More guidelines for broadcasters

More rope to hang them with.

I’m glad it’s come to this, that the enemies of Freedom dare to write the Rules they want to impose. We must re-establish the Rule of Law by taking these things at face value and reducing them to the absurdities that they are. The minds behind this are transparently mediocre and naively self-contradicting.

Like fish in a barrel thinking they own the ocean.

let’s assume for the moment that the NTC can legally provide the guidelines (arguable, of course; my stance is they can’t — they can only regulate frequency assignments, not content. media classification is essentially an MTRCB job).

i asked this in the shout box:

“Whereas, the KBP shares the government’s concern that the coverage of troop movements are highly sensitive in nature for reasons of national defense and national security, and should thus exclude information that may identify the location of the troops or provide/show identifiable land marks, give troop estimates, identify troop personnel, or their destination or direction…”

fine, do not disclose troop movements and locations of government troops. what about rebel troops? legal principle that inclusion of one means exclusion of others, right?

another one:

“Whereas, the NTC supports KBP’s strict injunction for broadcast stations not to allow their facilities to be used for advocating the overthrow of government by force or violence, and to not allows the broadcast of materials which tend to propose/incite treason, rebellion, sedition, or pose a clear and present danger to the State…”

was this injunction held valid to June Keithley and Radyo Bandido in 1986?

sorry, was being facetious. my real point, however, is what if it poses the recall of an official, but not the entire government? what if it’s a clear and present danger to a person’s incumbency but not the existence of the state as a collective entity? valid or invalid?

another one:

“Whereas, the supervision of the broadcast and cable TV industries by government or through self-regulation by the broadcast and cable industry themselves calls for the thoughtful and reasonable discretion, and featly at all times to the observance of due process.”

won’t “supervision by government” be a guise for prior censorship?

another one:

“All broadcast media and cable TV entities must conform to the abovementioned guidelines.”

are solely-cyberspace-based media considered broadcast media? are personal bloggers considered broadcast media practitioners?

seems like somebody isn’t doing enough homework or prep work.

“The reiteration in effect means that the vague restrictions imposed after the proclamation of the state of emergency on February 24 are still in effect even if the proclamation has already been lifted.”

Are you sure about this interpretation? May I ask who interpreted this as such? I do not see any mention nor reference to Proclamation 1017 in the NTC circular.

While I do agree that the overall effect of this circular is to send a “chilling effect” on the broadcast media especially after the events of these past few weeks, I do not think it prudent to give greater “teeth” to a circular that in essence is merely reiterating previous guidelines set by the KBP, which is still the de facto self-regulating body of broadcast media.

At best, I would simply take this as a “reminder” of the duties and responsibilities of a broadcast media practitioner vis-a-vis national security: a legitimate concern of any state in a society that enjoys constitutional protection of press freedom.

In other words, I don’t see any curtailment of press freedom here folks.

more from NTC MC 01-01-01:

“(5) All radio broadcasting and television stations shall provide adequate public service time; shall conform to the ethics of honest enterprise; and shall not use its stations for the broadcasting and/or telecasting of obscene or indecent language, speech, play, act or scene, or for the dissemination of false information or willful misrepresentation, or to the detriment of the public health or to incite, encourage or assist in subversive or treasonable acts.

“(6) All radio broadcasting and television stations shall, during any broadcast or telecast, cut off from the air the speech, play, act or scene or other matter being broadcast and/or telecast, if the tendency thereof is to propose and/or incite treason, rebellion or treason, or language used therein or the theme thereof is indecent or immoral.

“In addition, the airing of rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, interviews, information and other similar and/or related materials shall be prohibited.”

they’re talking radio broadcasting and tv, they’re talking airing. the inclusion of one excludes all others — does that not mean cyberspace is unregulated?

secondly, i’ll bet that a televised interview of a magdalo faction member, Gregoro del Rosal (landmine a__hole), an MILF member, et cetera will be construed as “the airing of rebellious/terrorist propaganda”, even if it’s straight news.

at any rate, rule (6) was already violated by the administration itself. “All radio broadcasting and television stations shall, during any broadcast or telecast, cut off from the air the speech… being broadcast and/or telecast, if the tendency thereof is to propose and/or incite … rebellion…”

“I made a grave lapse in judgment… I am sorry.”

