The July 27 Oakwood mutiny caught everybody by surprise. Media swooped down like vultures on the scene of the mutiny each one wanting to get the best of the story. The soldiers had the best media exposure they could ever desire in their lives, after all, they were the first ones interviewed by media. Their demands were aired and amplified by media. Surprisingly, the Palace was very quiet. It was only after several hours that the President went on air and gave the ultimatum. By then, the media have played up the grievances of the soldiers to high heavens. The length of media exposure the soldiers got gained for them enough plus points to win sympathy from the people.
The soldiers have raised sufficient grounds as reason for their rebellion. Among other things, they cited corruption, mismanagement and poor leadership in the military. A few stories were written about the issue as follow-up, but nothing in-depth really.
The media would like us (public) to believe that we are first and foremost in their minds when they report news. But oftentimes, their news reporting lacks a sense of objectivity and fairness. Reporters often feed us the same news running for a week or so in a rather superficial manner. According to Juan Mercado of DepthNews, there seemed to be no awareness on the part of media that it did a “skewed coverage of the Oakwood mutiny.”
The Oakwood mutiny is a complex story. It is a pity that the story ended on the trial of the rebel soldiers. It would have been enlightening for the public to know how corruption (if indeed there is) penetrated and eat up the military establishment that pushed the soldiers to mutiny. It would also be interesting to discover what goes on in the psychological make-up of a rebel soldier.
Amando Doronila, a highly respected journalist, wrote an interesting analysis in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on how the “news coverage of the Oakwood rebellion by the local press had put into question its credibility as an institution that depends democracy.” Doronila mentioned, that, “media unwittingly supported the cause of the rebels by giving them excessive coverage.” He also wrote that, “the lopsided coverage of the event hardly qualify the press either as being objective and neutral, which the press likes the public to believe it practices.” He went on further, saying that the “press had done wonderfully in their reporting of the news but they seemed to overlook the side of the government that represents the nation, at least in the early critical hours. The media feasted on the rebels and their demands, failing to subject their grievances to rigorous editorial skepticism,” which according to Doronila, “is the hallmark of good journalism.”
I am inclined to agree with Doronila’s line of argument that there was a failure on the part of the press to pursue a more objective stand in their news coverage of that particular event. I think there would have been a more balance reporting of the events had the reporters went out of their way to write a more detailed story about the government soldiers who have staked their lives in order to secure the country’s democratic institutions. At least, to balance the media coverage given to rebel soldiers. Instead, the reporters stopped short in reporting only what happened that day and the days that followed. There was no objective analysis on the accusations of corruption, on the promise of the government to do something about it, or on the PMA system of education that breeds rebel soldiers with messiah complex.
Another news story that comes to mind is Jose Pidal. The news story was on the papers for almost a month. The Philippine Daily Inquirer, as a matter of fact, had come out with this news report 29 times from August 19 until September 16. But like the other dailies, the news articles dealt mostly on the accusations of Senator Lacson and the denials of the First Gentleman. Nothing new has been added to what the public already knew from the earlier news report. There were so many probabilities raised on the possible reasons why those exposés were made public and yet no objective analysis was made on the implications of this story. After having whetted the appetite of the public for sensational reports, the news eventually became repetitious and tiresome. It has gone too long and the reporters have failed to report more profoundly on the issues involved. In an article he wrote last October 19, which saw print in both local and national papers, Juan Mercado of DepthNews said: “In the Pidal controversy, like other congressional probes, the legislator makes accusations, even without proof. He doesn’t even swear to the truth of the allegation. The press picks that up, and, like an unthinking amplifier, broadcasts without serious questions. In so doing, the press is often party to grave injustice.”
Although the case of Jose Pidal involved a person close to the President (and this would have been an interesting matter to follow up), fixation on this particular subject have led the papers to overlook other issues equally important in the lives of simple Filipinos. A specific example was the passing of Senate Bill 2553, also known as Farming and Collateral Bill. “This bill could spell death on agrarian reform law if signed into law by the President,” wrote Winnie Monsod in her column of September 6, 2003 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer The bill is disadvantageous to tenant farmers who are the intended beneficiaries of agrarian reform program. The press would have done the public an ultimate act of public service had they reported on this topic and explained the implications of this bill for the benefit of ordinary people.
