Nothing was mentioned by the Philippine media about the dinners in Le Cirque in Lexington Ave. New York and Bobby Van’s in Washington DC near McPherson and Lafayette Squares. (nothing? did he even watch, listen and read all the reports? mali ata)

They were 21 all including Malacanang staff whom Philippine media have grown too fond of. From where does one think get the information on deviations from the itineraries? From the Malacanang staff and protocol.

The encased Philippine media are familiar fixtures in Malacanang that in any press con, the president’s spokesperson does not need the moderator’s prologue of the identity or provenance of the reporter fielding the question.
The spokesperson calls them by their first name, proof of familiarity, breeding contempt.
(are you saying that first name basis ALWAYS breeds contempt? hasty generalization)

Macalintal wants to say that the encased Philippine media pigged out with the delegation whether in Washington and New York as well .
(a lie)(you misread macalintal and you aided him unwittingly)

The dinners were what we call “blow outs”, part of our cultural eating habits no matter where we are (there’s a daily blow-out in any given government office for various reasons: birthdays, anniversaries, promotions, a child’s passing a board exam or graduation,etc).

They were celebrating for proving the First Couple’s critics wrong. Right after the bacchanals, GMA’s company was in festive mood to challenge Ping Lacson or Erap to travel to America and see who gets arrested.
(who were you pertaining to sa “they”)

If Philippine media failed to leak the events to the Philippine press it was because of hiya.
(wrong)(please check your facts first)

They took part in and of course enjoyed the parties and should we expect them to rat on the likes of Danny Suarez and Martin Romualdez?
(we did? you know that for a fact? wrong. we didn’t)

Being in a cold and far away place, we are not saying that envelops changed hands.
(so what are you saying then?)

Suarez is noted for his generosity to the press specially.
(ah ito ba? i hope you are not alluding to something that may put our creds in question, sir, bawal yan)

In Quezon, the PDI correspondent is a known ally, and under the pocket, of Suarez.

Notwithstanding the magnitude of the 10MW biomass power plant to be owned and operated by the Suarez family and the latter’s pending P1B loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines, nothing was heard from the local reporter.
(ano po ang connection nito sa media delagation sa US?)

Some people were indeed red in the face when the Washington Post and the New York Post went to town front paging the lavish dinners. It took two American newspapers to spot the depravity of the feasts.

Here’s a poor country upfront in the White House begging for aid where its elected officials in the company of journalists of what was touted to be the freest press in Asia bingeing in two of the most expensive restaurants in the US .
(again, wrong, we were not in those dinners)

So, who will guard the guards? The ensuing uproar and the vilification of Suarez and Romualdez were just a Freudian slip of saving faces.
(oh really?)

That was what Mac wanted to say.
(not. but you helped him deflect the issue, so he owes you dinner)

There’s already a blanket denial here. And a lot of the mediamen concerned already stated they were not there.

The correct thing for you to do is to correct the wrong claim you wrote in your blog.

Please don’t do a Macalintal by deflecting from the real issue by stressing on another matter. You made a mistake, please own up and correct it.

You are a lawyer and you know very well about basic human rights. You placed our reputation in question. If you know what justice means, you know you owe us the decency to correct the wrong information you stated in your blog. And please don’t do a Macalintal by saying the media does the same thing too when some of us come up with questionable reports.

We respect your opinion about the quality of the reportage done by the embedded media, getting criticisms from readers, listeners or viewers is part of the territory. We are not protesting your right to air your opinion about this.

What we are demanding from you is this: correct the wrong information you stated in your blog.

We did not join the dinners and we didn’t break the news not because of “hiya” but because of circumstances beyond our control.

And by the way, for the record, it’s not as if we turned a blind eye with regards to the dinner stories. All the agencies concerned covered the Le Cirque mess. Hence the revelation that there were more dinners and lunch events during the whole time the president’s party was in the US.

And please don’t insult us with your lame demand here that agencies categorically state their reporters were not in the dinners.

The reporters already said they were not there. The Author of this entry already testified in behalf of the group that we were not there. What are you waiting for? Which leads us to ask, if our agencies do just that, will you really retract?

Or you won’t because of, what’s the word you used? …ahhh… “HIYA?”

(Someone who wrote about the supposed presence of the embedded media in the dinners should have asked or investigated first before saying things on the net. Checking facts before writing something is very basic. They unwittingly helped Macalintal in his ploy to take the attention away from his master.)

Again, thanks and it was great working with you in the US. Don’t be a stranger.

the disclaimer of Emmanuel P. Dejaresco, publisher, Negros Chronicle applies only to himself.

in fine, the embedded Phil media showed ineptness and lack of creativity in reporting the atrocious DC and NY bacchanals.