EYE ON ETHICS

The author is a recent journalism graduate.
_______________________________________________________________________

Journalists are either the most passionate or the most masochistic individuals on earth, preferring to live the hectic and stressful life of deadlines and controversies instead of simply going with the flow.

I remember writing this line when asked by my school paper to come up with welcome remarks during our paper’s anniversary. That was no less than six months ago, when I still believed that journalism is all about passion and dedication to the truth.

After less than half a year covering the business beat, I have finally seen the ugly side of the trade. The corruption in the media my teacher used to warn us about apparently has many faces, and I have seen most of them in my beat.

I remember a conversation I had with a fellow business reporter on why people choose to stick with journalism despite the low pay. According to her, the “veteran” reporters choose to stay for two reasons: either they have already gotten used to the job (the flexibility of time and workplace) or because they simply can’t live without the perks.

Indeed, perks are what we have in the business beat. Unlike in the other beats—the police beat for instance, which I once covered—the people we report on have millions and millions to share to the media. As a business reporter, my main responsibility is to write about corporate developments, which include new projects and company partnerships. My first encounter with what’s called “smiling money” in Philippine journalism circles—meaning money meant to keep journalists predisposed to reporting positively on the giver—happened when I covered an out of town event involving the opening of a company’s new hotels in several provinces.

On our way home, one of the reporters discreetly handed me a very thick envelope which turned out to contain P5,000 worth of gift certificates (GCs). I remember his words: “No strings attached. It’s just a sign of goodwill from the company.” Surprised, I went to the company’s media relations officer and handed him back the money.

A week later, I covered another event involving another company. The media relations officer did the same thing. This time, however, she refused to accept the envelope she had given me when I tried to return it. The envelope contained P2,000 worth of GCs.

Once back at the office, I surrendered the envelope to our editorial assistant (a practice my journalism professor taught us when I was still studying). Before the day ended, however, she approached me to say that “Ok lang ‘yan. Tino-tolerate ‘yan dito basta ‘wag lang cash (That’s alright. The company tolerates it as long as it’s not cash).”

Not sure what to do with the GC, I approached my immediate editor and told him about it, to which he said, “walang clear rule about GCs. Maapektuhan ba niyan pagsusulat mo (There is no clear rule about GCs. Will it affect the way you write)?”

Confused, I told my editor: “Hindi po ba GCs are equal to cash (Aren’t GCs the same as cash)?” My editor looked at me intently and again asked, “Will it affect the way you write? If not, that’s ok. Companies are really like that.”

There is no point enumerating the number of times I have received GCs. To date (and in less than six months of working with the media), I have already accumulated more than P30 thousand worth of GCs from various companies whose media handlers either put them inside our press kits or give them to us directly.

But the perks on the beat do not always come in the form of cards worth thousands of pesos in various items. They have other faces.

For instance, there was a company that gave us cellular phones, to which my editor’s only response was: if it is something that you can afford for yourself, then that’s ok. Since the paper I work for pays some of the highest salaries in the press community, I could afford it. Did that make it ok?

My conversations with my editor on the ethics of accepting GCs and gifts, and the way reporters accept them at the end covering an event, made me realize the kind of culture business reporters live in.

True, unlike in the police or political beats, it is very seldom that one will encounter any negative or critical story, or controversies for that matter, in the business beat, which usually involves only writing about corporate developments. True, unlike in government beats where the money comes from the taxes of the people, the GCs come straight from the pockets of rich, private individuals who every year allot a budget for the media. That’s how business reporters rationalize accepting GCs or gifts. After all, as most business reporters will tell you, if it won’t affect the way one writes, then that’s’ ok.

Such rationalizations show how journalists have become willing victims of unethical practices. The practice of accepting “smiling money”—in this case “smiling GCs”—(media watchdog Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility defines this as cash given to reporters for no particular reason except to create goodwill between the source and the journalist) does affect the way one writes. It’s actually a pay-off for a positive story, and predisposes the payee to being as positive the next time.

The worse part about it is that some reporters end up being so grateful they try their very best to come up with stories that would please the benefactor even if there’s really nothing newsworthy about the event to which they’ve been invited. Some reporters wonder why some news sources outrightly declare that to make sure reporters attend a press conference, they’ll be serving lunch and distributing press kits as inducements. They forget—or don’t want to remember—that they’ve brought this kind of contempt on themselves.