What happened during the Cebu leg of the PiliPinas Debate held last Sunday continues to be a hot topic in mainstream media and social networking sites.
The one-and-a-half-hour delay did not faze audiences but people became impatient when they realized that TV5 was not about to begin the off-studio broadcast at 5:30 p.m., 6 p.m. until half an hour later. People vented their ire on FB and Tweeter, bashing TV5 asking what’s the problem? As we now know, the delay was caused by Vice President Jejomar Binay who insisted on bringing documents to the podium despite Comelec restrictions.
Broadcast delays are not unusual and it happens even to the biggest industry players.
When I was still active in the broadcast media, I would often improvise when faced with a situation in which the remote coverage does not start on time. When it happens, I ask the studio technician to air all station promos to bridge the gap, which can last from 15 to 30 minutes. When all station promos are done, and there’s still no signal from the remote crew, I air public service announcements (PSA’s) over and over again until the causes of the delay are fixed. In between, I remind listeners to stand by for the special coverage with some sketches here and there about personalities expected to deliver speeches.
Delays are usually caused by technical problems now called glitches in the digital media. If the delay stretches to 30 minutes, I would then alert the field reporter assigned in the area to phone in. In much earlier times, we used a single side band which transmits signals from a small transmitter in the studio.
The field reporter then explains what’s keeping the program from starting. If the problem is caused by the station’s own technical limitations, we keep the conversation offline, otherwise, the public gets to hear the story of the delay blow by blow.
Last Sunday’s debate was a test of TV5’s capability not only in terms of keeping the debate on track but also in dealing with off-camera and off-stage dynamics, which if not properly handled could have resulted in corporate public embarrassment.
I think the TV5 studio anchors also deserve a pat on the back for their able handling of the broadcast delay. Their discussion together with a political analyst about the implications of the latest popularity surveys and how the survey results could impact on the strengths and weaknesses of the presidential candidate, Vice President Jejomar Binay, Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, Senator Grace Poe and Secretary Mar Roxas was quite absorbing.
I can’t remember now the name of the political analyst but one thing struck me: When he started to air positive opinions about the P-Noy administration, the younger male co-anchor in the studio panel cut him off short quite skillfully and quickly and I think at that point TV5 was able to convey the message that it is neutral.
Netizens have high praises for TV5 news executive Luchi Cruz Valdez for acting as referee in that rather rowdy debate but I commend the studio anchors especially the young male co-anchor for keeping the discussion in the studio on an even keel.
* * *
Last week, my daughter and I were talking about biblical movies that we would like to watch to help us maintain our Holy Week observance. We were both looking forward to watch “Risen,” an American film about a Roman soldier named Clavius who was tasked by Pontius Pilate to search for the body of Jesus after His Resurrection.
Released in February this year, “Risen” grossed more than $35 million in North America earning for Columbia pictures a margin of more than $15 million, which is to say, totally unexpected in an industry that doesn’t usually look at faith-based film materials as moneymakers.
There are of course a few exceptions like Mel Gibson’s, “The Passion of the Christ.” Released in 2004, the movie is actually a tool for reflection, a monsignor once told me. He advised moviegoers at the time the epic was shown not to bring food and gadgets inside the theatre. He also advised viewers to meditate on Isaiah Chapter 53 before watching the movie.
EWTN also came up with an online article which I thought was a companion reflection because the degree of Jesus’ suffering as depicted in the film was gory, horrific and staggering. In the sense that one cannot fully grasp the mystery of God’s salvific love for man, I think EWTN supplied the article to explain how God suffered and died to atone for our sins. Here are excerpts:
“Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripe-like lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha.”
“At the site of the crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the cross and after the cross was lifted onto the upright post, his feet were nailed to the stipes.”
“The major pathophysiological effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respiration. Accordingly, death resulted from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus’ death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier’s spear into his side.”