A lot of folk hyperventilated when it seemed that the Department of Interior portfolio would go to Vice President Jejomar Binay. Many gulped at the thought of Binay at the DILG – a surefire way of cementing an already strong nationwide network, which made him the dark horse of the last elections.
We screamed for Naga City’s Jesse Robredo, he of the lily-white reputation, the Ramon Magsaysay Award, the rep for transparency and integrity. We chafed at how it was taking President Benigno Aquino III too long to appoint official. We heard talks of disagreements in policy, of tense meetings. But in the end, he did appoint dear Jesse.
Of course, it wasn’t quite as ideal as it sounded. Robredo may be DILG chief but Mr. Aquino’s election campaign official bagman, Rico Puno (not the singer) was given powers over the Philippine National Police (PNP), headed by Director-General Jesus Versoza.
I don’t know why Rebredo’s patience has snapped. But in the past two days, he has told select journalists that he shouldn’t be blamed for the August 23 hostage-taking fiasco because the PNP answers to Puno. Today, he demanded a probe into why Versoza flew to Cagayan de Oro in the afternoon of Aug. 23.
Now, why the DILG secretary needs to ask for a probe is curious in itself and once more a dead giveaway of the intramurals between the two main Aquino support camps.
There will always be feuds over the spoils of political victory. But what is particularly galling over the Aquino brawls is that, they have often made their principal look not only wrong-footed but also bereft of leadership.
Details of those fights have to wait for another post. This one will deal with a stunning development on the transparency and accountability front. It’s one story that doesn’t need independent verification – because it comes from the DILG.
Before I give you the press release, just this question: So does this mean that President Aquino and the DILG Secretary don’t care about past allegations of wrong-doing, don’t care that it may have cost taxpayers a couple of billion pesos?
Here goes (all itals mine):
DILG, TAN, CODE-NGO FORGE AGREEMENT
TO INSTITUTIONALIZE DILG-LGU-CSO PARTNERSHIPS
In a move to strengthen the foundation of responsible and accountable governance, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) today formally opened its doors for civil society participation in governance with the signing of a memorandum of agreement with two multi-sectoral networks of national government organizations (NGOs) that seeks to institutionalize partnerships with NGOs at the local level.
DILG Secretary Jesse M Robredo, Executive Director Vicente Lazatin of Transparency and Accountability Network Inc. (TAN), and Anna Marie Karnos representing Executive Director Sixto Donato of Caucus of Development Non-Governmental Organization Networks (CODE) signed the memorandum of agreement today at the DILG Central Office in Quezon City.
Robredo said that the MOA will effectively mobilize and engage CSOs as partners of the DILG and local government units to promote accountability, transparency, inclusivity and performance in local administration and development as well as in the internal operations of the Department.
“We believe in the huge potentials and advantages of collaborative partnerships with NGOs, CSOs, and the private sector in undertaking development projects and in improving government systems and procedures,” said Robredo, during the MOA signing.
Under the MOA, the DILG Secretary said the Department shall hold a monthly Local Governance Forum that will address issues that continue to challenge the norms of performance and accountability.
The DILG is also tasked to establish a communication link with TAN, CODE-NGO and other partners to ensure complementarity of decisions of actions in furtherance of the objectives of the partnerships at the national and local levels. It shall also enjoin DILG regional offices to support the aims of the DILG-CSO and DILG-LGU-CSO partnerships.
On the other hand, TAN and CODE-NGO shall launch, in collaboration with the DILG, a Social Accountability Initiative to promote civic consciousness and action to provide a balancing perspective on the performance and development conditions of a locality.
They shall also take the lead in convening the Regional Partnership workshops, and regularize the assessment of DILG-CSO and DILG-LGU-CSO partnerships and link information to concerned central and local government authorities for decision and action.
Moreover, they shall assist the Department in crafting new, or enhancing existing, programs or policies to promote transparency, accountability and performance, as well as in conducting performance tracking and development outcome-audit.