’nuff said.

i’ve read the KBP circular. i think it means that items A.3a to A.3g should be taken together in context, not separately.

a news organization cannot say “an anonymous source et cetera et cetera,” but can say “a Palace official speaking under condition of anonymity et cetera et cetera”

the statement in the post above says “But one controversial and vague provision states that ‘news from anonymous sources is not allowed.’ It adds that ‘news sources must be clearly identified, except when granted confidentially’ ”

a quote above says ” ‘Now, the state is banning the use of “anonymous” sources in broadcasting news reports. Who will now come forward and talk to newsmen, and give leads to newsworthy stories? Isn’t this suppression of press freedom of the highest order?’ ”

both seem to non-sequiturs, if the context of provisions A.3a to f are taken together and not separately. the provisions aren’t vague, i think.

ms. avigail, pcij journalists, a comment, if you would.

nakup… mga where.. ass nanaman.. pd 1017 might be lifted folks.. but a shadow pd 1017 is still in effect..

He added: “Now, the state is banning the use of ‘anonymous’ sources in broadcasting news reports. Who will now come forward and talk to newsmen, and give leads to newsworthy stories? Isn’t this suppression of press freedom of the highest order?”
.. mismo… yung baho ng administrasyong ito wla nang makaka alam.. one day ul wake up to a bankrupt nation.. were already bankrupt morality wise.. now pati pera wala na din… beware..

There is no need for this because legit news agencies I believe practice the freedom of speech responsibly. Although there are bad apples. But the news can be easily verified. And a news item is not the same as a commentary or editorial. The question is on what basis will they determine news items that: “tend to propose/incite treason, rebellion, sedition, or pose a clear and present danger to the State.”? What are the standards? Jester has a point there. A reminder of duties and ethics of media? Yes, but there are other ways. As I’ve said, no need for such memo circular.

Shinbrouken, the restrictions remain in place because the NTC circular issued after PP107 (which invoked earlier NTC circulars issued at the height of the 1989 coup) asks broadcasters to put off the air speech which “tends” to incite to sedition, etc. The NTC has not defined what kind of speech has this tendency. As broadcasters have been asking, can airing Cory Aquino asking GMA to resign be interpreted as inciting to sedition? At the moment, ANC is being questioned for airing Col. Alan Querubin’s statements at the height of the standoff at Fort Bonifacio the other weekend. If broadcasters don’t know what will get them into trouble, then the guidelines are nothing but vague. And if, as NTC says, these circulars remain in force, despite the lifting of the state of emergency, then the end of PP1017 has no impact on broadcasting restrictions.

Jester-in-exile, it is not clear from the KBP guidelines whether those provisions should indeed be taken separately or together. This is why the post above cites the provision in the PPI Code which says that as a rule, anonymous sources should not be used, but if they are, then the following should apply… The provisions in the KBP Code may seem clear to you, but it can be interpreted in different ways by different journalists. We even had arguments about it within PCIJ. What does it mean to say that “news sources must be clearly identified, except when granted confidentially.” Does this mean that named sources must be clearly identified (e.g. Col. Alan Querubin, commander of the 1st Marine Brigade in Lanao del Sur), while confidential sources need not be so clearly identified (e.g. a Marine officer? a military officer? a colonel stationed in Mindanao?)

I have no problems about policing the wanton use of anonymous sources, or indeed, of any other abuse of media freedom or violation of media ethics. The problem begins when the NTC, a government agency that has the power to revoke broadcasting licenses, endorses certain guidelines, thereby raising the possibility that it could use its powers to police those in the media who trangress these guidelines. The vagueness and uncertainty of this situation makes it difficult for broadcasters to operate. Do the provisions on anonymous sources, for example, include showbiz shows? Will Lolit Solis or Boy Abunda be held to account for relaying the latest, unsourced showbiz gossip?

If the NTC endorses the KBP’s reissuance of certain provisions of old guidelines, does this mean that the NTC can use its powers to hold broadcasters responsible for violations of the KBP Code? If so, what does this make of self-regulation? If these guidelines already exist, then KBP only needs to educate its members about them. Why does the NTC need to enter the picture? Why does a government agency need to have a say on what is essentially a self-regulated industry as far as ethics and reporting guidelines are concerned?

ABS-CBN is specially responsible for it.. pati text lang ginagawang realiable source of information..

For me, media should not express there views, the’re merely a conduit of information, gossips or not, they should not judge the veracity of the information.. dami na kasi silang malitang balita.. takip-bibig naman sila pag nabulgar na mali ang information nila.. kung may sentinsya lang doon… death penalty na yata sila….

dami naman uto-uto na nakikinig.. akala totoo lahat balita…..

after all said and done, pagmali ang information nila.. kahit ano pa gawin nila.. sira na ang buhay na tsinismis nila…. so sino ngaun ang biktima.. ?

dapat lang nag mag control sila kasi mayroong rin karapatan ang mga tao na protektahan ang kanilang dangal. media isnt safe anymore.. if you want somebody destroyed.. pag may cellphone ka.. solve na problema mo…maraming mediamen na handang ihayag ang tsismis mo lalo na pag sikat ang kalaban mo..

