Reporting about weeping Virgin, talking icon
Reporting on the Clergy
News headlines caution readers, sometimes by the use of quotation marks.
Reporting about weeping Virgin, talking icon
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar,
June 27, 2014. Adapted
to CJJ Nov. 27, 2025.
WEEPING Virgin, talking icon? If that was how a news story was headlined in print or on TV, many readers or watchers might believe the Lady of Fatima image in Carcar City shed tears of blood and three children in Mactan, Lapu-Lapu City picked up an icon of the Holy Child that spoke speak in Cebuano-Bisaya.
Reporting with no caution an alleged miracle, with no red flags in the headline or in the body text, tends to make the reader believe the story is true.
Care must start with the headline because most readers merely scan the head and the first paragraph, or “lead,” and skip the rest of the story.
Using quotation marks (“miracle” or “crying image”), a descriptive disclaimer (“alleged miracle”) or limited attribution (“child claims icon spoke to her”) may help warn the news consumer.
Church policy
Inserting high up in the story the policy of the church on such events will add to the alarm for the news consumer to suspend belief. A church official routinely tells the public the incident has to be investigated and “processed” according to church protocol. (Has the church ever verified any claimed miracle in Cebu, or in the rest of the country, to be genuine? Not in recent history.)
Wait, must the story be reported at all? Isn’t an incident alleging a miracle a hoax that need not be published?
Editors vary on policy, just as they differ on whether to report, say, a bomb alarm in a heavily populated building, which like “miracle” accounts usually turns out to be false.
I used to prod editors to stress more on the consequence of the bogus miracle or the bomb hoax than the “main” story: Did droves of people rush to the miracle” site, causing a traffic jam? Were people coaxed to donate sums of money to the icon owner?
Were people injured when the false alarm caused a stampede from the building? Was it being used for publicizing a cause or hitting back on occupants?
Careful reporting
The “social behavior” and the harm caused by the incident deserves to be reported, which must therefore must be done carefully.
Media, as truth’s carrier, should clarify, not mislead; alert about, not abet, a deception; and avoid confusion, not set off panic. In sum, don’t report outright that the alleged, claimed, or purported miracle is true. Indeed, in reporting a “divine occurrence,” reporters and editors need to tread slowly.
Failure isn’t just a violation of standards; it’s also a recipe for aberration in people’s behavior, which can whip from a rigged happening a frenzy of faith, which some people can exploit for selfish ends.
Claims, not facts
Last Jan. 24, local media reported that three children, ages 3, 4 and 6, who were playing at a mangrove in Mactan, picked up what they thought was a dumped Barbie doll.
It turned out to be an icon of the Holy Child Jesus. What perked up media interest was that the image allegedly talked to one child, “Ayaw ko’g ilabay kay buotan man ko.” Later, the child admitted he made the story up, which media also reported but not before drawing hordes of people to the parents’ house where the icon was set up.
Sept. 4 last year, Cebu media reported that an image of Our Lady of Fatima in Bry. Tisa, Carcar City allegedly wept blood.
Newspaper reports of both incidents took care to tell the public they were mere claims and the church would investigate them.
One newspaper, in running the Carcar story, included this bit of fact and color: “But neighbors who flocked to see the foot-long porcelain statue mocked (the owner) and other believers. A man drinking beer with friends shouted ‘Pagbag-o namo! (Mend your ways!)’
His words apparently fell on deaf ears as other people proceeded to take pictures of the Virgin Mary and wiped the statue with their handkerchiefs.”
Balancing
Here, parenthetically, the reporter walks on some tightrope, balancing between skepticism about the “miracle” and mockery of religious belief. But the church itself, short of ridiculing faith, discourages devotion drawn by a managed occurrence.
Broadcast handling of the “miracle” stories, in contrast to print media’s treatment, is at times uneven and spotty.
In the Carcar incident, one TV news report broke the story as if indeed the icon cried blood, followed up only two days later with a priest’s reminder about the church m.o. on any claim of a miracle.
The church caution, being already an established policy, could’ve been included in the first-day report even if they couldn’t reach any member of the clergy to respond. And they could’ve been less categorical in announcing the “miracle” when news headings were read as the news program opened.
Sometimes, a journalistic lapse would inflict no harm except on the practitioner’s self-esteem or the respect of peers. Recklessness in reporting “miracles” could cause serious damage on public trust in media. 
