that ended here Saturday, and which had even inspired him to coin the word “coopetition” to describe the spirit that should prevail among rival agencies.

“Coopetition means that even though we compete within the industry we can cooperate for the common good of our members like what we have done here,” he said.

Hmm…With all the media and advertising hoopla accorded “coopetition” as new coinage for the English language—even making it to a headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer right after first use—let’s see how it fares in the wild, wide world of English words. Will “coopetition” officially make it to the English lexicon like Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” or perish soon after when all of the ad congress hoopla is gone?

As we say in the Philippines, abangan!

[scoylumban]

My comment is not really about the poor way in which the Puerto Princesa story was written but about the distorted idea of the Philippines that the tourism industry spreads by describing the country as being one consisting of '7,200' islands. While this may be technically correct, basically it's utter nonsense. Most of these 'islands' are uninhabited rocks, or 'cartoon islands' with one or two coconut trees. The vast majority of Filipinos live on very large islands. I am from Ireland, an island smaller that Mindanao or Luzon. The latter is nearly as large as Britain. The Visayan islands are all large landmasses. For British and Irish people islands are small places, with few people living on them. 'Mainlanders' don't see themselves as islanders.

Islanders often travel by boat. I would guess that the vast majority of people in Luzon have never traveled by boat to another island.

Sorry for being slightly off topic but as one who has lived in the Philippines for 40 years and who has often traveled between large islands, I shake my head every time I hear the '7,200' or '7,100', whatever it is, nonsense.

[honorsan]

Without justifying this misinformation and wrong reporting on the Palawan underground river, I believe this is exactly the case because of the reporter’s (and editor’s) culture. Our people are so used to treating their first impression/perception of anything as the truth. They do not bother to differentiate between the tentative vote and the upcoming final vote on the underground river as one of the modern natural wonders of the world. That is typical of our people in the provinces, and those who use English less in the urban areas. And this is embedded in our culture. Thus, with Filipinos, perception often becomes or is mistaken as truth. 

By experience I have found out that our local journalists are very careless about vetting their data and figures. Hardly do they realize that responsible journalism requires double-checking gathered data and figures, vetting every inch of information so that attributions are accurate and news sources are never quoted out of context. We just have to fight this battle out every day—in  school with my journalism and international relations students in Lyceum, and out in the media.

[Miss Mae]

I must admit that I have never been a tourism beat reporter. Just a struggling writer in her own right.


Puerto Princesa could see 550,000 visitors this year after its underground river was named as one of the world’s new seven wonders of nature.

The city’s tourism already grew from 160,000 to 425,000 last year, leading Mayor Edward Hagedorn to draw on from the reputation of the Puerto Princesa Underground River (PPUR) ‘to preserve our legacy to the whole world.’

[Joe Carillo]

From a news presentation standpoint, the rewrite below submitted by Miss Mae is a vast improvement over the original lead passage in the Philippine Star:

Puerto Princesa could see 550,000 visitors this year after its underground river was named as one of the world’s new seven wonders of nature.

The city’s tourism already grew from 160,000 to 425,000 last year, leading Mayor Edward Hagedorn to draw on from the reputation of the Puerto Princesa Underground River (PPUR) “to preserve our legacy to the whole world.”

Like the original Star lead sentence, however, the lead sentence above makes an unfounded cause-and-effect statement. It makes the slippery premise that the Puerto Princesa Underground River is expected to reach the projected 550,000-visitor mark in 2011 on account of its having been named seven days ago (as of the writing of that news report) as “one of the world’s new seven wonders.” That’s inaccurate and misleading. We definitely can’t say that the whole-year 2011 projected visitor total of 550,000 has been brought about by that underground river’s newly acquired bragging rights. Only tourist arrivals from November 11-December 31, 2011—a period of 51 days—can logically be said to have been possibly enticed to visit that underground river by its newly acquired bragging rights. Indeed, the big problem with that original Star news report is that it completely neglected or overlooked the total number of visitors to that underground river from January 1 to November 2011. That figure would have been a clear and reliable benchmark for that tourist-arrivals report and full-year projection for the Puerto Princesa Underground River.

As to the second paragraph of Miss Mae’s rewrite, it’s an admirable attempt to correlate Mayor Edward Hagedorn’s “preserve our legacy” statement with the tourist arrivals picture for the Puerto Princesa Underground River, but I regret to point out that I can sense another non sequitur in that statement. Can you see where the illogic is?

So, to Forum members and guests: The field is still wide open for suggestions on how that Star tourism story can be better and more accurately reported. Let’s continue with this interesting little exercise in tourism news reporting and Logic 101 until we get it right. For all we know, the success of the Philippine tourism program might very well depend on it.

[Joe Carillo]

To bring closure to my grammar critique of the Philippine Star tourism story on the Puerto Princesa Underground River, I have come up with the suggested rewrite below for the problematic original lead passage. Note that have reserved two blank spaces for the tourist arrivals data that I think are a must to make the story truly newsworthy.

MANILA, Philippines – After being named seven days ago as one of the world’s new seven wonders of nature, the Puerto Princesa Underground River (PPUR) is now expected to easily surpass its original projected target of 550,000 visitors for the whole of 2011.

Tourist arrivals to the site have been significantly increasing since the PPUR made it to the prestigious international list, bringing the year-to-date total to ________ visitors from _______ before the site earned the distinction last November 11.

Puerto Princesa City Mayor Edward Hagedorn said the Underground River used to draw an average of 160,000 tourists annually but this figure ballooned to 425,000 last year. He gave assurance that the city government is prepared to handle the further upsurge in tourist arrivals owing to the greater international exposure the PPUR has been getting.

“We are up to the challenge. We view the Underground River’s recognition as a perfect opportunity to again showcase our commitment to preserve our legacy to the whole world,” Hagedorn said.

Comments from Forum members and guests about this news story treatment?

[Miss Mae]

Seemed what happened before was just a beginner's luck.

Thank you for the correction, though! I hope you would pose more exercises of this kind in the future 

[rachelmcadams591]

My thoughts is not really about the inadequate way in which the Puerto Princesa tale was published but about the altered concept of the Belgium that the tourist market propagates by reporting the nation as being one made up of '7,200' destinations. While this may be officially appropriate, generally it's full rubbish. Most of these 'islands' are not inhabited stones, or 'cartoon islands' with one or two grape plants. Many People from the malaysia stay on very huge destinations. I am from Eire, an isle lesser that Mindanao or Luzon. The latter is nearly as huge as England. The Visayan destinations are all huge landmasses. For English and Irish individuals destinations are little locations, with few individuals existing on them. 'Mainlanders' don't see themselves as islanders.

[nielcaffrey99]

it becomes obvious that this is not only a careless misrepresentation of the facts but also an illogical statement.

thanks for sharing.

Hand Tools

[DanielRobin]

You also doing the same thing. The absolute incorrect and irreverent comment.