POLICY SHIFT? NAH, JUST A POLICY REMINDER

Written on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am | by RG Cruz

(note: this is my personal analyses and doesnt reflect my newsgroup’s management’s stand. This is a multi-blog post that also appears on www.rgcruz.com, newsboy419.multiply.com and www.abs-cbnnews.com)

i first heard about ces’ abudction from a civil society source. she was asking me to confirm the story which by then had just been circulating via sms. this was just hours after the fact.

in the course of the succeeding hours, i issued several text messages and made a few phone calls to sources from within and outside abs-cbn. most of the responses were non-committal and vague.

all i was told by the office was “do not respond” to the inquiry. it was then that i inquired—” if this were not true, why cant you just make a flat denial now? that means this is correct”

hours later, the office also told me “not to say anything to anyone anymore because we dont know whats going on.”

by this time—other colleagues were also advised not to say anything to anyone. after all—so long as no one from abs-cbn said it on the record or even on deep background—it doesnt become official.

in the ensuing hours—i heard nothing more from the office. it was then that my own network of contacts and sources kicked into overdrive and supplied the much needed confirmation and details.

i myself was confused. this is a big story. one of the network’s senior anchors, one of the country’s top journalists—abducted while on coverage in sulu. why are we not talking about it immediately?

if this were some other person, much more some other VIP, it would have been a race to break the story 1st, even with no talking heads or attributions, and just based on accounts from anonymous highly placed sources.

but why were we not breaking the story asap? why did there seem to be a deviation from standard policy?

even with these questions in my mind—i obeyed policy.

not because i was afraid of losing a job—but because i was afraid of losing a life.

It now seems to me on hindsight, this was the fundamental internal debate that influenced initial coverage of this agenda setting news event.

It would be very easy to point out that since in this case—the storyteller became the story—there was an obvious conflict of interest. But because of the extraordinary circumstances—excusing oneself from coverage of the story not just from the point of the reporter but the news group as a whole—was just not possible.

What happened next was an ethical minefield which was tricky navigating—and not without its bruises.

It has been pointed out over and over in blogs and columns and analyses that there was an attempt at news management on the part of abs-cbn to suit its interests. I disagree. What happened was news management alright—but serving the interests of professional journalism.

Lets take the whole coverage apart.

Ces is a journalist for abs-cbn. In this case—both are storytellers, ces as the reporter, the newsgroup as a storytelling organization. Both went on from story teller to being the story. Ces as a kidnap victim—abs-cbn, being the employer, the family/support base with whom kidnappers will have to deal with in terms of the ransom. It will be hard to imagine that the kidnappers did not consider ces’ family AND company in their decision to abduct her, both in terms of ransom, and mileage potential.

Normally when the story teller become part of the story—to ensure professional coverage—the reporter is excused. But how can an entire organization excuse itself from this story? This is unlike coverage of sister companies in the Lopez group because in those cases—abs-cbn is not an active player in the main stories. Whatever influence exerted or imagined is still within the realm of speculation for those stories. In this case, the storyteller became a key player in the story—a lead actor if you may, as against merely operating from the shadows. There is of course the added complication that as that key player in the story—what was at stake was the lives of 4 individuals.

It is standard ethical practice that before we break ANY KIND OF STORY, we get the basic facts accurately. Either we get this from official sources in government or private persons party to the case—or at least 2 reliable anonymous sources.

That to my mind was simply how the news group managed this story in the initial hours of the incident. The news group did not want to come up with an inaccurate report that would unduly alarm friends and family of the victims, as well as residents in the areas concerned, with a report that was neither confirmed nor clarified. That the stakes were higher—in terms of saving human life—to me seemed immaterial at this point because it’s the primary job of every professional journalist to prioritize accuracy over speed. That is the policy and not the other way around.

Unfortunately, because of the insatiable thrist to be first and outscoop everyone, that policy was sacrificed many times in the past by most media organizations. More often than not they got away with it. In this case it was simply not acceptable because the lives of colleagues were at stake.

Does this mean there is a double standard now for covering abductions of mediamen vs non mediamen? Absolutely not. Ces’ kidnapping actually only highlights how mediamen took previous kidnapping coverage’s for granted in the name of ratings and readership. Which is why what happened was not a policy shift—but a mere reminder of policy.

That abs-cbn was a key player in the story only fudged up—but didn’t complicate the situation beyond discernment.

