EYE ON ETHICS

by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

COMMISSION on Human Rights Chair Leila de Lima has rightly reminded the media that Andal Ampatuan Jr., no matter how strong the evidence against him may be, still has rights, among them the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The clan that spawned him may not have accorded others the same respect, but he and his kin are nevertheless entitled to the rights, among them the right to life and to lives free from fear, they may have denied them.

Media people, some of them members of the National Press Club, waved photographs of the victims of the November 23 Maguindanao massacre in Ampatuan’s face, perhaps in the vain hope of seeing some indication of remorse from the stone faced warlord. But at least one photojournalist managed to hit him with his camera, in the process adding physical assault to the legitimate expression of media outrage.

One would hope that the camera emerged in better condition than Ampatuan, who is said to have suffered a concussion as result. But the media workers’ and journalists’ outrage was understandable. The killing of their colleagues last November 23 was not only the worst in the entire history of the mass media, it was also done with a brutality so exceptional that it defied understanding.

The ethics of journalism however, does support Chairperson de Lima’s reminder. Not only is the presumption of innocence among the principles journalists are expected to honor. They’re also expected to limit their outrage to the words that constitute the sword and shield of media practice, even as the admonition not to cause harm includes not only the imperative of minimizing harm, but a prohibition as well against physically attacking those one does not agree with.

Journalist outrage and energies are better directed towards rigorous examination of the factors that made the massacre inevitable. These factors include the system of political alliances and the institutionalization of electoral fraud that have made the coddling of warlords a continuing problem, in addition to the corruption that has doomed the areas of warlord rule to perpetual and worsening poverty. Providing the information and analysis the public needs to put the November 23 massacre in context so it may use its sovereign power to prevent future ones is a responsibility that rightly belongs to the media. It may cause harm, but only in terms of the exposure that information makes possible, rather than the physical harm that attacking anyone with a camera or any other handy piece of equipment inflicts.

A “right of reply” bill has been approved by the Philippine House of Representatives; a less repressive version is pending in the Philippine Senate. Nearly all Philippine media groups, including the major broadsheets and broadcast networks, are opposed to it.
_____________________________________________________________________

No one among those opposed to the Right of Reply bill on principle will argue that shoddy reporting doesn’t exist. There have been too many instances (in some cases involving media practitioners themselves who’re attacked by other practitioners) in which the right of reply, which responsible journalists must honor, is denied those who have been maligned in the media either through bad reporting, malicious comment, or both.

The right of reply is among the ethical principles reporters and other media practitioners, especially editors, should recognize and honor by, first of all, getting the facts right through multiple sourcing. Journalism is a discipline of verification, its very justification being accuracy first of all, which also demands fairness (presenting both or all sides) as well as balance (providing all sides in any question equal space in the case of print and equal time in the case of electronic media). Operationally, news stories try to achieve this by reporting the denial by someone accused of wrongdoing as well as the accusation. Opinion writers also need to at least provide the other side of the argument.

More »

Statement of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) on the Right of Reply Bills
_________________________________________________________________

Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr.’s sponsorship of the Senate version of the Right of Reply bill has moved some media colleagues to assume absence of malice in its intentions, although they don’t seem to have given Rep. Monico Puentevella, the main sponsor of the House version, the same credit. CMFR will not comment on the intent of either of the two bills, their consequences being far more crucial than their aims, whether these are the stated or the real ones. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions, and purity of purpose does not excuse the dire consequences of uninformed legislation.

Whether we’re talking about the Senate’s version or that of the House, by compelling editors to print what they may very well not want to, the right of reply bill will undermine the editorial prerogative of deciding what to air or print that’s at the core of the exercise of press freedom in the newsroom. And yet neither bill even requires proof of the need for a reply in terms of unfair or unbalanced press treatment. It is enough that an accusation or an innuendo has been made—whether by a source or by a journalist is not even specified—for the group or individual that was the subject of a story or comment to demand time or space within 24 hours in the case of the House bill, or within three days in the case of the Senate version. It doesn’t matter how much care editors have taken to be fair by printing or airing the other side according to the professional and ethical standards of good journalism. No proof to the contrary is required, and the medium concerned must publish or air, at the risk of fines, and/or imprisonment and the cancellation of franchises, the so-called reply within the time specified by the bills.

More »

Mr. Basorie teaches journalism at the Dr. Soetomo Press Institute (Lembaga Pers Dr. Soetomo, LPDS) in Jakarta, Indonesia.
____________________________________________________________________

The Maluku islands and Central Sulawesi, two provinces in Eastern Indonesia, were hotbeds of religious conflict from 1999 to 2004. Some sections of the Indonesian press have been partly blamed for fanning communal violence between Muslims and Christians through biased reporting. Although the hostilities between the two communities in the two areas have been contained, friction can resurface. The challenge for journalists is how to enhance religious tolerance in these conflict-prone regions.

The Dr. Soetomo Press Institute (LPDS) in Jakarta, in cooperation with the New Zealand embassy, brought 20 journalists from Maluku and Central Sulawesi as well as from the provinces of West and East Nusa Tenggara to the Indonesian capital Aug. 2008. In a four-day exchange, they shared experiences, hopes, and ideas on the appropriate approaches in reporting conflict and in helping to maintain interfaith harmony.

The practice of peace journalism was duly discussed. Traditional war journalism focuses on the conflict between warring factions but gives insignificant attention to the innocents caught in between. Peace journalism departs from this. It analyzes the conflict and explains its history in its political and social context to allow the public a deeper understanding of the conflict. Further, peace journalism also emphasizes the plight of the victims and the senselessness of the conflict. The intent of such reporting is to stop the conflict and bring peace.

More »