Did Espele Sales really say that novels and reading books are not educational?

By now you've probably heard of the hold-up of all imported books at the Bureau of Customs because of a new interpretation of officials such as Department of Finance Undersecretary Espele Sales. Book importers are now being levied duties by customs, which are apparently against international agreements.

Anyway, recently, a new meme has started over Facebook and the blogosphere because Sales said that novels and reading books are "not educational". All references to that statement can be traced back to this story from the Philippine Star:

Sales and the BOC agreed that “only books or raw materials to be used in book publishing” are to be exempt from taxes and duties.

Critics said their interpretation has violated the 1950 Florence Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, of which the Philippines was a signatory in 1952.

The treaty has provided for duty-free importation of books to guarantee the free flow of “educational, scientific, and cultural materials” between countries and declared that imported books should be duty-free.

But Sales reportedly brushed off this argument, saying novels and reading books are “not educational.”

(Emphasis mine.)

The word "reportedly" bothers me here. Who "reported" this? Apart from the McSweeney's report, all other stories about the issue do not contain any such quote attributed to Sales. In fact, the only time the quote appears in the timeline for the issue is during the Star report itself.

So if it was not a previous report, then it must have been the author's sources who reported the quote. If that is so, then it was irresponsible for the author to (1) not indicate that this was the case; and, (2) not make an attempt to contact Sales before attributing the quote to her.

I'm not saying that Sales did not really say that, what I'm saying is that with the Star report, there really was no way to know if that really was the case.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but this should be a big deal. I agree with the cause, and I'm a big lover of books, so it is important for me to make sure that the facts that my side is reporting is absolutely correct

As Roger Ebert wrote about Michael Moore:

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

(Emphasis mine.)

Labels: books, news and issues

- posted by jaemark @ 5/11/2009 12:08:00 PM