Trust Issues

Written on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 9:34 pm | by The Jester-in-Exile

(I had thought of writing an open letter to Maria Ressa of ABS-CBN, but now I realize that the overarching impact of the events related to the mainstream media response to Ces Drilon, et al’s kidnapping is something that I must fire off to media practitioners at large.)

(”Fire off” being the operative phrase.)

I join those who hope that Ces Drilon, et al, end their predicament safely and without injury. The news is positive, and I am hopeful that all ends well with the journalist and her companions.

That said, I think I cannot avoid taking mainstream media at large to task with regard to the “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 discussion.

Let’s define terms first, shall we?

Embargo: a prohibition; a ban.

News: information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.

News embargo: a prohibition or ban on the dissemination of information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.

Policy: a guiding principle or standard procedure.

Shift: a change from the status quo to a new state.

Reminder: an action to call the attention of a person to something that must be done.

Policy shift: a change from a previously chosen guiding principle or standard procedure to a new guiding principle or standard procedure.

Policy reminder: an action to call attention to the implementation of a guiding principle or standard procedure.

With these definitions, let me pose these questions:

1. What was the policy or general practice of mainstream media with regard to the reportage of kidnappings and like news?

2. Was the news embargo requested by ABS-CBN of other media outfits in keeping with or in contravention to the policy of mainstream media?

3. Was there a policy shift or a policy reminder, insofar as the implementation of the news embargo is concerned?

4. What can the non-mainstream media public at large conclude from the recent events?

And so we begin.

First, let’s check out the view from both sides of the phosphor screen.

Non-journalist Butch left this comment on RG Cruz’s post, and he did not mince words:

Just to reiterate, ABS-CBN certainly had a heyday covering previous high-profile kidnappings. Everyone was fair game then.

Journalist RG Cruz himself said this about the kidnapping, giving us an idea of the general rule of mainstream media:

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.

Obviously, then, the standard procedure is that news MUST be reported, especially so if the persons involved are well-known personalities. It is rather clear that the standard policy was to break the story out, had it been some other person, and the deviation was NOT to break the story out because it was one of ABS-CBN’s journalists.

We have statements that would support such a view. RG Cruz speaks of the drive to be the first to break a story open, with media outfits thinking of “ratings, readership and prestige”, and he himself was surprised, as made obvious by his statement “i myself was confused. this is a big story… why are we not talking about it immediately?”

There was the “story embargo requested by ABS-CBN”. The result? The public did not learn of Drilon, et al’s abduction until some time later. Commenter bestre said this:

I didnt know of this. My parents are watching the news all day but never did they mentioned this. If not of this site, I am ignorant of this news.

Now, then, this is the question: was this news embargo in keeping with or in contravention to journalistic policy or standard procedure? Was this conscious choice to deny the general public — at least, for a while — the news of the abduction in keeping with journalistic policy or standard procedure?

We refer back to RG Cruz’s answer:

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?

Note the phrase “deviation from standard policy.” That statement, whether taken alone or taken in context with the contrast Butch provided in his comment, does show that mainstream media by and large went against their policy of reportage.

Was it a “policy reminder”? I submit that it was not. The news embargo was not a normal procedure, as RG Cruz implies via his statement of bewilderment.

Was it a “policy shift”? Insofar as the public is concerned, the conclusion is inescapable — there did seem to be one standard for the reportage of high-profile kidnappings of non-journalists (as Butch reminds us all) and a different standard altogether for the reportage of the high-profile kidnapping of a journalist.

What, then, are we who are not journalists supposed to think? Are we to think that mainstream media adheres to double standards of reportage, and by extension, dual standards in journalistic ethics? Are we to think that if our friends or family fall victim to crimes we are to expect jarring flashbulbs and microphones shoved into our noses, while if it is a journalist who is the victim he can expect restraint from his peers? Are we to be bothered by this nagging thought that journalists just might view themselves as “better” or “more special” than the rest of us?

Butch yet again does not pull his punches: “For ABS-CBN to call a media embargo appears to many as the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, because of its sudden display of restraint and rectitude when the victims are its own,” presumably because the network has not done so for victims not their own.

The conclusions are inescapable; as is often said, the tree is known for its fruits. However, now that we know the tree is poisoned, how trusting can we be of the fruits?

Gil H.A. Santos puts the embargo in harsh, but rather appropriate, perspective:

The call for media “restraint” on the kidnapped Ces Drilon case is an example of subjective and unethical reaction.

This is subjective and unethical simply because the entire act of calling for media “restraint” is an effort to treat her and her crew as special and powerful personalities in our society. Journalists, wherever they are and regardless of nationalities, MUST not be treated as “specials and favored citizens” as they should be because they treat everyone equally the same–heads of States, government officials (elected or appointed), suspected criminals, hostages or hostage-takers and convicts. That’s part of the ethics of the trade. And we must adhere to that.

