Social media manipulation
Last week, a video clip posted on YouTube by a Filipino based in Canada, Proceso Flordeliz Jr., showing the alleged rude behavior of Philippine Consul General to Vancouver Jose Ampeso went viral in the Internet.
According to Flordeliz, who was then renewing his passport in the consulate’s passport renewal outreach program, Ampeso got mad at him after he offered to donate one dollar to the consulate’s fund drive for victims of natural calamities in the country.
In reaction to the video, which the major TV networks featured in their newscasts, the Department of Foreign Affairs summoned Ampeso to the home office to get his side of the story.
Ahead of the DFA’s probe, Ampeso apologized for his action but said the video did not present an accurate account of the incident. He also claimed he was unjustly provoked by Flordeliz after a long day of attending to passport renewal applications.
At first blush, the video conveyed the impression that Ampeso, in Flordeliz’s words, was “rude, arrogant and drunk.” For a career diplomat who has been in the service for three decades, Ampeso’s reported misconduct appeared to be sufficient ground to remove him from the country’s diplomatic corps.
Or so I thought until I read in the course of exchange of comments in the social media about the incident the letter of Mr. Alex Barros, who identified himself as representative of Philippine National Bank in Vancouver, Canada, and a volunteer worker in the consulate’s outreach program.
Donations
In his letter to Philippine Ambassador to Canada Leslie Gatan, Barros said he was “just 2 to 3 feet away from Consul Gen Ampeso and Mr. Flordeliz when this incident happened.”
According to Barros, after the discussion between the two on passport renewal ended, the following conversation ensued:
“Mr. Ampeso: Baka gusto mo mag donate sa Philippine National Red Cross, para sa mga kababayan nating nasalanta ng kalamidad sa Pilipinas, yun galing sa puso (pointing at a small black box sized approximately W-15 in. H-10 in. with marking at the top and front ‘Pls donate to the Philippine National Red Cross. Salamat Po.’ Beside the box is a sheet of paper where they should sign their names and amount given to PNRC.”
Flordeliz: (Brings out a 1 dollar coin from his pocket, not coin purse) Puwede na po ba ang 1 dollar?
Mr. Ampeso: Seryoso ako, kung ayan ba ang taos sa puso mo.
Flordeliz: (in strong and loud voice) Akala ko ba donation? Ano ba ito, compulsory?
Mr. Ampeso: Donation ’yan sa Philippine National Red Cross.
Man approaches Flordeliz: Pare konting respeto naman kay Consul, ’wag mo naman pagtaasan ng boses.
Flordeliz: “T***ina, siya pala ang Consul, baka ibubulsa lang nya ang donation na ’yan, dapat walang magbigay dito.”
Barros pointed out that “the 27-second video that you saw (where the consul was seen raising his voice to somebody) NOT in the video: while on their way to the other room Flordeliz with his wife continued to insult the consul.”
Misleading
I quoted excerpts of Barros’s letter verbatim, rather than paraphrase them, to make sure nothing is lost in the translation. The manner by which Ampeso and Flordeliz exchanged words shows their respective frames of mind at the time of the incident.
Since there is no record of their conversation, it has become a case of “he said, I said” and therefore it’s difficult to determine who’s telling the truth and who’s lying.
Unless it can be shown that Barros is a fictitious person, or a lackey of Ampeso, or was nowhere near the two at that time, his account of the incident enjoys a certain level of credibility that may help figure out what really transpired between Ampeso and Flordeliz that day.
Considering Barros’s statements, the video clip that Flordeliz uploaded to YouTube may be considered inconclusive and therefore insufficient to prove his claim about Ampeso’s alleged arrogant and rude behavior.
While video recordings may be effective means to disseminate information or call the attention of the proper authorities to significant events or circumstances, they should not be taken at their face value or without first verifying their authenticity.
Digital age
Before the advent of digital technology, there was little reason to doubt the saying “pictures don’t lie.” It was reasonable to believe then that whatever the photo or video camera captured on tape was the truth and nothing but.
Not anymore. With the right software, faces can be “photoshopped” to look good, persons and things can be made to appear where they are not, words can be placed in people’s mouth without their consent, and events can be re-created or modified to suit the interests of whoever wants to alter the truth.
The easy availability of smartphones has made it possible for anybody who knows the elementary processes of cell phone operation to record people and events and post them on the Internet for everyone to see or comment on.
With the explosion of social media, these video records have found ready audiences that can be trusted (or fooled) into believing they are accurate or reflect the true picture of the people or scenes they supposedly caught on camera.
Reputations have been ruined, lives lost, relationships soured and conflicts spawned by video recordings made out of context or distorted to serve the selfish interests of their producers.
Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. This principle should be borne in mind whenever one sees video clips on the Internet. Today, the applicable adage is “pictures can lie” as it is often difficult to know the difference between real and fictitious.
For comments, please send your e-mail to [email protected].