TAN is a coalition of multi-sectoral organizations which seeks to contribute significantly to the reduction of corruption in the country, while CODE-NGO is a national civil society organization. ###
WHAT, NO MENTION OF HOW CODE-NGO RAKED IN A 'COMMISSION' OF P1-BILLION FOR PACKAGING A FOREIGN LOAN? Aaaaah, but then, as the old guard use to say, what are they in power for
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
STATEMENT FROM THE HK JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION
Anger and Concern over President Benigno Aquino's words
對於菲律賓總統阿基諾三世諉過傳媒直播馬尼拉挾持人質事件，讓槍手洞悉警方的部署，為菲警的突擊行動失敗作開脫，更揚言日後會考慮對傳媒作出限制。記協對有關指責深感憤怒。
針對菲總統的言論，記協義務秘書曾錦雯及執行秘書鄭偉強代表記協，於今天下午三時半前往菲律賓駐港總領事館遞交聲明，表達不滿。
菲駐港副領事Ms. Lorena Joy P. Banagodos 親自接信，她表示，對挾持人質事件有港人死亡感到悲傷，並向港人致意慰問。她亦向本會承諾，稍後會將有關聲明轉交至菲律賓總統府。
有關聲明內容如下：(只提供英文版本)
Dear President Aquino,
The Hong Kong Journalists Association expresses its deepest condolences to the families of those who died in Manila’s hostage tragedy. We also want to express our appreciation and respect to those who acted bravely and astutely during the long standoff, thus allowing some of the hostages to survive. We are, however, filled with anger and concern over the blame being heaped on the media for allegedly contributing to the tragedy.
The HKJA notes with concern that President Benigno Aquino of the Philippines made the media the scapegoat when he said: “Media coverage of his brother being taken into custody further agitated the hostage-taker…” Using this flimsy excuse, Mr. Aquino said he would consider imposing new restrictions on media coverage should a similar crisis occur.
We have no idea what further restrictions are under consideration but what we are sure of is that President Benigno Aquino’s words were uttered hastily and without careful consideration. Without a thorough investigation such conclusions cannot be taken seriously and the HKJA views the president’s hasty conclusions with grave misgivings.
The role of the media is to tell the world what is happening and what has happened. This is the essence of what the democratic world has come to know and to accept as freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The media’s presence is vital to the preservation of human rights of minorities in any conflict. As in the case of Manila’s killings, nobody can tell if the same tragedy would not have taken place without the presence of the media. What we can be sure of is that without the presence of the media no knowledge of this horrific tragedy would have been known to the outside world.
Moreover, the police force of the Philippines should have known that negotiations were going on between the gunman and his brother, and that this was being telecast. The act of arresting the brother would, clearly, irritate the gunman. Yet the police forcibly wrestled the brother down and handcuffed him, all directly in front of the media.
The police, clearly, had neither strategy nor the necessary know-how to deal with such a situation. With the development of the new media, it is unrealistic to ask the media not to broadcast live in a matter of huge public interest not only to the Filipinos themselves, but also to people in Hong Kong and elsewhere. Proper media arrangements, including a safe area for the media at the scene, in accordance with internationally accepted standards, are of paramount importance. None were forthcoming.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association calls on the Philippines government to refrain from using this incident to introduce harsh measures against the media in order to cover up their incompetence. We will closely monitor the incident and any further deterioration of press freedom in Philippines arising from this tragedy.
With Kind Regards,
Hong Kong Journalists Association
26th August 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
ABS-CBN STATEMENT ON AUG. 23 HOSTAGE TRAGEDY
Media's job is to tell the story, but no story is worth even one life.
We will always cooperate with authorities in trying to resolve complex situations like the Aug 23 hostage crisis.
If the government had called for a news blackout, ABS-CBN would have supported it.
We are done with an initial assessment of our coverage and continue to review our policies.
We exercised self-restraint on Monday:
1. We refused to air the hostage taker's threats live about a 3 pm deadline to avoid fuelling public fear.
2. We refused to air the hostage taker's interview until after negotiations were finished.
3. We refused to be part of hostage negotiations.
4. All throughout the day and until the first shots were aired, we kept our cameras 400 meters away from the bus, giving us shaky video that viewers complained about. Our teams never crossed the police line.
5. Although we had access to members of the police reaction team, we held back interviews which could compromise their plans and/or location.
6. After the police tried to arrest the hostage taker's brother, our team physically stepped back to comply with police request.