In iBlog4, I heard a journalist name the fraternity of mainstream media as “gatekeepers of information.” Tell me this: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

After all the mumbled mea culpas, assurances that there will be cause to reflect on their self-policing mechanisms, even some blame-mongering, what can mainstream media do to persuade the public that they still deserve the trust that they themselves have destroyed by an ill-advised implementation of a double standard?

First, I suggest that journalists apply to their own the same standards they will apply to the public they wish to report about, and vice versa. For instance, in a hostage or kidnapping scenario, media outfits should respect the media blackout that is part of normal police operations, whether or not the victim is high-profile. Otherwise, report everything and everyone; it is the height of hypocrisy if mainstream media won’t apply such standards to Juan Pasang-Krus’ kidnapping but will pussyfoot around that of Ces Drilon’s.

Second, on the issue of “self-policing” mechanisms, I have two examples that will need to be addressed:

When a front page story is full of factual errors, the current response, at best, is a passing remark by the publication’s reader’s advocate or an erratum in a small box buried in a corner of some skipped-over page. Ideally, a formal retraction would be the response of a responsible media organization. However, as I have often noticed, a letter to the editor generally doesn’t get an apology, let alone a reply… unless the person who wrote the letter can be shown to be wrong, in which case the editor or the writer will put an italicized paragraph pointing out the errors of that letter writer.

Corollarily, when a flash report is aired where someone is presented to be a suspect in some crime, but the person was actually merely a witness to it, networks rarely, if at all, air a retraction; essentially, the response is nothing of note… innocent fellow portrayed as a felon equals “tough luck, kid, we were just doing our jobs”. Since journalists generally want libel to be decriminalized, what sort of remedies or penalties can the victim of shoddy reportage expect? Even then, how much resources can an ordinary fellow put up against the battery of counsel networks have in their defense?

I suggest that a mechanism of complaint, validation, and compensation be provided to the general public to address lapses by mainstream media. (If I hear some journalist say that we have the courts for that, I am going to demand that journalists shut up about the decriminalization of libel.)

Third, I suggest that mainstream media finally get with the times and allow real-time feedback from readers. What ills from spamming the comment boxes of a story will be outweighed by the immediate feedback from a wronged reader. An immediate retraction and apology will show the general public that mainstream media practitioners meant the wronged reader no malice; I would think that it is a demonstration of malice that a network would stick to an erroneous story just so their outfit would not be embarassed by the admission of error.

Rom said what could be the bottomline of the issue of the media embargo: “Now, more than ever, should the reader beware.”

Should we distrust you, mainstream media?

Tags: , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: The Jester-in-Exile is an engineer by training and profession turned law student, and he writes of the Philippines because of his love for it. He blogs at The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile, and can often be found daydreaming about giving Robespierre haircuts to corrupt officials.

Filed Under National News

Related Entries:

Comments

6 Responses to “Trust Issues”

  1. RGcruz on June 17th, 2008 11:49 pm

    hi mr jester.
    id just like to clarify—the policy reminder that i talk about was the reminder to be the 1st to break the story ACCURATELY. I apologize if i did not make that clear from the get go.

    an embargo is encouraged if there is no clear confrimation of the facts of the case. we do no want to sacrifice accuracy for speed in any situation.

    and just to doubly reiterate—i speak individually. i do not speak for the company. let my bosses do that.

  2. RGcruz on June 17th, 2008 11:56 pm

    Going back over what I posted—i now realize i made it clear that the onus is not just to break the story 1st, but be the 1st to break is accurately. i refer you to this part much later in my long essay.

    “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.”

  3. the jester-in-exile on June 18th, 2008 7:32 am

    Unfortunately, because of the insatiable thirst 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.

    This is why it seems that it has been less a policy than a suggestion, and why there seems to have been a policy shift.

  4. cocoy on June 18th, 2008 8:50 pm

    in this world of information, it is a matter of being able to discern from where the source is coming from. doesn’t matter whether or not it is old media, new media or @Scobelizer or @leolaporte. Fact is, we each got to think more and weigh the validity of where they’re all coming from. in other words, we just got to think for ourselves and judge for ourselves. no more spoon feeding.

  5. the jester-in-exile on June 18th, 2008 8:53 pm

    fair point, cocoy.

    however, it is not the content that i’m trying to parse — i’m trying to understand the deliberate denial of content, based on selectively applied policies, as it were.

  6. the jester-in-exile on June 18th, 2008 10:19 pm

    hmmmm, another thought:

    In this case it was simply not acceptable because the lives of colleagues were at stake.

    doesn’t this imply rather clearly that if it were a not a colleague the “sacrifice of the policy” is acceptable? doesn’t THAT imply that MSM does indeed view itself as a special stratum of society?

    yet another issue to parse in another post.

Leave a Reply