Impunity from Negativity
Balancing a news story is like walking on a tightrope. There is the duty to tell it like it is and the caution of saying too much or even too little.
At the TV Patrol anniversary, President Benigno Aquino III told the press to be accurate and contextualized in their reportage and to strike a balance between good and bad news.
But just what is "too much," "accurate," "balanced" are vague, and often twisted. These are terms the definitions of which are points of contention even among journalists.
Some media groups raised fist and eyebrow at what they pointed to as the "President's whine and bash routine," such as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the National Press Club, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), and the Burgos Media Center, among others.
The government cannot boss the press around because the press' boss is the public. And journalists cannot solely focus on reporting government efforts, more so because it is the latter’s mandate to do something for the people.
Groups and netizens have lambasted the president back, describing the move as “dictatorship.” The Palace then answered that Aquino is not dictating the press. But just what is “negative” comment for them? What is “bad” news?
However news is perceived, it is the press’ job to report.
Years back, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos cannot deny to himself that the media is best left independent. He quit state control of media, albeit it was a joke: his cronies took the reins, and a vague proclamation after that continued to shut down publications and allow the arrest of critics.
But we also cannot deny that our newscasts have become entertainment, with anchors having celebrity status and having been politicians or linked to one. Aquino’s criticism could serve as a wake-up call. De Castro being a former vice president and Korina Sanchez being wife of Mar Roxas, who is chief of the Liberal Party and a Cabinet member, pose a question of ethics and a threat to credibility.
But what should be covered and how it should be written, whether a journalist’s comment is below the belt for a public official such as the president, and whether it was unethical or just right for a journalist to give guiding analysis to audiences, we should leave to the press. It is the only way to ensure independent scrutiny and a strong pillar of democracy.
It is the rule and not the exception.
Given that and with the third anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre drawing near, what the administration should pay attention to is holding accountable those responsible for media harassment and killings.
Journalists were not the only ones in that deathly caravan; nonetheless, they were killed in the line of duty as were almost every other journalist in the country. That one November afternoon was just another day of coverage for Since 1986 there have been over 160 journalists killed and these murders were work related, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
In “Staying Alive,” (EXCERPTS HERE) the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s survival manual for journalists, it was written that some argue that these murdered men and women were found to be irresponsible by their perpetrators. Answering to this, the PCIJ said that being unethical does not justify any murder.
Or is the administration also demanding impunity, only from “negative” comments?
Is commenting on public services now a mere negativism or disparagement, and not a challenge to improve our institutions? J
At the TV Patrol anniversary, President Benigno Aquino III told the press to be accurate and contextualized in their reportage and to strike a balance between good and bad news.
But just what is "too much," "accurate," "balanced" are vague, and often twisted. These are terms the definitions of which are points of contention even among journalists.
Some media groups raised fist and eyebrow at what they pointed to as the "President's whine and bash routine," such as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the National Press Club, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), and the Burgos Media Center, among others.
The government cannot boss the press around because the press' boss is the public. And journalists cannot solely focus on reporting government efforts, more so because it is the latter’s mandate to do something for the people.
Groups and netizens have lambasted the president back, describing the move as “dictatorship.” The Palace then answered that Aquino is not dictating the press. But just what is “negative” comment for them? What is “bad” news?
However news is perceived, it is the press’ job to report.
Years back, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos cannot deny to himself that the media is best left independent. He quit state control of media, albeit it was a joke: his cronies took the reins, and a vague proclamation after that continued to shut down publications and allow the arrest of critics.
But we also cannot deny that our newscasts have become entertainment, with anchors having celebrity status and having been politicians or linked to one. Aquino’s criticism could serve as a wake-up call. De Castro being a former vice president and Korina Sanchez being wife of Mar Roxas, who is chief of the Liberal Party and a Cabinet member, pose a question of ethics and a threat to credibility.
But what should be covered and how it should be written, whether a journalist’s comment is below the belt for a public official such as the president, and whether it was unethical or just right for a journalist to give guiding analysis to audiences, we should leave to the press. It is the only way to ensure independent scrutiny and a strong pillar of democracy.
It is the rule and not the exception.
Given that and with the third anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre drawing near, what the administration should pay attention to is holding accountable those responsible for media harassment and killings.
Journalists were not the only ones in that deathly caravan; nonetheless, they were killed in the line of duty as were almost every other journalist in the country. That one November afternoon was just another day of coverage for Since 1986 there have been over 160 journalists killed and these murders were work related, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
In “Staying Alive,” (EXCERPTS HERE) the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s survival manual for journalists, it was written that some argue that these murdered men and women were found to be irresponsible by their perpetrators. Answering to this, the PCIJ said that being unethical does not justify any murder.
Or is the administration also demanding impunity, only from “negative” comments?
Is commenting on public services now a mere negativism or disparagement, and not a challenge to improve our institutions? J