7. After the assault began, we tried to limit our shots to avoid showing police movements. We stayed with extreme close-ups or wide shots.
8. We immediately complied when police asked us to turn off our lights explaining the grainy shots viewers complained about.
9. We avoided tampering with evidence at crime scene. Instead, we asked Soco to shoot the video instead of entering the bus ourselves.
This wasn't enough.
We acknowledge airing a report that detailed the position of the police during the assault.
During the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza, we considered pulling away from the coverage but a man was crying for help.
In other countries around the world, governments set the ground rules for situations like this. One network cannot unilaterally declare a news blackout. Press freedom issues take a back seat during situations like this - where the government already has the power to define the terms to media.
We are taking the public's views to heart. Monday's tragic events triggered intense soul-searching for us. Such is the irony of a profession that wields so much power but relies entirely on self-doubt to gain --- and keep --- its credibility.
We ask our broadcast colleagues to join us in an industry review. Let us unite and work together to put in place measures to collectively decide when we stop live coverage in the absence of government presence of mind.
We will always cooperate with authorities in trying to resolve complex situations like the Aug 23 hostage crisis.
If the government had called for a news blackout, ABS-CBN would have supported it.
We are done with an initial assessment of our coverage and continue to review our policies.
We exercised self-restraint on Monday:
1. We refused to air the hostage taker's threats live about a 3 pm deadline to avoid fuelling public fear.
2. We refused to air the hostage taker's interview until after negotiations were finished.
3. We refused to be part of hostage negotiations.
4. All throughout the day and until the first shots were aired, we kept our cameras 400 meters away from the bus, giving us shaky video that viewers complained about. Our teams never crossed the police line.
5. Although we had access to members of the police reaction team, we held back interviews which could compromise their plans and/or location.
6. After the police tried to arrest the hostage taker's brother, our team physically stepped back to comply with police request.
7. After the assault began, we tried to limit our shots to avoid showing police movements. We stayed with extreme close-ups or wide shots.
8. We immediately complied when police asked us to turn off our lights explaining the grainy shots viewers complained about.
9. We avoided tampering with evidence at crime scene. Instead, we asked Soco to shoot the video instead of entering the bus ourselves.
This wasn't enough.
We acknowledge airing a report that detailed the position of the police during the assault.
During the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza, we considered pulling away from the coverage but a man was crying for help.
In other countries around the world, governments set the ground rules for situations like this. One network cannot unilaterally declare a news blackout. Press freedom issues take a back seat during situations like this - where the government already has the power to define the terms to media.
We are taking the public's views to heart. Monday's tragic events triggered intense soul-searching for us. Such is the irony of a profession that wields so much power but relies entirely on self-doubt to gain --- and keep --- its credibility.
We ask our broadcast colleagues to join us in an industry review. Let us unite and work together to put in place measures to collectively decide when we stop live coverage in the absence of government presence of mind.
ABS-CBN STATEMENT ON AUG. 23 HOSTAGE TRAGEDY
Media's job is to tell the story, but no story is worth even one life.
We will always cooperate with authorities in trying to resolve complex situations like the Aug 23 hostage crisis.
If the government had called for a news blackout, ABS-CBN would have supported it.
We are done with an initial assessment of our coverage and continue to review our policies.
We exercised self-restraint on Monday:
1. We refused to air the hostage taker's threats live about a 3 pm deadline to avoid fuelling public fear.
2. We refused to air the hostage taker's interview until after negotiations were finished.
3. We refused to be part of hostage negotiations.
4. All throughout the day and until the first shots were aired, we kept our cameras 400 meters away from the bus, giving us shaky video that viewers complained about. Our teams never crossed the police line.
5. Although we had access to members of the police reaction team, we held back interviews which could compromise their plans and/or location.
6. After the police tried to arrest the hostage taker's brother, our team physically stepped back to comply with police request. As was seen on video, that space was quickly filled in by other journalists.
7. After the assault began, we tried to limit our shots to avoid showing police movements. We stayed with extreme close-ups or wide shots.
8. We immediately complied when police asked us to turn off our lights explaining the grainy shots viewers complained about.
9. We avoided tampering with evidence at crime scene. Instead, we asked Soco to shoot the video instead of entering the bus ourselves.
