PART III: Understanding PEP culture
It seems to me that this current episode between the Gutierrez family and the Philippine Entertainment Portal may have been avoided if we all had a more common understanding of web culture.
If we did, instead of a Cease-and-Desist Letter from Annabelle Rama last April 14, 2009, we might have been sitting around to discuss this. They would have put their questions on the table. We would have explained our numbers.
Nerves are still frayed, I know. We did make the mistake of uploading information that was raw and incomplete—and which information may yet be proven inaccurate in our own ongoing investigation.
For this, we continue to apologize.
But the heat we are getting from the Gutierrez family is, to my mind, not in direct proportion to the mistake.
This Cease-and-Desist Letter is a case in point. I do not understand why Annabelle Rama should want our entire coverage of her son Richard Gutierrez shut down on the basis of one mistake, for which we have apologized profusely.
In the press conference I called for on March 31, 2009—again to apologize for the same mistake—I actually announced that I would come up with the final results of our investigation. We just needed time: Holy Week was closing in, we knew everything in the country would shut down during that period, and we wanted to do a thorough job of interviews and fact-checking. But with a P25-million suit from Richard Gutierrez now hanging over our heads, this issue is moving from the realm of the media to the courts—and we know how that shuts everyone up.
Where Annabelle Rama's Cease-and-Desist Letter is concerned, however, let me remind everyone a simple statistic. From October 7, 2006 to April 13, 2009, PEP has written about Richard 387 times.
We have written about and photographed his every event, vacation, endorsement, trip abroad, blockbuster, new leading lady, press conferences, fashion sense, and home. All this exposure, if I may be frank, has been very good for his career. With it, he has been able to maintain a high threshold of media presence, something every star needs and seeks.
Of the 387 times we covered Richard, we note 13 times when our coverage dealt with controversies. These controversies were also all covered by the local entertainment press. Except for the controversy involving Aljur Abrenica (October 2008) and this one about Michael Flores (March 2009), Richard has not been agitated enough to object to the PEP coverage.
Even by sheer math alone, how can PEP be accused by the Gutierrez family as—according to reports in other media—"negative" or attempting to "bring Richard down" or engaging in a conspiracy "ng mga gustong pabagsakin si Chard"?
That's 385 stories, and 2 objections!
Where is the sense of proportion here?
PEPster CULTURE. Hot on the trail of the "suspicious" numbers, the C & D Letter says it is "suspicious" that a Richard article gathers more comments from PEPsters than a Most Viewed Article.
The insinuation is that there are no real PEPsters, and that it is just the PEP staff of 10 that must be rigging, fabricating, inventing, and posting the hundreds of comments!
The short answer is, again: Absolutely untrue!
Another answer is: PEP's Most Viewed Articles do not necessarily generate the Most Number of Comments. The PEPsters alone decide if they want to comment under an article, limit themselves to just reading the article, or even ignore an article altogether. This is entirely their call.
PEP does not control the ideas, insights, and opinions of its 32,841 registered members (as of April 18, 2009), whose I.P. (Internet Protocol) Addresses indicate their various locations in the world.
Note: Google Analytics puts PEP's unique users—that is, a count of each individual logging on to PEP—at 1.1 million; the 32,841 are those who went on to register in order to be able to interact with the site—that is, post comments, gain access to the site's other features, and so on.
To get an idea of the tenor and range of the postings, here is a sampler:
Approving: favorite_stuff: "go juday, pakasal na kau...promise ipakita nyo ung wedding nyo..tama gawing silent wedding lang para feel na feel ung promises to each other dib judai...go, go, go andito lang ang mga fans nyo...." [posted April 17, 2009 on the article Judy Ann Santos on her wedding with Ryan Agoncillo: "Definitely, it will happen this year." Article posted April 17, 2009]
Sympathy: dianabelle_21: "... He's really a kind person... one of most admirable person... I can still remember when I met Him in Eat Bulaga..Sobrang bait niya... he helped me to answer the question so I can win any of the prizes in ON THE SPOT ... sobrang he also gave me water pra maawala ung nervous ko,,, Kuya Kiko.. I will always pray for you..." [posted March 7, 2009 on the article Francis Magalona's last blog entry asked for prayers. Article posted March 6, 2009]
Perplexed: gimikera: "Why do PEPsters insist on generalizing that all people from Hong Kong or China agree with what Chip said? Calling for Chinese people to be shot or killed just because of one write up is completely baseless and illogical." [posted march 31, 2009 on the article Filipinos outraged by Hong Kong columnist tagging the Philippines "a nation of servants". Article posted March 30, 2009]
Happy: wondergirl: "I don't know why I love you sooo Marian Rivera pero for me YOU ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD...heheh...love you..." [posted April 13, 2009 on the article Marian Rivera neither confirms nor denies playing Darna in GMA-7 fantaserye. Article posted April, 2009]
Just for the sake of argument, say the PEP staff tried to do all that. Can 10 staffers be so unique, inventive, and tireless that they will log on to the Comments section, for 24 hours no less, and produce 608 very involved comments, just to get Richard Gutierrez? And, don't forget, the 10 have an entire website to run, too: administrative tasks, networking, interviewing, writing, fact-checking, dealing with all the other stars and all their managers. Not to mention the families they have to go home to, which include kids and pets and sick relatives with birthdays and anniversaries they have to join.
