"shooting the messenger"

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) issued a statement on former President Joseph "Erap" Estrada's libel case against the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI).

I reproduce it here because it is worth reading. If you've been following the news on this issue lately, and if the libel case left you scratching your head as well, then read this:

--------------------------------------------------

18 September 2009
NUJP statement on Erap's libel case vs PDI
Reference:
Nonoy Espina, NUJP Vice Chair, 09127196633

Estrada is shooting the messenger

Former president Joseph Estrada is barking up the wrong tree by including editors and reporters of the Philippine Daily Inquirer in the libel suit he has filed against taipan Alfonso Yuchengco, who claimed Estrada had forced him to sell his shares in the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

Yuchengco was backing allegations raised by Senator Panfilo Lacson in a privilege speech against his former boss.

It is unfortunate that Estrada has chosen to target the messenger instead of addressing the message.

What the Philippine Daily Inquirer did was simply to publish a factual report on a matter of interest, quoting one of the players in Lacson's expose. In short, it was simply following up on a story, and rightly so, since the truth or falsity of Lacson and Yuchengco's allegations could impact tremendously on a major sector of our economy as well as become another benchmark of the quality of governance in this country.

As reported by the Inquirer, Estrada, in filing his case, claimed Yuchengco's statements were not true and were only maliciously meant to destroy his reputation. We will not even argue his assertion for that is for him and Yuchengco to prove either way.

What we will dispute is his assertion that the Inquirer should not have printed the September 16 story because Yuchengco's statement was not a verified document because it did not have the businessman's signature.

Surely, as an actor and politician, Estrada realizes that his statements have been quoted probably a million times without the need for his signature, as many other public or even private figures involved in matters reported on by the press have been. Surely, there have been countless times when he has, in fact, sought media out to quote him on this issue or another. In this instance, in fact, media did seek him out for his side of the issues hurled against him.

And in this instance, it is not only media's right but, in fact, its responsibility to dig deeper into the allegations of Lacson since these involve matters of public interest. And who better to seek out than the very person Lacson claimed had been victimized?

It is, of course, not the first time the Inquirer has felt the wrath of Estrada. When he was president, he pulled out government ads from the paper in retaliation for its reports on his mansions and other issues of governance.

It is unfortunate that Estrada, who time and again has professed to be a victim of injustice, has not learned that the best and only defense in times like this is the truth, unless of course it is not on your side to begin with. Shooting the bearer of bad news has never helped. You may silence the messenger but the bad news will still be there to haunt you.

whose rights? whose wrongs?

The title of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance's (SEAPA) report says it all: Philippine Ombudsman tightens rules on release of statements of assets and liabilities of government officials.

With these rules, what is going to happen to the public's right to know?

Is the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth supposed to be confidential? The last time I checked it was a public document.

Are public officials supposed to be protected? From what, I wonder. And here we all thought they were supposed to be held accountable for their actions.

Kudos to Vera Files for their vigilance.

Read the Southeast Asian Press Alliance's report (SEAPA) here.

journalists in a 'peace-time democracy'

The "peace-time democracy" mentioned in the title of this post is the Philippines. Under normal circumstances, I would have cheered that my country was being called this. At today's presentation of the 2009 Global Impunity Index of the Committee to Protect Journalists, however, it is most definitely an irony -- considering that, of all the peace-time democracies included in the index, the Philippines ranks highest.

Overall, it is sixth in the index rating of 14 countries -- higher than Afghanistan -- with 24 unsolved journalist murders from 1999 to 2008.

Though the countries topping the list are those currently caught in armed conflict -- Iraq, Sierra Leone, and Somalia -- most that made the list are peace-time democratic countries. Aside from the Philippines, these countries are Russia, Mexico, Brazil (the only newcomer to the index), Bangladesh, and India.  

The index measures the number of unsolved journalist killings in relation to a country's population. As such, the Philippines has 0.273 unsolved journalist killings for every one million people.

an emblematic case

Impunity is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss."

The fact that the murders of journalists have gone unsolved shows the incompetence or unwillingness -- maybe both -- of the powers-that-be to do anything about them. But more than this, they encourage more killings. They send the message that if you're going to kill a journalist, you're going to get away with it scot-free.

