By JUAN L. MERCADO, juan_mercado77@yahoo.com
Seventy six national
and community newspapers will gather for a two day Philippine Press
Institute conference on “Media Accountability and Public Engagement.
President Benigno Aquino will key note this two day meeting.
Discussions will
include sessions on a Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
presentation on an “Asian Media Barometer”, “Self-Regulation” to
“Reporting the Environment”.
It promises to be a
useful exercise. Far too many today take liberty of expression as a
constitutional given, “constant as the northern star,” Shakespeare
would write.
This was not always
so. In fact, a free press had to be fought for every step of the way
from World War II resistance papers to the “mosquito press” that
struggled against the Marcos dictatorship’s gag. That, too, remains a
“constant.”
“When you do battle
for press freedom, don’t put on your best trousers,” old editors tell
their cubs. But we’re also craftsmen with abbreviated memories.
“Baby-boom-ers” in our
newsrooms never saw Juan Ponce Enrile’s photocopied arrest-and-seizure
orders. Few recall how Metrocom troops padlocked the Manila Times and
Manila Chronicle as well as various radio stations.
The name of columnist
Antonio Abad Tormis, who was the first to be gunned down for exposing
corruption in Cebu rings few bells in the young. Tormis’ killing
foreshadowed today’s body count. Since 1986, over 130 journalists have
been murdered. In a “culture of impunity,” no one has been called to
account.
“The Philippines is in
danger of becoming the new Colombia as one of the world’s most
dangerous places to practice journalism,” the International Federation
of Journalists warned in 2003.
Just last Tuesday, the
Committee to Protect Journalists published in New York, it’s 2012
impunity survey. A dysfunctional justice system wedges the
Philippines, third among the four nations, failing to nail journalist
murderers. The other three “black sheep” are: Iraq, Somalia and Sri
Lanka.
Journalism students
learn, early on, the law shields reporters from revealing their
sources of information. But who recalls that five newsmen chose jail
in the 1950s, rather than finger their news sources? Congress
thereafter wrote into the books “journalism’s most inflexible rule.”
Joaquin “Chino” Roces
and Teodoro Locsin Sr. didn’t flinch when the dictatorship seized the
Manila Times and Philippine Free Press. Marcos claimed this ensured
“press responsibility.” That “New Society” excuse was a patent fraud.
Sadly, it resurfaced
in bills, filed, to legislate right of reply, already a recognized
duty in our Code of Ethics. If enacted into law, this would convert
government into editors.
Failure, by some in
our ranks, to curb “abuse of press freedom as a marketing strategy”
would be compounded by government intrusion – minus military jackboots
– into a constitutional no man’s land.
The media meanwhile
basks complacently in these liberties. The Philippine Press Insitute
conference reminds us that “we drink from cisterns we never built; and
we reap from vineyards we never planted.”
The People Power
Constitution, indeed, guarantees a free press. “Liberty is the right
not to lie,” Albert Camus reminds us. Thus, the flip side is: The
press itself should guarantee a fair – and a perceptive – one.
That task demands
unflagging dedication to standards for daily truth-seeking, a grueling
task in a society of skewed privileges. Here, “the powerful extract
what they want and the poor grant what they must.”
New technology’s
ever-accelerating speed renders the job more complex. Google’s News
Frontpage, for example, is “rematted” every 15 minutes worldwide. And
the fax, cellphone and e-mail have loosened traditional editorial
oversight.
“Cadres of people who
pronounce” deafen us with unedited bombast. “Visual tv soup” spills
from tar-and-feather exercises, dolled up as legislative probes.
Police blotter-type reporting is applied to complex issues to
democratic survival.
As a consequence, lies
are re-cycled in print or aired without challenge. This is journalism
of unedited assertion.
Media do not operate
in a vacuum. We live in a “constrained democracy.” Institutions
rebuilt from Marcos’ scorch-earth rule remain frail. They’re
constantly besieged by power-seekers, through “coups for rent” or
systematic smearing.
Have our
constitutional reflexes so atrophied, we glamorize junta builders? And
why are we so superficial? Are we addicted to the soundbyte, rather
than substance? Do we prefer the obvious instead of reporting
“deep-running currents? Corruption in our ranks?
And what can we do as
the country stumbles into what will be probably the most bitter
election of this century?
Those called to the
“priesthood of journalism,” Nobel Laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez
insists, must examine ourselves. Do we measure up? The call is for
balance. We all need perspective. What advances the common good – not
what entertains – should command priority.
Journalists who come
after us will also need cisterns of press freedom. We too, must
replenish that for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment