Now that that’s out of the way, some more thoughts.
I think a lot of people are rightly disenchanted with the quality of media here in the Philippines. It is a personality driven circus, paparazzi masquerading as serious journalists with rare exceptions. Pardon my language but I feel as if media are acting like pussies, filing a complaint against the police with the Commission on Human Rights over the incident and simply refusing to even acknowledge the possibility that they may have overstepped some boundaries. As I said, from my own reading of the “pulse of the nation”, many people believe that this incident has showcased the arrogance of our media but unfortunately are unable to have their say because of course, media controls the mainstream sources of “information”. I suppose it would be too much to expect to read a headline saying “Media Admits Lapses In Coverage”.
Editorials in the aftermath of the Makati Standoff continue to hit the police for alleged harassment but none that I have seen have even made a substantial examination of the concept of “press freedom” or delineated their responsibilities in a democracy vis-à-vis law enforcement operations.
Media has also been talking about a “chilling effect” in the wake of the confrontation, saying that journalists feel threatened that there will now be impingements in the way they gather news. What’s the impingement? That they have to follow the law? Granted that there are many dangers to real journalists, I don’t believe that the Makati Standoff is the best platform from which to cry “press freedom”. If anything, I think it’s an opportunity for media to step back, conduct an honest assessment of themselves and reign in their excesses in the interest of restoring media credibility in this country or even just granting their profession the respect it deserves.
As seen from the footage, media attached itself to Trillanes, forming a shield around him and refusing to evacuate even after being warned that an assault was about to take place. Media were even heard cheering along with rebel soldiers when police General Barias left the building after pleading, “Come out. Please help your police”. Incredibly, media even showed live footage of the positions of the Special Action Forces as they prepared to storm the building.
Today, security officials and media representatives held a dialogue to air out their sides and while I only caught the tail end, I was dissatisfied with the conclusion offered by the executive director (and I paraphrase) that government had agreed to adjust to media practices. Now that’s the chilling effect for me, given the level of media we presently have.
Resorting to clichés, I am a strong believer that media is an important pillar in our democracy. But in the same vein, an irresponsible and unprofessional media is just as guilty of practicing and encouraging a ‘culture of impunity’ that other sectors have been accused of. That media claims to be doing this in service of the public is something I take strong exception to and while the pickings are slim, this one faceless member of the public’s respect will go to the media outfit that admits that coverage of November 29,2007 was less than desirable and exceeded the bounds of press freedom.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Media Coverage of the Makati Standoff
First on my plate is the recent Makati Standoff and particularly the manner in which the media conducted itself during the incident and in its aftermath. Frankly, I feel as if Trillanes and the media wasted everybody’s time that day and worse, used the incident to make themselves look like heroes.
I’ve joined some online discussions on the matter and am including here some of those posts, just so I can go on to my further thoughts on the matter.
My problem is with media practitioners acting as if they are above the law. I have no problem with journalists just ‘doing their jobs’ but take responsibility if your actions endanger others around you, makes a dangerous situation more volatile, or hampers the ability of security forces to resolve the situation. Media is there to cover news, not to be a part of it. I personally see no problem with police questioning media after the incident, to try and weed out rogue soldiers who may have embedded themselves in the swarm.
Security forces had warned reporters that the situation would escalate and some left and some stayed. I wouldn’t gauge one’s commitment to journalism on their decision. While I can applaud some for their bravery (even though I see this more as hardheadness) to stay, I can also commend the maturity of others who may have decided to let the soldiers do their job without pestering them and cover events from a distance even if they knew that their rivals were getting more ‘exciting’ footage.
I could care less about network wars for pete’s sake but I think media has to know its boundaries. Imagine what a laughable situation it is to have police trying to arrest a fugitive or terrorist but can’t because media is swarming him for interviews. Or imagine what a tragic situation it would be if media aggravated a hostage taker to the point that he would kill his hostage.
I have heard the term “freedom of the press” being batted around but not a great deal of examination of what it should provide. I don’t believe that it means to gives “journalists” free reign in the way they get their stories and absolve them from any responsibilities of consequences that arise as a result.
I've also heard some people saying that police should have known who the media personalities were and taken their IDs and onsite vouching by media members at face value in the immediate aftermath. Personally, I find the idea that media would expect concessions and exemptions from police SOPs because they consider themselves as personalities (even celebrities) disturbing, and frankly disgusting.Other people have also said that if it weren't for the media, we wouldn't know what was going on. But there is a difference between being updated and being informed. There is more to journalism than getting good angles and dramatic soundbytes. If the media is going to force themselves into a situation to "cover" it, they could at least ask critical and intelligent questions instead of simply following Trillanes up and down the stairs and parroting back to the viewers what he says.