The launch of CPJ's Global Impunity Index today was a way of marking the murder four years ago of Marlene Esperat. Esperat was killed in her own home and in front of her children. 

Though charges were filed late last year, the arrest warrants have not been served. 

The case has become "emblematic of the struggle against impunity," said Elisabeth Witchel, CPJ's impunity campaign coordinator.

just doing their job

Killing a journalist is the ultimate censorship. 

Most -- if not all -- of the journalists killed were playing watchdog in their own localities. And all but one journalist were based in small towns outside Metro Manila, which rarely get any attention from national media. 

The journalists were reporting on corruption and crime. They were speaking out against those who had misused and abused their power.

They were just doing their job. And they were killed for it.

What a thankless job it is indeed. 

If this is the kind of treatment journalists get at peace time, I would not want to know what kind of treatment they would get during a war. 

when the media are the message: looking back on the manila pen siege

On November 29, 2007, those who report the news became the news.

At last year's standoff at the Manila Peninsula between Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, and their men on the one hand, and government forces led by the Philippine National Police on the other, the media found themselves in the middle -- a sort of gray area where the reporter met the reported and became both victim and culprit.

For even as the reporters were teargassed and shot at along with the rebel soldiers after the PNP's 3pm deadline for leaving the hotel, they were among the more than 100 people arrested that day.

The Manila Peninsula incident not only raised many questions on the arrests and on the sometimes opposing sides the media and the government take, it also called attention to how journalists make judgment calls.

They were asked to leave the hotel by 3pm, but did not. A story was unfolding, and they had to be there to cover it.

What happened after the deadline is now known and has been the subject of many editorials, reports, debates, and perhaps most important of all, dialogue.

In a story by Newsbreak's Carmela Fonbuena last year, journalism professor and media ethics advocate Chay Hofileña pointed out that things could have been different:

[S]he expressed the belief that the media should have left the hotel as requested. She agreed that to leave an area of coverage was a reporter’s call, but she questioned the news judgment that was employed in this case. To her, the story did not merit extensive media coverage.

By the time the police requested the media to vacate the hotel shortly before the 3 p.m. deadline, Hofileña said that surely the reporters had already “enough” coverage for their stories. And because the incident occurred in a confined area, “chances of your reporters getting hurt are higher,” she added. “Is it worth putting your reporter’s life on the line? Was the story of such importance? My sense is it was not. There was no massing of people and there were only a few soldiers. It appeared that it wasn’t well organized. From the onset, as experienced journalists, you had an indication that it was doomed to fail.”

Of course it would have been a bigger story had Trillanes and his men succeeded. But the more important point here is the threat to the journalists' safety.

Fortunately -- and no thanks to the soldiers who later on sealed all exits and kept the reporters effectively trapped inside the hotel -- no one was hurt.

When the press conference turned into a war zone, the reporters didn't have to be there. But their being there didn't make them rebels. And it certainly didn't make them conspirators.

At the end of the day -- after the wet handkerchiefs, the smoke, and the handcuffs -- the media were there simply because they had a job to do.

How well they continue to do that job will rest on many things. One of these is how well they make judgment calls to secure their safety or to secure the story no matter what.

lessons learned

I haven't been following the Ces Drilon kidnapping as much as I would have wanted to. So when I came across this story on inquirer.net, I begin to wish I had.

Here is an excerpt:

(PNP Director General Avelino) Razon said that if there was any lesson from the kidnapping, it was also to properly exercise press freedom.

"Ang aral po dito laging sinasabi hindi natin puwedeng i-exercise press freedom na malalagay ang [The lesson here is we can't exercise press freedom by putting] reporters or journalists in harm's way, na hawak ng terrorista or criminal elements," said Razon.

Was caution thrown to the winds in this case? Was there a lapse in judgment? Was there a violation of trust, an unreliable source or contact?

As I said, I wasn't able to follow the case, so these are sincere questions, not mere rhetoric. My point is to learn from this, as any media analyst or observer -- armchair, virtual, or real -- would want to. After all, we all have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

What Razon said is simply another way of saying that no story is worth a reporter's life. Even if you're not a conflict or war reporter or correspondent, you would know this by heart or at least would have heard this enough.