This wasn't enough.
We acknowledge airing a report that detailed the position of the police during the assault.
During the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza, we considered pulling away from the coverage but a man was crying for help.
In other countries around the world, governments set the ground rules for situations like this. One network cannot unilaterally declare a news blackout. Press freedom issues take a back seat during situations like this - where the government already has the power to define the terms to media.
We are taking the public's views to heart. Monday's tragic events triggered intense soul-searching for us. Such is the irony of a profession that wields so much power but relies entirely on self-doubt to gain --- and keep --- its credibility.
We ask our broadcast colleagues to join us in an industry review. Let us unite and work together to put in place measures to collectively decide when we stop live coverage in the absence of government presence of mind.
We will always cooperate with authorities in trying to resolve complex situations like the Aug 23 hostage crisis.
If the government had called for a news blackout, ABS-CBN would have supported it.
We are done with an initial assessment of our coverage and continue to review our policies.
We exercised self-restraint on Monday:
1. We refused to air the hostage taker's threats live about a 3 pm deadline to avoid fuelling public fear.
2. We refused to air the hostage taker's interview until after negotiations were finished.
3. We refused to be part of hostage negotiations.
4. All throughout the day and until the first shots were aired, we kept our cameras 400 meters away from the bus, giving us shaky video that viewers complained about. Our teams never crossed the police line.
5. Although we had access to members of the police reaction team, we held back interviews which could compromise their plans and/or location.
6. After the police tried to arrest the hostage taker's brother, our team physically stepped back to comply with police request. As was seen on video, that space was quickly filled in by other journalists.
7. After the assault began, we tried to limit our shots to avoid showing police movements. We stayed with extreme close-ups or wide shots.
8. We immediately complied when police asked us to turn off our lights explaining the grainy shots viewers complained about.
9. We avoided tampering with evidence at crime scene. Instead, we asked Soco to shoot the video instead of entering the bus ourselves.
This wasn't enough.
We acknowledge airing a report that detailed the position of the police during the assault.
During the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza, we considered pulling away from the coverage but a man was crying for help.
In other countries around the world, governments set the ground rules for situations like this. One network cannot unilaterally declare a news blackout. Press freedom issues take a back seat during situations like this - where the government already has the power to define the terms to media.
We are taking the public's views to heart. Monday's tragic events triggered intense soul-searching for us. Such is the irony of a profession that wields so much power but relies entirely on self-doubt to gain --- and keep --- its credibility.
We ask our broadcast colleagues to join us in an industry review. Let us unite and work together to put in place measures to collectively decide when we stop live coverage in the absence of government presence of mind.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A CALL FOR SELF-EXAMINATION (NUJP)
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
August 25, 2010
A call for self-examination
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) grieves for the loss of so many lives in the hostage-taking at the Quirino Grandstand on Monday.
We condole with families of all the victims of this tragedy and we join the calls for a thorough and swift investigation on why and how the bloodbath happened.
The Philippine government and the Philippine National Police have already acknowledged errors and shortcoming in responding to and addressing the incident. We believe that they were primarily responsible for supposedly controlling the situation, ending the crisis and ensuring the safety of the hostages.
But even as we grieve, we call on colleagues in the media to seriously and comprehensively examine how we covered the crisis and if our coverage in any way contributed to the tragic end of the hostage-taking.
It is media’s responsibility to cover events and report these as comprehensively and truthfully as possible.
But some colleagues clearly violated ethical standards and established procedures and guidelines in covering crisis situations including hostage-taking incidents.
Various media institutions and journalism scholars have laid down guidelines in covering crisis situations including hostage-taking. We urge news organizations to abide by these guidelines and to ensure that those it assigns to cover these crisis situations are adequately trained and informed.
We also encourage media owners, leaders and organizations to meet and agree on a set of protocols for the industry to guide us during similar situations.
The hostage-taking incident has once again highlighted the need for more trainings and education on our ranks to make sure that we do more good than harm in the performance of our work.
But even as we examine our actions and admit mistakes and shortcomings, we stand firm against abrogating our right to cover important events of public interest.
We oppose House Bill 2737 filed by Cebu Rep. Luis Quisumbing and similar measures aimed at imposing a media blackout during crisis situations. Legislated restrictions on media coverage are more dangerous and could pave the way for abuses and excesses by authorities in responding to crisis situations.