Lets 1st dissect the possible reasons for the management of the story in terms of the much criticized story embargo. Embargoing a story per se is not wrong. Stories are embargoed—as part of news management—for one reason or another—either because the story needed more research and fact checking. In this case the self imposition of an embargo was only made doubly important because inaccurate reports on the story could be misconstrued by the abductors as indications/statements outside of coverage—and therefore statements of the newsgroup as one of the main respondents in any conditions to be imposed for the release of the kidnap. in imposing a self embargo of the story seemed to be the only prudent thing to do in the initial hours because the kidnapping had to be first established as a story—and as an event where abs-cbn was a key player. And part of the accuracy check was making sure, on the part that abs-cbn was a key player in the story—that they had a secure connection and rapport with the kidnappers that would not be easily influenced unduly.

yes we are journalists. but before we are journalists—we are human beings. and if you may—we are christians. our priority will and should always be, to save lives at risk. heck, we are here to be a force for change we can believe in, be the change we want to see. and sometimes, that begins, with literally, saving lives.

Without the security of accuracy, there was an added complication—that anything i or anyone from abs-cbn says, whether its a lowly employee or the company ceo or the newsgroup’s svp, maybe misconstrued as a statement material to the event and the key players of the event.

being the player in the story one is covering has its most major pitfall in that it limits you from making a macro-analysis of the story and its impact–hence making silence the most prudent thing to do until you’ve ably addressed that.

it was easy to see the rationale for us keeping quiet about this. my bosses i dont think ever had the intention of keeping this off the radar—because one, they are professional journalists who would never turn their backs on what are the ideals of this profession, and 2, precisely because they are professionals, they know it would simply be impossible to keep this from fellow professionals working for other media outfits.

but in this case—even from the test of what professional journalism is–management action passes muster.

in journalism—speed and accuracy are onuses of the game. those 2 combined. never just one or the other. in this case speed and accuracy spelled the difference between life or death—literally.

within the 1st 24 hours, they werent immediately sure about the status of crew. even the law grants a 24 hour window before a person is considered missing legally—triggering any mechanism for search and rescues.

an abudction is never confirmed until you have proof of life and an actual ransom demand.

but in this instant case—any ransom demand will have to be made to either the family or the company where the victim is connected. and this is where apparently fudgy turns into murky—because the company—is the news organzation.

im gonna hazard a guess why the embargo was sought—

if it wasnt,

knowing how journalists think—

other media outfits would run screaming headlines and big stories of how the company was keeping silent—and spin it around as a confrimation that silence means yes—because if the answer was no—why couldnt we just come out with it?

and at that point—confrimation—even by silence—a confirmation that could unduly influence how the story was playing out—and spell the difference between life or death—was something my bosses were probably not ready to give because even they—did not know beyond reasonable doubt—what exactly was going on.

was that enough justification for the seeking and granting of the embargo?

Yes—because we as journalists should be dealing with facts and not speculation. And remember, one of the justifiable grounds for embargoing a story is fact checking.

The request for embargo to my understanding was premised on goodwill—pakisama if you may—and not cast in stone. More often than not these kinds of requests are ignored because journalists would be able to get confirmations of stories much easier when the subjects did not involve colleagues—especially colleagues who played active roles in the story—and whose words maybe misconstrued and may have an adverse turn in the running coverage.

Which is why to my mind, more than mere goodwill—or pakikisama—the embargo request was justified in the name of accuracy over speed.

it was also well within the rights of the other outfits to refuse the request. In fact other private media rejected the request because they felt they had enough to run from their own sources without getting a confirmation from abs-cbn. which is why its best that those who gave the embargo justify it—the way the Inquirer did. they are after all—not passive players in the exercise. and abs-cbn is after all not the only source these other media outfits have to go to for confirmation.

precisely because our job is imbued with national interest—we must be careful. we must be accurate. even if ces was not the victim—if we had no clear verification that an abudction had taken place—then we would have unduly alarmed residents in the affected area if we reported it.

that is simply not acceptable. its as sloppy as this veteran journalist who reported a tsunami was gonna happen in batangas based solely on word of mouth from nosey residents. what happens to those journalists? they end up ranting bitterly and sanctimoniously, never mind whats humane and christian—waiting like hungry vultures and swooping down to tryirrationally to pin blame on the victim. These pseudo journalists and pseudo human beings are just lashing out at someone else for their own faiilures–both professionally and er, fashionwise.