But this begs the question: "journalist par excellance" or not, why, oh, why would anyone not a war reporter be sent into a war or conflict zone?

No story is worth a person's life.

"how was it?"

By now I'm sure everyone in the Philippine blogosphere has put in his/her two cents' worth about the kidnapping of ABS-CBN senior reporter Ces Oreña Drilon and her companions cameraman Jimmy Encarnacion and Professor Octavio Dinampo.

I must admit, I haven't been following it much so I don't feel I can really comment.

But yesterday, after seeing her press conference on TV, I felt like I just had to say something.

Drilon, Encarnacion, and Dinampo were held for more than a week by the Abu Sayyaf. When they were finally released, they had to endure a 5-hour hike in the hinterlands of Sulu to get to where "friendly forces" were waiting for them.

At the press conference, a tired-looking Drilon gamely and bravely answered questions.

And then one reporter asked: "How was it?"

"How was it?" Drilon repeated the question, leaning forward, eyes on the reporter.

Was that a deliberate pause? And was it me or did her voice -- and her eyebrows -- rise a bit higher than usual?

One can only imagine what the woman had just gone through -- the terror, the mental and emotional anguish, the dark uncertainty of having your fate in the hands of a group such as the Abu Sayyaf, not to mention the living, eating, and sleeping conditions.

And after all that, she gets asked: "How was it?"

In that slight nanosecond of a pause, I remembered the reporter who asked a child trapped in the rubble after an earthquake (or was it a landslide), "Anong nararamdaman mo ngayon (What are you feeling now)?"

Drilon could have come up with a dozen snappy answers (in the tradition of the MAD series "Al Jaffee's 'Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions'") for the reporter.

But to her eternal credit, Drilon remained silent. The reporter asked a follow-up question.

I forget what that question was, but it must have been a more appropriate question, as Drilon answered.

At the risk of getting some snappy answers myself, I ask:

Can't we have a little more empathy for the people we interview?

Aren't there more sensitive questions we can ask in such situations?

Aren't there more effective ways to get soundbites or quotes?

Aren't there better ways to get the story?

the catholic church as media practitioner

A report posted yesterday on the CBCP News site urges Filipino Catholics to support the Church's media apostolate, as Catholics everywhere celebrate World Communications Day tomorrow.

I don't know how aware Filipino Catholics are about the media apostolate of the Church. In any case, the report caught my attention because it is related to my master's project.

media and vatican II
Even before the Vatican II conference, the Catholic Church had already recognized the importance of media in their mission. It was only during Vatican II, however, that they issued their first official document on the topic -- the Inter Mirifica.

The document introduced the term "social communication" -- a catchall for any form of interpersonal communication. This included media, literature, theater, film, dance, music, and the visual arts. The term is broad enough to include the Internet and even SMS.

A follow-up document called Communio et Progressio established the Church's media apostolate. It recommended that the Church set up media offices and assign priests, nuns, and lay workers to manage these offices.

Today, one will find a media office at almost every level of the Church hierarchy -- from the Vatican to the smallest local parish.

In the Philippines, there is the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Episcopal Commission for Social Communication and Media, the National Office of Mass Media, and media offices at the level of the archdiocese and diocese. Different congregations own and manage their own media arms. The secretary of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences Office of Social Communication (FABC-OSC) also holds office here.

why a media apostolate?
In the above Church documents, there is recognition that social communication -- including media -- is necessary as a means to evangelize.

Undoubtedly, the Catholic Church wields influence in Philippine society. It is active in the lives of most Filipinos, who are baptized, married, and buried in Catholic rites. Its presence is felt in even the smallest and remotest barrios, where parish priests are respected members of the community. Churches are crammed with faithful followers on at least two days of the year -- Easter Sunday and Christmas.

Considering the pervasiveness of the Catholic culture in our society, is a media apostolate still needed? On the other hand, are Church-owned or otherwise Catholic media effective in their mission of evangelizing or of deepening the faith of Filipino Catholics? Do Filipinos read Church-owned newspapers and publications, watch or listen to Catholic programs, or visit Church-run websites?

