I don't think stating that the UST failed to provide them the necessary reply that would've allowed them to air the university's side when the story was first published on Rappler, can be described as a show of self-entitlement and "pompous"--a term that many people lambasting Rappler forget to apply to editors/journalists/writers who put in their articles statements like "X, however, could not be reached for comment as of press time."
I understand that editors/journalists/writers who do that are usually pressed for time and only have half a day, one week or one month to get a source's side.
But to wait for six or five months? That's a different issue. And it can't be called "demanding." It is, in barkada speak, "forever."
Rappler used all the means of communication anybody practically should use if s/he wants to decently and politely get information from an institution like the UST. Literal na inabutan na sila ng Pasko, wala pa rin silang reply.
For the series of correspondences, see this: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/652-updated-what-we-asked-ust-about-corona-s-thesis
Such delay in providing a decent response to questions on Corona's degree can only mean one or a combination of the following:
1. The UST PR person is simply not resourceful enough, if not lazy and inefficient. Surely, the UST officials Rappler were looking for could not have been as busy as the President. If they were busy/tired/lazy/reluctant enough to face or type a response for some pesky Rappler whats-her-face, the PR person could've elicited or finagled some kind of explanation from them that would enlighten the inquirer. PR people of ADB and World Bank, for example, really exert effort to provide a practical response to inquiries by giving the inquirer even just a background on the matter s/he is asking about.
2. The UST PR person is neither lazy nor inefficient and she really tried bugging the concerned UST officials to help some person who's been asking for their reply for already almost half a year. But it's just that the officials were indeed "at a loss," not on how to reply, but on WHAT to reply to Rappler.
3. The UST had this line of conversation with itself:
"What the hell is Rappler? [Googles it] Oh, okay. [searches their library and finds Rappler has no print version] Ah...Rappler, just some good-for-nothing."
Why does the UST even have to question "online journalism"? Why does the inquirer have to be someone from the Inquirer, or any other more popular media outfit for that matter? Does one have to be somebody to get their response (not that the Rappler people are not yet "somebody")?
The thing is the UST simply did not think Rappler would make enough ripples as to cast doubt on the school's credibility and integrity. That's why even if the request letters had become towards the end more specific and strongly-worded--the last one even warning them of publishing the story without their side--the UST still did not grant Rappler an interview or any answer even in the form of unintelligible Latin scribbled on a used table napkin from a random carinderia.
The UST had to wait before the article gets published in a major circulation newspaper.
Does that have to do with UST being [an] old school? Did the UST think that just because Rappler.com is relatively new, only its staff and a handful of their friends visit its pages, thereby making practically anything published on its pages unheard of?
I think the UST would've been better off if it merely replied, "Sorry, all circuits are busy now. Please try contacting us later. <tootTOOTOOT! tootooTOOT!>"