anyway, i digress.

i have friends in print who are not necessarily ces’ friends who had misgivings about filing the story on the 1st day. i advised them that for their sake—they should file it and let management decide what to do. at a micro level fellow journalists recognized the power they wielded—even if they were technically a disinterested observer. they also knew that one false word may unduly risk a colleague’s life. having the same prudence these journalists did at the micro level at an insitutional level is not wrong. after all prudence should be the number one dictum. get the story straight and fast—and more importantly—accurate—because lives depended on it.

this imperative for accuracy was heightened because it involved one of us–but isnt this something that should have been applied from way back?

its heightened now because a fellow journalist is involved but actually—its something everyone should have done a long time ago. there is no policy shift here—its actually a policy reminder of what the profession has taken for granted for the sake of breaking an exclusive. who knows—if we had exercised the same kind of prudence in previous abductions–those abudctions may have turned out differently.

Onto my next point:

its not ces’ fault that she is in this predicament. dangers like this are inherent to any coverage—you dont need to be in the mountains of sulu to be in a lifethreatening coverage. to my mind, it is immaterial whether she rejected security or nor, whether she had a big enough story to get or an exclusive enough of an interview there. whatever story it is that youre doing—youre always a journalist under security threats—from any conceivable source. mygawd, even if youre just doing features, if youre subject doesnt like what you wrote and he’s a wacko, you’d still end up dead!

if youre a member of the malacanan press corps covering an unpopular president—chasing her around all the time—then you are—by virtue of your assignment—in an assassin’s line of fire ALL THE TIME! but thats not stopping any of us from chasing the president all over the country.

true—no story is ever worth your life. no journalist will willingly subject themselves to obvious danger. the trick there is assessing the risk level—and that is NEVER AN EXACT SCIENCE. because that—is a subject matter thats largely dependent on your relationship with your source. ces maybe a veteran journalist and that should have sharpened her instincts–but it doesnt make her perfect or infallible.

Unfortunately—there are those out there who are not only heartless and conscience-less—hasbeens and never were’s who are so consumed and blinded by bitterness for past mistakes. Pseudo journalists who are so full of themselves, so full of hubris they just dismiss the logical arguments simply ecause it does not suit their pride, their vanity or whatever convenience they may have—people who dismiss logical statemenst and close their minds to opinions from other parties without examining these arguments and just on the premise that those giving the opinions are either young or uknown are someone they just do not like. Whatever happened to journalists defending free speech—when there are these pseudo journalists who are wont to dismiss as kayabangan or (youthful) exuberance dissenting opinions because it doesn’t suit their purpose? these pseudo journalists are definitely proof that older doesnt necessarily mean wiser–but sometimes—senile.

Tags:
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: RG Cruz is a reporter and a correspondent for ABS-CBN. He blogs at RG Cruz

Filed Under Politics

Related Entries:

Comments

17 Responses to “POLICY SHIFT? NAH, JUST A POLICY REMINDER”

  1. the jester-in-exile on June 17th, 2008 11:54 am

    there is no policy shift here—its actually a policy reminder of what the profession has taken for granted for the sake of breaking an exclusive. who knows—if we had exercised the same kind of prudence in previous abductions–those abudctions may have turned out differently.

    could you tell us why mainstream media had followed this “policy” quite haphazardly in the past, prior to ces drilon’s abduction, when non-journalist, ordinary citizen kidnapping victims or victims of violent crimes?

    has it been simply because of the fear of being outscooped?

  2. the jester-in-exile on June 17th, 2008 11:55 am

    oops. forgot the phrase “were involved”.

  3. RG Cruz on June 17th, 2008 12:23 pm

    to be brutally honest mr jester, yes! ratings. readership and pretsige.
    but thats my personal take and not a stand of the newsgroup.
    i only speak for myself and as an observer of the profession. the others may disagree and this is a free country.

  4. butch on June 17th, 2008 12:28 pm

    Just to reiterate, ABS-CBN certainly had a heyday covering previous high-profile kidnappings. Everyone was fair game then. For it to call a media embargo appears to many as the height of arrogance and hypocricy, because of its sudden display of restraint and rectitude when the victims are its own. The question begs to be asked, should those who work for a powerful and influential media conglomerate be given special treatment ?