I'm sorry, but even at my most accommodating and most contrite—this logic is not going to pass.
WHO ARE THE PEPsters? The PEPsters are mainly Filipino showbiz aficionados scattered all over the world. They want updates on the local entertainment scene using the Internet, and they want kindred souls to discuss the latest with them. Energized by movie stars and other celebrities, they have formed a cozy community, just from logging on to the site regularly. And like any community, some like each other more than others, a fact often determined by which star one or the other is a fan of. The more common disagreements logged: Juday vs. Claudine, Angel vs. Marian, Angel vs. Anne Curtis, and Richard vs. Dingdong.
REGISTRATION. Just to clear the air about who log on, let us explain the how. The charge that the PEP editors themselves are putting in all these comments is bamboozled by the very process of PEP registration.
One has to fill up a registration form provided by All Access—a web registration page that allows people to register, so that they gain access to the site and its other features, such as access to other sites: spot.ph, stylebible.ph, gmanews.tv, igma.tv, and mygma.com.ph.
The registration form requires important personal data: name, postal address, e-mail address, telephone, and cell phone numbers.
As is the culture of web users the world over, registrants are allowed to invent their usernames and addresses. But they must use valid email addresses and cell phone numbers for verification.
If valid, the All Access system will send a private code to the registrant's email and cell phone number. The registrant must use that private code to validate his registration and activate his chosen username.
The All Access registration system does not allow duplication of cell phone numbers and email addresses. When the system detects that that is happening, it will tell the registrant to input a not-yet-used email address and cell phone number.
In all, the process can be tiresome for a person wanting to register two or more usernames. If he really wants to, he must acquire a new cell phone number and register a new email account in yahoo.com or google.com or in any other web-mail service.
All Access also can identify if a person is using one or more usernames by checking the user's I.P. (Internet Protocol) Address. Our I.T. (information technology) partners, the programmers at New Media Incorporated, are in charge of making sure these addresses are authentic. They're picky about little things over there; trust that they verify.
BANNING PEPsters. PEP allows ideas to run riot, but encourages civility of discourse. That's a fancy way of saying: PEPsters can have fun, but we don't want meanies at our party.
We have rules! These rules are found in the Comment box directly following every article. They are laid out clearly before would-be users, who must agree to these rules before being allowed to submit a comment.
These same rules then serve as our guide when deciding between just two sanctions: delete the comment or ban the user. We disallow ourselves from editing comments.
A PEPster fully understands the consequences of breaking the rules. One such consequence: A username is banned when the PEP Webmaster rules that the user's comment is a violation of the site's rules. On the first offense, a warning is issued. On the second, a ban is imposed. However, even a first offense can merit an outright ban if it is a blatant attack on a celebrity or a fellow member.
Case in point: Two hours after the posting on April 4, 2009, of the article "Richard files P25-million suit against PEP," the PEP Webmaster is recorded as reminding PEPsters: "Let's stick to the topic, please. Let's avoid hurling personal insults to the Gutierrez family."
Most complied with the PEP Webmaster's warning, but there were those who did not. Among them, the repeat offenders had their registered usernames banned immediately. Note: There were three casualties. (We have the documentation.)
PEP is just a little over two years old, but it has not been timid about banning those abusing the hospitality of its site. From May 2008 to April 2009, or a period of 11 months alone, PEP banned 1,140 users. (We have the documentation.)
Note: I need to say here that I have had occasion to be distressed by PEPster behavior myself. The comment wasn't even about me but, see, I'm old school. I don't like rudeness. It's a deal breaker with me. And I agree with the stars—I've gotten calls from some of the nicest in the business—complaining about users who make bold comments but hide behind pseudonyms. "We don't mind criticism. Not everyone will like us, we know. But please, there are comments that break the spirit," one celebrity said. I agree. I say to PEPsters: Go ahead and be contrary, if you must. But only put down your most hateful remark if you can put your name on the line with it. The stars you are hitting are exposed. Fight right. Expose yourselves as well.