Reference
Nestor P. Burgos Jr.
Chairperson
+639177256333
*The blog owner is a member and former chair of the NUJP
********************************************************************************************************************************
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
4/L FSS Bldg. # 89 Sct. Castor corner
Sct. Tuason Street (near T. Morato Ave),
Bgry. Laging Handa,
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel.: (+632) 3767330
Email: nujphil@gmail.com
Web: www.nujp.org (under construction)
*********************************************************************************************************************************
Are you a journalist under threat?
Report it to NUJP’s Threat Hotlines:
*(+632) 3767330
* Email: nujphil@gmail.com
* Twitter:http://twitter.com/nujp
*********************************************************************************************************************************
“There can be no press freedom if journalists
exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear”
– IFJ
*********************************************************************************************************************************
August 25, 2010
A call for self-examination
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) grieves for the loss of so many lives in the hostage-taking at the Quirino Grandstand on Monday.
We condole with families of all the victims of this tragedy and we join the calls for a thorough and swift investigation on why and how the bloodbath happened.
The Philippine government and the Philippine National Police have already acknowledged errors and shortcoming in responding to and addressing the incident. We believe that they were primarily responsible for supposedly controlling the situation, ending the crisis and ensuring the safety of the hostages.
But even as we grieve, we call on colleagues in the media to seriously and comprehensively examine how we covered the crisis and if our coverage in any way contributed to the tragic end of the hostage-taking.
It is media’s responsibility to cover events and report these as comprehensively and truthfully as possible.
But some colleagues clearly violated ethical standards and established procedures and guidelines in covering crisis situations including hostage-taking incidents.
Various media institutions and journalism scholars have laid down guidelines in covering crisis situations including hostage-taking. We urge news organizations to abide by these guidelines and to ensure that those it assigns to cover these crisis situations are adequately trained and informed.
We also encourage media owners, leaders and organizations to meet and agree on a set of protocols for the industry to guide us during similar situations.
The hostage-taking incident has once again highlighted the need for more trainings and education on our ranks to make sure that we do more good than harm in the performance of our work.
But even as we examine our actions and admit mistakes and shortcomings, we stand firm against abrogating our right to cover important events of public interest.
We oppose House Bill 2737 filed by Cebu Rep. Luis Quisumbing and similar measures aimed at imposing a media blackout during crisis situations. Legislated restrictions on media coverage are more dangerous and could pave the way for abuses and excesses by authorities in responding to crisis situations.
Reference
Nestor P. Burgos Jr.
Chairperson
+639177256333
*The blog owner is a member and former chair of the NUJP
********************************************************************************************************************************
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
4/L FSS Bldg. # 89 Sct. Castor corner
Sct. Tuason Street (near T. Morato Ave),
Bgry. Laging Handa,
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel.: (+632) 3767330
Email: nujphil@gmail.com
Web: www.nujp.org (under construction)
*********************************************************************************************************************************
Are you a journalist under threat?
Report it to NUJP’s Threat Hotlines:
*(+632) 3767330
* Email: nujphil@gmail.com
* Twitter:http://twitter.com/nujp
*********************************************************************************************************************************
“There can be no press freedom if journalists
exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear”
– IFJ
*********************************************************************************************************************************
YES, THEY TRIED. AND HOW
Media is not perfect. (You should hear journalists b_tch!) Our natural tendency is to go for the great shot, the great line, the ’scoop’ — and that is across all platforms. We spend lots of hours and lots of breath — and yeah, lots of tears — trying to come up with safeguards against the possibility of being desensitized of all other considerations. That’s an all-media reality.
It would be self-serving to cite all those foreign reports (bbc, cnn, hk papers) as proof that we, media, are the good guys and that the cops were the bad guys. In the first place, Monday’s event wasn’t a game of cops and robbers.
This was a long day with many groups of people — Hongkong residents and officials not the least — running around trying their darn best to make some sense of an unraveling horror. You do not need to be a blame seeker to understand what “authority” means or what “leadership” is (or to feel sad at the glaring absence of the latter).
