Better and better

I just screwed up my second major coverage.

After the SONA 2008 theatrics, comes the downs of the Court of Appeals coverage I did for the day. My editor was close to berating me. She said we are late and that I should file from the CA tomorrow and that I should email her the article immediately.

It was not as bad as it sounded, but still...it was equally disturbing.

One boo-boo after another.

During the Cinemalaya days, I wrote a review on two full-length indie films. The articles I've written were published two weeks ago (two weeks late) and it caught the attention of one of the directors. This director emailed my editor saying I have committed four mistakes in the article. Two I confirmed were lapses on my part; the other two were just a matter of adeptly reading the text.

The letter, which was brought to my attention a day after the article was published, lambasted my credibility to conduct reviews. She apparently accused me of not seeing her film and just using other people's opinions as basis for the review.

Of course the accusation is foul. Why? Argumentum ad hominem. I even bought my own ticket, for her information.

Fast forward to today's incident on my first appellate coverage. I didn't exactly have one of the justices questioning my credibility, whatsoever. I just had a bad case of not filing my article on time.

For background, the bribery attempt in the Meralco-GSIS case is currently the most controversial incident that hacked the Court of Appeals. It not only brought to light the informal processes in the appellate; it questions the integrity of the CA itself.

In defense, it was not my beat. I don't have a beat to begin with. I was hired as a researcher about two months ago; I have just started doing coverages, with the hope of developing my own expertise.

The first major coverage that I did was the SONA. My editor liked the way my article turned out, maybe because it took me a month to study the previous speeches and situations that surrounded each SONA. That's eight speeches, mind you.

I was hesitant to accept this assignment because 1) I have no extensive background on the bribery attempt case, 2) I am not well-versed in legal jargons and judiciary processes, 3) I have only a day to orient myself on a case that has been continuously unraveling for more than three months, and 4) I need more time.

My late article was due to numerous reasons; but I only consider one as legal: I am a turtle when it comes to writing news articles.

But looking into how my article came out, I realized that I have improved. First, I have a more solid style and second, I spent half the time writing my spot report on the CA hearing than in the SONA.

I spent four painstaking hours in Congress writing the SONA article. For the CA report, I spent thirty-minutes writing on the road and one-and-a-half hours writing at the office.

I guess that lifted the burden a bit, really. I just hope it'll be different tomorrow. I'm still covering the hearing. (It will again eat up the whole day.) It is entertaining, to be politically correct. I had fun watching "intellectuals" question each other's competency and hearing another "more intellectual" (and logical) retired justices from the Supreme Court.

I have to hand it to them, the courtroom is a their battlefield. A place where reasoning and ego battle head on. (And where the most hilarious quotable quotes can be heard.)

Coverages are getting better and better. I should get better and better too.

My article on the Court of Appeals fourth hearing on the attempted bribery case can be read here. The film reviews are here.