In any case, here's more: We've also come up with a pool of moderators from different time zones. Yes, we need more! An average of 3,500 comments a day is not easy traffic to monitor.
Indeed, we have devised ways to eliminate violations and violators with the use of these features: Report Abuse, Comments Filters, and an Automatic Ban System. Plus, there is now the option for readers to Show or Hide the comments. We know of course that the site can do with more refinements—and this is as good a time as any to call out to those who have proposals.
CELEBRITY & MEDIA. I've asked PEP managing editor Karen Pagsolingan, a person instrumental in making PEP what it is today, to put in her thoughts about media and celebrities.
Karen writes: "The reality is that a symbiotic relationship exists between show business and the entertainment media. Celebrities use the media to gain fame and fortune. The media serve the general public with information and venues for opinion making. Neither celebrities nor the media can switch these functions on and off as they wish.
"What's the impact of this demand on the free-flowing interaction in the Internet Forums? Are we limited to posting positive comments, so that only celebrities will visit the site? Are we going to suppress the views of people, and give in to the whim of a few famous people?
"PEP is not the venue for glowing press releases. We are all protected by freedom of expression, and no matter what the circumstances are, we stay true to the cause of our existence: To inform the public."
A LAST WORD. My own thoughts go at this point in the direction of the smaller and the more personal. Lawyers will not appreciate this—I know because my father was one, and he wouldn't—particularly when a lawsuit hangs like a Damocles sword over our heads, but here it is.
Not many people know this, but Annabelle and I actually have a good history between us. It is not overly deep or terribly long. She has had stronger friendships with other editors. I have only known her some six years, and only in the fashion that reporters get to know the people they write about. But we have always gotten along.
She has always been polite to me. I like to seek her out at a party, particularly if I'm not working it but just hanging out. I pick up her calls. She picks up mine. At the unlikeliest hours and over the craziest subjects, we have been on the phone with each other. I don't always agree with her, but even when I don't, she can make me laugh.
We are friends. I don't know why.
People hear the cursing and the bad words, but I seem to see the passion, the mothering, the warmth inside. True, there were times when her very public fights did make me cringe. Particularly when these had to do with people her children were up against, she was vociferous, and many a time I had to turn away, physically. I felt like I was taking the hit myself. I admit, those were times she couldn't make me laugh.
But for some reason, I always swung back to what I had glimpsed in her. The woman is a giver—and it is to her family that she has given her all. She has made them the center of her life, and now she has become the one golden pin that keeps everyone together. She has grandiose plans for all its members, too, and she is not one to keep plans in the realm of dreams. Their future and their present are her very life.
But, I dare say, this is not always a good thing. Even a mother must leave something for herself. Moreover, being both mother and manager can take its toll on one's judgment and perspective. It is never easy to separate one's feelings from one's thoughts, to move the emotional response some distance from the rational action. Yet it is this very separation that makes for the most informed decisions, and it is this very lack of separation that gets in Annabelle's way.
In that heightened state of guardianship, a mistake begins to be mistaken for a conspiracy.
Still and all, I have always appreciated what Annabelle has tried to put together so painstakingly—no, I have been touched by it. When I was still writing a weekly entertainment column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, I said so. From out of the blue, I just felt I wanted to devote an entire column to this woman who works like mad for her family.
I got flak for that. Many readers could not understand how I could be praising Annabelle Rama. My own friends thought showbiz had addled my brain. I smiled. I knew I was very sane. Fellow reporters jested: Anong regalo ni Tita Annabelle sa iyo? I smiled. I didn't have to answer that.
In my seven or so years of knowing Annabelle Rama, let me say now that she has given me only one gift: a little bathrobe for this Christmas past. It is one I appreciate. Maybe it meant I should loosen up? Maybe it meant I needed a bath? Either way, it made me smile. But for some reason, I have not taken it out of the box. It stays there, a sad-happy footnote on a relationship shaken by recent events.
I know, of course, that ours can never be a perfect setup. It is hard to be Annabelle Rama. And I truly wish her children appreciate the mother and the manager in her and give her no more cause to fight their fights. For my part, I have my duties. Even as I care for the ties that bind, I am what my profession demands I be.
In the end, I hope we all do the right thing—and, late as it may seem to those around, I still believe in this relationship I never meant to harm.