I do not believe objectivity suffers when reporters dig on the issues and analyze how the news affects the public. I think it is very superficial to understand objectivity only as having to present both sides of the issue and that’s it. I believe journalists have a greater obligation to the public to provide them with news stories that are written in an accurate, balanced and critical manner. Journalists should always be guided by this axiom posted on their newsroom bulletin boards, “the more serious the accusation, the more proof we demand.” Again, says Juan Mercado of DepthNews, “winnowing truth from pap is a discipline called editing,”
The issue of objectivity is also affected by the unethical practices that some Filipino journalists adhere to. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism conducted a survey on 100 beat reporters in 1998 on the practice of “envelopmental journalism.” The survey showed that 71% had been offered money by their news sources. Those who have accepted money or gifts from news sources admitted that it somehow affected the slant of their news story. This particular example does not only make objectivity suffer but also allow the reporter to inject his or her personal biases in the story.
Another unethical practice for some reporters, for instance, is to attack well-known personalities or politicians and later, defend them for an indefinite sum. This practice is called AC/DC (attack-collect, defend-collect). This system damages the capability of the press to criticize politicians or laud government programs objectively.
Bias in news reporting also happens because of conflict of interest. Newspapers in our country are owned by families whose business interests extend beyond that of media ownership. Maybe some editors would not admit it but ownership aspect of newspapers affect the manner of news reporting. For instance, when Manila Hotel was bought through a bidding by a Malaysian consortium in 1995, the Manila Bulletin consistently attacked the sale in its daily news report and opinion articles. (The news was also picked up by other dailies.) The newspaper criticized the sale asserting that Manila Hotel is national patrimony and should be sold to Filipino company and not to foreigners. (I remember that I was also indignant about the whole thing.) Why would Manila Bulletin so persistent in this issue? It came out that Emilio Yap, the owner of Bulletin, was one of the bidders and lost. The controversy reached the court and the Supreme Court decided in favor of Emilio Yap.
Just recently, Meralco declared a power rate hike that would affect some 4 million consumers. This was big news that would merit page one in any daily newspaper, which it did. But Philippine Star opted to put it in the inside pages. Why? Philippine Star is an online news partner of ABS-CBN (a sister company of Meralco). Obviously, Philippine Star did not want to put Meralco on the spot by placing the news on page one.
In the examples given above, it is very clear where the biases of the editors or the newspaper lie. Even how much the reporters would have wanted the news on page one, the editors will ultimately decide what kind of news will merit a headline or given a space on the front page.
The Philippine Media is considered the “freest in Asia”. This assumption partly explains the ability of the press to be critical of government and its policies. However, the critical attitude does not necessarily translate to being objective and unbiased. Oftentimes, the press becomes unwitting mouthpiece to promote the agenda of the powers that be.
Criticisms of sensationalism, partisanship, bias and lack of objectivity are often hurled to the press in general. High profile news in recent months, the aborted impeachment of Justice Hilario Davide Jr., being the latest, has indeed created in the public’s mind a perception of journalism that gone awry.
On the press coverage of President Clinton’s impeachment, Bill Kovacs of Harvard University wrote: “At work is a new culture of impatient journalism, not dedicated to establishing whether a story is true.”
How reflective it is of our own press.
Our journalists will do well not to allow themselves be carried away by the culture of “journalism of assertion” but of verification and fact-finding.
They should be more analytical and decisive in ferreting out information so that they can accurately and objectively report the news.
We have many journalists who really live up the core values of their profession and I am proud of them. Hopefully, they can be mentors to others who stumble.
I would like to quote again Juan Mercado of DepthNews, who, by the way, has written critical analysis on the press’ coverage of the recent events. After the impeachment fiasco, he wrote on the role, value and limits of journalistic profession. “Our (reporters) job is not to refashion the world, into that of our publishers or station owners. Rather, we are to ferret out the true and the significant. And under relentless deadline pressure, we convey that accurately and, hopefully, readably to citizens, so they can rule. Our vocation is not to be de-luxe bullhorns or first-class photocopy machines. Despite our being clay, we’re called to be free spirits.”
No comments:
Post a Comment