The other night was my first time on the other end of a monitor. Without dismissing viewers’ concerns and criticism, and standing by an earlier blog, here’s a tidbit from the new kid on the block:
This is what I said that night as everyone went home, and said very humbly… Now I know just how hard folks in broadcast work and how complex the choices at hand — when a dozen screens are lit up with possibles and 30 people before you, around you and across the metropolis are all trying to get heard all at the same time.
Maybe I’m just a new fan, enjoying a brand new world (yes, that’s a cliche!) — but also not a blind fan. What I saw and heard was a hall of people (and another set of folks on the other side of the monitors) trying to do their darn best to do right and — yes, those in the newsroom and on the ground — to self regulate and adjust accordingly every second of that long, bitter day. There was no movement that didn’t cOme with a cautionary word, a word of warning, yells to shift or stop even as DO became DID.
But yes, we will always need (and will always be grateful) to have the public as our conscience.
It would be self-serving to cite all those foreign reports (bbc, cnn, hk papers) as proof that we, media, are the good guys and that the cops were the bad guys. In the first place, Monday’s event wasn’t a game of cops and robbers.
This was a long day with many groups of people — Hongkong residents and officials not the least — running around trying their darn best to make some sense of an unraveling horror. You do not need to be a blame seeker to understand what “authority” means or what “leadership” is (or to feel sad at the glaring absence of the latter).
The other night was my first time on the other end of a monitor. Without dismissing viewers’ concerns and criticism, and standing by an earlier blog, here’s a tidbit from the new kid on the block:
This is what I said that night as everyone went home, and said very humbly… Now I know just how hard folks in broadcast work and how complex the choices at hand — when a dozen screens are lit up with possibles and 30 people before you, around you and across the metropolis are all trying to get heard all at the same time.
Maybe I’m just a new fan, enjoying a brand new world (yes, that’s a cliche!) — but also not a blind fan. What I saw and heard was a hall of people (and another set of folks on the other side of the monitors) trying to do their darn best to do right and — yes, those in the newsroom and on the ground — to self regulate and adjust accordingly every second of that long, bitter day. There was no movement that didn’t cOme with a cautionary word, a word of warning, yells to shift or stop even as DO became DID.
But yes, we will always need (and will always be grateful) to have the public as our conscience.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
CHRONICLERS OF MAYHEM
“Mulling over all reactions... I will say this: there is little talk (nor thought) of ratings when lives hang on the balance. And however flawed coverage may be -- and there will always be flaws -- journalists do care about the lives they cover. But like the authorities and the comfortable we are professionally bound to afflict, media will have to listen with grace to criticism.”
I’ve had one good friend pooh-pooh the above statement, written mid-morning after a mostly sleepless night (as most journalists hereabouts must have experienced). After a couple more hours of gazing at the ceiling and reviewing Internet clips of yesterday’s Quirino Grandstand tragedy (all stations) and what radio stations reported (all stations), I am standing by that statement.
At the Manila Pen, at the Bicutan siege, at other incidents, I evoked media’s duty to cover events as they unfold. I know that is not the core issue now being raised by critics of our profession. Last night and today, the angry reactions focused on a couple of things:
• Live coverage of the hostage-taking incident;
• Erroneous or premature reports (of the number of dead, for example)
• Pandering to dismissed cop Fernando Mendoza’s “grandstanding”;
• Letting SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza, brother of the hostage-taker, go primetime with his drama – and in the process provoking the dismissed cop into acts of violence; and
• Doing step-by-step accounts of the assault on Mendoza.
(This post does not aim to critique the cops’ performance or the national government’s response (or non-response) to the hostage crisis. Let’s leave that for another post.)
In its “Guidelines for Covering Hostage-Taking Crises, Prison Uprisings, Terrorist Actions,” Poynter.org states:
“Challenge any gut reaction to "go live" from the scene of a hostage-taking crisis, unless there are strong journalistic reasons for a live, on-the-scene report. Things can go wrong very quickly in a live report, endangering lives or damaging negotiations. Furthermore, ask if the value of a live, on-the-scene report is really justifiable compared to the harm that could occur.”
I have always had one simple rule of thumb. Journalists cover events. Newspaper, radio, television and Internet teams will always try to present an unfolding story from varied vantage points. When authorities tell us to desist from live coverage, we consider that (notice the caveat in the above cited rule).