"a choice"
Bishop Bernardino Cortez, who heads the Episcopal Commission on Social Communication and Media, described Catholic media as "a choice" that allows us "to be strengthened in our faith" in confusing times.

After all is said and done, this is probably the best way to describe Catholic media: a choice. Such a choice would not be available in other countries, particularly those where freedom of expression is not guaranteed by the constitution. The presence of Church-owned media is, at the very least, an indication that we are still a democracy. We are still free -- free to worship as we please, free to choose what we read or watch or listen to, and free to decide for ourselves which course of action to take.

mariannet's story

When the news about the suicide of 12-year-old Mariannet Amper first broke out, it seemed to be an open-and-shut case. After all, she came from a poor family; that's why she took her own life. She lived with her parents and brother in a tiny house without electricity and water. Her parents took odd jobs: Magdalena earned Php50 (less than $1.25) a day working part-time in a factory and washed other people's clothes on the side, while Isabelo did construction work. So poor were they that other kids in their community in Davao reportedly would not even play with her and her brother.

If not for Mariannet's diary -- a class project -- and an unsent letter to the television program "Wish Ko Lang" (How I Wish), the world would probably never have known what life was like for this little girl. Her dreams were simple -- jobs for her parents and an education for herself. Yet, for want of transportation money, she was unable to go to school; nor did she have a bag and shoes to use. 

So on 2 November -- All Souls' Day -- Mariannet took some nylon rope and hanged herself. End of story. End of life.

Or so everyone thought. Yesterday, the newspapers reported that Mariannet had been raped. And this most likely contributed in a big way to her taking her own life. 

But suicide is never a simple case. Especially if it is committed by a 12-year-old, whose life at that age is really just beginning. After all the finger pointing, the preaching, and the hype Mariannet's suicide has generated, how will the media now report the case? Poverty is not uncommon  in this country. Nor is it something you can hide. You can see it wherever you go. What about the sexual molestation of young -- and poor -- girls, often by people they know and trust? It's not uncommon either. The only difference is that the latter is a more delicate issue. It speaks of a deeper malaise. No one wants to talk about it. 

Mariannet's story has become darker, more sinister, yet no less common -- that of innocence lost and hopes dashed. How many Mariannets are out there, still hoping for a better life? Will their stories even be told?

faith in media

One night last week, I was chatting with my friend when he said, "Minsan iniisip ko... may naniniwala pa ba sa news? (Sometimes I think... does anyone still believe the news?)"

This intrigued me, so I asked him if it meant he doesn't read/watch/listen to the news anymore -- or if he knows anyone who doesn't.

He thought about it for a while, and said no.

But I knew what he meant -- and I knew he wasn't alone in his sentiment. It wasn't the news he doubted. It was those who report it.

various reactions, one thread
People's distrust for and disenchantment with media are rooted in many things. The feeling that traditional or mainstream media "just don't get it" is one. Sensationalized news is another. "Envelopmental" journalism and other corrupt media practices are yet another.

Filipinos' reactions to media are varied. We are enamored by media personalities -- thus those huge billboards with newscasters advertising the latest product or service -- or distrustful and wary of them. There are Filipinos who applaud journalists and media practitioners, and those who think that anyone with a press card is "dirty." Some have taken advantage of the media to gain mileage and influence. And others, regrettably, have gone as far as to silence members of the press to keep the truth from coming out.

In all these reactions, however, lies a common thread: the recognition that journalists and media practitioners function in the public sphere. Whatever information the media receive, whatever news they gather, is meant for the public. It goes out in the form of a news report or feature that is published or broadcast. The media act as our eyes and ears. They report to us a world that is beyond our immediate sphere of existence.

the need to know
The need to know what's going on in the world or even in our immediate circle is basic. We express this need whenever we greet one another by saying, "What's up?" or "Ano'ng balita?" -- roughly, "What's new?"

The mass media fulfill this need -- or are supposed to, at least. But if we are dissatisfied with the media, then we will increasingly turn to other sources of information and news. With the Internet, we can get news and information from more sources now than we had ever dreamed. And with mobile phones, we can get it much faster than we had ever imagined.