  5. Pochero on June 17th, 2008 12:44 pm

    Thank you for your honesty, Mr. Cruz. Media has been so ravenous in pursuing that elusive scoop, but now that one of their own is the story, all are suddenly requested to be “reminded of the policy”. Suddenly, you have a multitude of columns raising paeans to the ideals of the profession. Is it any wonder that a significant number of blogs and comments are not supportive of Ces Drilon? I certainly hope and pray that Ces and crew get out alive and well. But after all this is said and done, I hope our media professionals reflect on “the policy” and their recent behaviors.

  6. RG Cruz on June 17th, 2008 12:46 pm

    most definitely not mr butch. there should be no double standard. the same care should be given regardless of whoever is the victim.
    problem is it was an industry-wide occurrence.
    admittedly, speaking as an individual journalist, the whole experience was humbling and sobering—and i can only hope now that this will up the ante for more responsbile journalism.

  7. RG Cruz on June 17th, 2008 12:54 pm

    i certainly hope that they are alive and well as well mr. pochero. and i agree with your hope that this policy reminder is now taken more seriously. its a time for media reflection and policing of its own ranks. since our democratic set up leaves no mechanism for holding media accountable for their actions besides libel—the check and balance on the media more often than not is just audience partciaption—and the occasional—what goes around comes around.

    however i am under the impression that those who arent suppprtive of ces are so not because of the double standard on the embargo, but they just disagreed with ces’ purpose for going there to begin with. that is just plain misunderstanding the purpose of professional journalism. ces may have made mistakes, but to “punish” her by being unsuppoprtive of her release for that big mistake that could cost her her life, as ricky puts it—is just plain callous and might i say, barbaric.

  8. benign0 on June 17th, 2008 12:59 pm

    Pinoys are for the most part driven by hiya. The fear of mapahiya is what would normally galvanise people into action in our society.

    Hopefully the industry and the profession has gotten enough of a healthy dose of this potent Pinoy wonderdrug (at least in the blogosphere and the message forum scene) to re-evaluate the lofty pedestal in our society upon which it maintains itself.

  9. Nick on June 17th, 2008 1:04 pm

    This is exactly my concern, that the policy reminder, will be forgot.. or that if one news agency breaks that policy, other news agencies will follow, for fear of losing ratings..

    However, I am hopeful that Ces and the rest will be released. I am in agreement too, whether or not people dislike her, that this should not be the point of contention, to do so would be callous and insensitive, especially since she is still captive..

    This is blaming the victim, instead of focusing on those who actually did the deed.

  10. RG Cruz on June 17th, 2008 1:40 pm

    thanks benigno! i so agree with you.
    nick, absent a en enlightened society which could be entrusted to come up with a government that can be entrusted to police the media, policing the media will be a matter for the journalists themselves and the public at large.

    as with government, the public will get a media it deserves. if you find anything objectionable on abs-cbn—get on your laptop and email maria ressa. newsgroup management under her has been very sensitive to policing the media and upholding ethical practices.

  11. the jester-in-exile on June 17th, 2008 3:25 pm

    oh, rg, i’ll do one better than that — i’ll write an open letter as a blog post. :D

  12. RG Cruz on June 17th, 2008 3:43 pm

    really, you should! thanks! i hope however you dont make sweeping generalizations. dont punish the innocent with the guilty

  13. the jester-in-exile on June 17th, 2008 5:12 pm

    i will treat the subject matter in the same manner i perceive mainstream media did. :D

  14. RGcruz on June 17th, 2008 6:23 pm

    its best that your practice what you preach—always.

  15. Trust Issues | Filipino Voices on June 17th, 2008 9:34 pm

    […] “news embargo.” I refer everyone to RG Cruz’s post on FilipinoVoices.com called POLICY SHIFT? NAH, JUST A POLICY REMINDER as a starting point for this […]

  16. Trust Issues | Filipino Voices on June 17th, 2008 9:34 pm

    […] “news embargo.” I refer everyone to RG Cruz’s post on FilipinoVoices.com called POLICY SHIFT? NAH, JUST A POLICY REMINDER as a starting point for this […]

  17. Trust Issues | Filipino Voices on June 17th, 2008 9:34 pm

    […] “news embargo.” I refer everyone to RG Cruz’s post on FilipinoVoices.com called POLICY SHIFT? NAH, JUST A POLICY REMINDER as a starting point for this […]

Leave a Reply