When media does live coverage, then it must consider what to air and not to air. It is true that live coverage is dangerous: It is harder to do the usual gate-keeping work like double-checking facts and choosing one’s words, especially when reporters themselves are in the line of fire.
There are reasons that media go live and not everything has to do with ratings.
Yes, ratings are a given in television and radio, and hits for web-based media enterprises. The race can lead to sensationalized reporting and dog-eat-dog scenarios where the focus is on the competition and not on the story or its repercussions. But that should not blind us to other facets of our national reality.
There are reasons why desperate people in this country -- whether they are contemplating suicide, fleeing for their lives or holding people hostage -- run to media. These reasons have also a lot to do with the murders of journalists in this country. However problematic some journalists are; however shaky their ethics, in many areas of this nation they are sometimes the only people standing between powerful groups and individuals and the communities they seek to cow.
Quirino grandstand, of course, is not in the boondocks. It looms over Luneta, in the heart of Manila, the center of power in this archipelago. Manila is also where, not too long ago, a naked man flipped and flopped on cold tiles as his prick and balls were jerked here and there by another man we’d all been taught to respect as our protector.
Manila is where Mendoza was once accused of entrapping and extorting from a young man (though there are friends and colleagues who insist Mendoza was the good guy framed by rich and powerful malefactors). Manila is also where soldiers seeking redress are silenced by edict, by arrest or by other means. Manila, let us not forget, is also where men grabbed Jonas Burgos, who remains missing to this day. (Yes, we have failed to cover other victims and yes, sometimes it is because a story is not 'sexy'.)
I do not know if Gregorio was indeed an accessory to a crime (there is no acceptable excuse for hostage-taking). He wasn’t a gatecrasher. Rightly or wrongly, he was asked to help. He identified too well with the suspect; not surprising as they were brothers.
I do know this. If a man before me cries that he is being persecuted and on the verge of being disappeared (temporarily or permanently), I will not turn my back on him. I will not interfere when cops wrestle him into submission, but neither will I pretend to be blind.
Should there have been an instant decision to impose a news blackout so as not to provoke the hostage-taker?
The entire day’s coverage was live. Cops and officials agreed to interviews knowing the incident was being covered live. They ordered the arrest and grabbed Gregorio knowing coverage was live. No journalist or cop has noted any request – anywhere, any time, to anyone –that live coverage stop.
Having said that, I must stress the following points:
Media should try to resist talking to a hostage-taker (certainly, not interview him live). The hostage-taker may suddenly decide to transform an interview into a negotiation. And journalists have no business being negotiators. Period.
If we get an unsolicited call from a hostage-taker, we should just take down whatever is said but not get involved in any bargaining ploy;
Nor are we psychologists, so let’s not jeer at the hostage-taker; certainly not in his hearing;
We are not negotiators so we shouldn’t even debate on the pros or cons of a hostage-taker’s conditions. Nor should we listen to those who want that debate;
There should be no step-by-step accounts of assault operations. That is a different call from live reporting. Even when the authorities fail to request for such, journalists should try to keep it in mind. If reporters (who in the ‘heat of battle’ may not be able to pull back from the fray) start giving away information, superiors should find a way close the gates – or head off reporters to safer realms.
Of course, in an age where mobile phones can take sharp still and video images, when kids can afford to buy Flip cameras, one could argue that the rest of the world could put one over media. (Certainly, a friend of a hostage-taker could give him those sensitive images and in the crush – a teenager got hit in the crossfire! -- the effort would have been missed.)
These developments add pressure to media work. But the world is already a terribly complicated place, where roles of lawmen and lawbreakers merge in an unholy mess and the law itself acts like shifting sand. We journalists would serve this world better by trying to record these changes without getting trapped in the muck. We must thus learn better to sidestep the dangers.
It is hard keeping pace with a world where today is already on the verge of being passé. Especially when, at the same time, modern technology sometimes fails us: Audio can fail and desks and reporters, whether from the print, broadcast or digital media, could get cut off from each other. But we just have to try. And we are.
We cannot always agree with our audience. But we will always agree that they, too, share our best intentions – even when they call ours to question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)