If my friend's sentiment is indicative of how majority of young Filipinos today regard the media, I wonder if faith can be restored. Maybe it's time to reexamine how the media do their job -- and even what job it is they're supposed to do. Otherwise, the mainstream media could lose their audience to the Internet and mobile technology.

she loves me, she loves me not...

As I write this, Asia News Network associate editor and former Bandillo ng Palawan editor-in-chief Jofelle Tesorio is free again.

She was released after some 10 hours in prison. Why was she even there, to begin with, considering that she had already posted bail?

love-hate relationship
This happened just a day after the newspaper headlines screamed that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was seeking the media's help in the last leg of her presidency. It makes one wonder about her relationship with the Philippine press -- a love-hate relationship, to my mind.

I still remember that infamous press conference that members of the Foreign Correspondents' Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) were banned from attending. FOCAP members observed that not even the late President Marcos did such a thing.

Then came Proclamation 1017, which placed the country under a state of emergency. Though it lasted for just a week, it was enough to create a chilling effect. The office of The Daily Tribune was raided, and a military presence was established in other media organizations.

change of heart
And of course who can forget the First Gentleman's libel suits against some 40 journalists last year? These were all magnanimously dropped after Mr. Arroyo's successful heart surgery in April this year. Looks like he had a sudden change of heart (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun).

But he wasn't the only one. On 15 June, the Philippine Daily Inquirer carried a story about the President promising "to end the killing of journalists and protect them from libel suits and arbitrary arrest." She also called upon all journalists to join hands with her administration "in mutual trust and common purpose so that all the violence will be stopped."

Since Ms. Arroyo assumed office in 2001, 51 journalists have been killed.

ask not what the media can do...
This is undoubtedly a president who knows what the media can do for her and her administration.

She is aware that the media can play a huge role in the downfall of a president, as it did in the case of her predecessor. She knows how relentlessly the press can pursue a story to uncover the truth, as what happened in the "Hello, Garci" affair. And she feels the watchful gaze of international media and human rights organization who are determined to make her administration accountable for infringements on the freedom of the press.

Is she now eager to show what she can do for the media?

relief
The Philippine press heaved a collective sigh of relief as Jofelle walked out of detention in Quezon City. Whether this relief is temporary and short-lived will depend on whether the President makes good her promise to put a stop to the killing, suing, and arresting of journalists.

Read more about Jofelle's arrest here.

two books

On 3 May, the Philippine media watchdog group Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) launched the primer Philippine Press Freedom Primer: Quick Answers to Your Questions at a forum on press freedom in Jakarta, Indonesia. The forum was organized jointly by the Unesco, the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia, and the Indonesian Press Council.

The book contains information on laws that affect press freedom, and the codes of ethics of the country's various press organizations. It should be a valuable resource for students, researchers, and even the general public.

Back home in Manila, another book was launched, also on 3 May. Blood on Their Hands: Infanticide in India and Other Stories was launched at the Diamond Hotel at the Konrad Adenauer Asian Center for Journalism (ACFJ) at the Ateneo de Manila University's Second Emerging Leaders in Asia Forum.

Blood on Their Hands can be described as a book of firsts: it is actually a compilation of excerpts from the Master's Projects of ACFJ's first batch of MA Journ students, and is the first in ACFJ's "Projects in Asian Journalism" series.

With these books, as with books previously published on the topic, it is hoped that the standards of journalism in the Philippines and in the region can continue to be both reviewed and upheld.

world press freedom day 2007

In 1993, the United Nations General Assembly first proclaimed 3 May of every year to be a day to celebrate the freedom of the press.

More than ever, these are dangerous times to be a journalist. According to the Unesco, the Iraq War has been "the deadliest conflict for media professionals since the Second World War" -- with 137 journalists and media staff killed in the line of duty since the war began.

Other circumstances, not only war, can present danger to journalists. Journalists are not spared from election-related violence, for instance. The ambush of PDI's Delfin Mallari, Jr. and DZMM's Johnny Glorioso is a clear example; more so, the murder of DZRB's Carmelo Palacios just the day before.

Even in "peace-time" Philippines, journalists are ambushed on the road, shot on their way home from work. Worse, they are killed with impunity in their own homes, in the presence of their families.