I was with media before, both print and broadcast. I understand the drive to get the story and I can say with confidence that no Filipino reporter would hesitate about jumping into the fray to get the story. That’s why I personally see the stepping back of some media outfits as a positive indicator that some maturity is entering the practice of media. I think however that some journalists are using ‘the freedom of the press’ as a license to do whatever they want as if it lends them an air of immunity. Journalists perform a noble task but they have to act responsibly. Just as they were doing their jobs, so were the security forces. Their main priority is to resolve the situation and not to babysit reporters who have already been warned to evacuate. I’m actually happy to see them for once following standard operating procedures instead of cowing to personalities. As a reporter, I know of some colleagues who took potential evidence from the Oakwood mutiny as souvenirs.
Aside from journalists being more responsible, I think viewers also have to expect more from their media in the sense that they should not condone just any means to get information, especially when it tramples on other people’s rights or sets them above the law or when it is purely for sensational purposes but does not add depth to the story and instead prolongs a situation needlessly. I do agree that the presence of media is preferable to the absence of media which is precisely why I think concerns of irresponsible journalism have to be aired.
I’ve joined some online discussions on the matter and am including here some of those posts, just so I can go on to my further thoughts on the matter.
My problem is with media practitioners acting as if they are above the law. I have no problem with journalists just ‘doing their jobs’ but take responsibility if your actions endanger others around you, makes a dangerous situation more volatile, or hampers the ability of security forces to resolve the situation. Media is there to cover news, not to be a part of it. I personally see no problem with police questioning media after the incident, to try and weed out rogue soldiers who may have embedded themselves in the swarm.
Security forces had warned reporters that the situation would escalate and some left and some stayed. I wouldn’t gauge one’s commitment to journalism on their decision. While I can applaud some for their bravery (even though I see this more as hardheadness) to stay, I can also commend the maturity of others who may have decided to let the soldiers do their job without pestering them and cover events from a distance even if they knew that their rivals were getting more ‘exciting’ footage.
I could care less about network wars for pete’s sake but I think media has to know its boundaries. Imagine what a laughable situation it is to have police trying to arrest a fugitive or terrorist but can’t because media is swarming him for interviews. Or imagine what a tragic situation it would be if media aggravated a hostage taker to the point that he would kill his hostage.
I have heard the term “freedom of the press” being batted around but not a great deal of examination of what it should provide. I don’t believe that it means to gives “journalists” free reign in the way they get their stories and absolve them from any responsibilities of consequences that arise as a result.
I've also heard some people saying that police should have known who the media personalities were and taken their IDs and onsite vouching by media members at face value in the immediate aftermath. Personally, I find the idea that media would expect concessions and exemptions from police SOPs because they consider themselves as personalities (even celebrities) disturbing, and frankly disgusting.Other people have also said that if it weren't for the media, we wouldn't know what was going on. But there is a difference between being updated and being informed. There is more to journalism than getting good angles and dramatic soundbytes. If the media is going to force themselves into a situation to "cover" it, they could at least ask critical and intelligent questions instead of simply following Trillanes up and down the stairs and parroting back to the viewers what he says.
I was with media before, both print and broadcast. I understand the drive to get the story and I can say with confidence that no Filipino reporter would hesitate about jumping into the fray to get the story. That’s why I personally see the stepping back of some media outfits as a positive indicator that some maturity is entering the practice of media. I think however that some journalists are using ‘the freedom of the press’ as a license to do whatever they want as if it lends them an air of immunity. Journalists perform a noble task but they have to act responsibly. Just as they were doing their jobs, so were the security forces. Their main priority is to resolve the situation and not to babysit reporters who have already been warned to evacuate. I’m actually happy to see them for once following standard operating procedures instead of cowing to personalities. As a reporter, I know of some colleagues who took potential evidence from the Oakwood mutiny as souvenirs.
Aside from journalists being more responsible, I think viewers also have to expect more from their media in the sense that they should not condone just any means to get information, especially when it tramples on other people’s rights or sets them above the law or when it is purely for sensational purposes but does not add depth to the story and instead prolongs a situation needlessly. I do agree that the presence of media is preferable to the absence of media which is precisely why I think concerns of irresponsible journalism have to be aired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)