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.