Anywhere journalists are killed for doing their jobs, thrown in prison from speaking out, or bribed to shut them up -- the press is not free. The irony is that anywhere these crimes are committed, the press is most needed.

Here's to a free press, and a free world!

dr. stephen quinn in manila

When Australian author and journalism professor Stephen Quinn -- who also happens to be our Convergent Journalism professor -- came for a brief visit in March, my classmate Erwin Oliva managed to squeeze in some questions on his ongoing projects and his take on technology in Asia and in the Philippines, in particular.

It was an interesting interview, with Dr. Quinn discussing "the future for journalism" in the Philippines. True to the concept of convergent journalism, the whole Q&A was captured on video via Erwin's mobile phone. Watch the full interview below:



With thanks to Erwin for letting me use this.

multimedia = multiskilled + multitasking

It sounds like a simple formula, but in reality, it’s probably anything but.

Much has been said and written about the waning interest -– especially of the younger generation –- in news or in reading newspapers. Multimedia journalism is a way of adapting to the changing habits of our audience. It is about providing a multisensory experience to an audience that wants or requires information quickly and more easily.

dumbing down vs. stepping up
Multimedia journalism caters to short attention spans. But this doesn’t mean dumbing down –- far from it. In my view, multimedia journalism is a way for us to meet the demands and expectations of our our audience. And they do demand more from us. After all, they are techno-savvy, more sophisticated, pickier about what they read or watch or listen to.

Therefore, venturing into this field of journalism requires us to step up to its challenges. It is expanding our skill sets to enable us to better engage the audience. Multimedia journalism helps us become better practitioners as well. And since we cannot expect a linear thinker to produce nonlinear reports, the more we can think like our audience and anticipate their needs, the better we can give them what they want or need to know.

multimedia journalism in the philippines
I was a bit surprised (to put it mildly) to learn from the UC Berkeley grad school of journalism that the sites of some of the major news organizations are not considered multimedia journ. For this reason, I don't think there's any Philippine media organization that has gone multimedia in the true sense of that word.

True, training is ongoing and equipment being upgraded. And that is a sign that we are heading in that direction. Maybe in a matter of months, we will see the practice of journalism evolving –- from shovelware and blogs, from merely making video and audio available in news portals, to real multimedia journalism.

It is not just about the medium and the technology. It is about changing our own views about news and about our audience, adapting to change, and being better equipped.

media redux

In my last post, I made reference to an ever-shrinking world. Convergence has made it so. The speed with which technology has developed and continues to develop is astounding. We have gone from wired to wireless in just a few short years.

Thanks to these technological advances, we have 24-hour cable and satellite broadcasts, podcasts, and streaming video to inform us of global events. While the Vietnam War was brought into American living rooms via radio, the Iraq War was pretty much played out on cable TV and the Internet.

Convergence has redefined not only the media, but more importantly, the field of journalism and its practitioners.

globalization
Behind the phenomenon of convergence is another buzzword: globalization. As trade becomes increasingly liberalized, goods, services -- even manpower -- move more freely and more quickly among countries and regions. Most recently, the global economy has made business process outsourcing, whether it’s telemarketing or medical transcription, a lucrative venture.

The impact of globalization on the media goes beyond technology. Media regulations are less stringent now, allowing for more competition both locally and internationally. True to economic integration, media companies buy out or merge with each other. This gives rise to the question of control. With ownership limited to a few big players -- those who can afford to go high-tech and incorporate telephone, broadcast, and Internet services -- the media are in danger of becoming homogenized in content and commercialized in approach (i.e. if it doesn’t sell, it’s not news).

a convergent philippines
Convergence is already happening in the Philippines. Local print and broadcast media organizations have gone online. In some cases, blogs even serve as significant news sources, as with the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) blog, which gets more hits than its institutional site, as reported in its anniversary blog post.

Another indication of convergence is media ownership. Our Constitution does not allow foreigners to directly own and control media, but about a month ago, reports said that opening media ownership to foreign investors was being considered to put local media “at par” with international media agencies.

As with other Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines must continue to keep up and take advantage of the technology available. Otherwise, it will be counted as nothing more than a consumer of technology.