There is an outlet for the “tsismis”, or whatever some journalist wants to air, it’s the opinion and column sections of the media. As long as it within the quidelines of responsible journalism, which every journalists should know about and the writer should assume responsiblity for his/her works and made its readers aware that his or hers are his and hers alone. And of course be ready to and face the consequence of libel and slander lawsuits. you don’t need these unnecessary regulation, but instead a general guidelines of Ethics and Responsiblities. Journalism is Profession of Highest Order. Together with responsible media, they are both the great source of reliable news, fair information of advertise products, a variety of differing opinions where the general public could form their own based on their analysis.
And ofcourse Entertainment.

Sheila,

Truthfully, NTC and MTRCB has always been in the picture. Self-regulation is sort of like, “under the watchful eye of the NTC and MTRCB”

There is even an NTC requirement for broadcast stations, both radio and television, to keep 2 week-recordings of their broadcast if in case the government needs it for review. If broadcast was truly self-regulatory, there would be no need for this requirement. Actually, it’s self-incriminating for broadcasters to do this but it’s always been the case. I’ve always found this not just wrong, but ridiculous. Government should do their own monitoring if they want to.

The big picture is, broadcast let government in a long time ago…self-regulated or not. Now might be a good time for broadcast to reassess their self-regulation status.

Aking Panginoon,
Huwag po sanang magkaroon ng madugong rebolusyon sa Pilipinas. Hindi po tama na parusahan ang mga nagnakaw at magnanakaw sa bansa. Si Ferdinand Marcos at ang kanyang asawa ay walang ninakaw na Billion dollares. Ang kanilang mga anak ay walang alam sa mga bintang na ‘yan at hinding hindi sila makikinabang sa mga tinatago daw nilang pera…ito lahat ay kasinungalingan.
Ang bansa po namin ay hindi naghihirap dahil sa kanila. Hindi po sila ang ugat ng aming problema. Hindi po sila ang nag lason ng konsensya ng maraming Pilipino. At ang kanilang mga kamag-anak at kaibigan ay wala na pong ginawa kung hindi tumulong sa kapwa nila Pilipino. Hindi po sila sakim at nang-gugulo, para po sa bansa ang kanilang mga balak. Kumu-konti na po ang mga naghihirap sa bansa kanya huwag po sana silang mapugutan ng ulo ng taong bayan.
Uunlad po din ang Pilipinas sa lalong madaling panahon sapagkat ang mga trapo’t mga mayayaman na pamilya sa bansa ay hindi po nag-sasabwatan para sa kanila lamang. Ginagawa po ang lahat ng mga naging presidente namin magbuwat nung 1986 para ma-ihahon ang mga walang trabaho’t mga walang makain.
Aking Panginoon hindi po pare-pareho ang mga officiales sa bansa. Huwag po sana ninyong pabayaan maparusahan ang korupsyon. Ang inyo pong sariling anak na si Jesus ay pinabayaan n’yo pong namatay para po malinis ang dumi ng mundo. Siya po ay nagdusa. Sana po huwag mangyari sa Pilipinas ang sacrificiong dinanas ni Jesus Cristo ‘pagkat malinis na malinis po ang aming bansa.

points noted, ms. sheila.

to the best of my knowledge, NTC has no jurisdiction over the content of a broadcast. they are basically limited to, say, the frequency range used, the output power of the transmitter, and so on. that makes it seem strange that the NTC, tasked with licensing broadcast equipment and their capabilities (as opposed to the MTRCB, tasked with judging the airworthiness of broadcast content, usually defined by the current head’s moral standards).

i think the obvious conclusion is to use the “inappropriateness” of content to withdraw a station’s license. (talk about belaboring the obvious; anyway…) still, i don’t think there’s any guideline actually allowing NTC to do that to a broadcast station without hearings and suchlike, and the grounds specified lean towards use of language inappropriate for radio broadcasting.

see, if one looks at its background, the NTC’s roots begin in middle of the crystal-pipe radio era, long before tv was brought to our shores, the era when radio was the primary source of news (like Ed Murrow of the BBC during the Blitz in WWII, PEFTOK reports during the Korean conflict, etc) and entertainment (radio dramas were the rage long before Mara Clara was conceived). thus, there are NTC guidelines on broadcasting effective for radio but are not as easily done for television (say, for instance, the classification of cable TV as broadcasting in the same category as network TV, but that’s another story). one can call it the lack of forward-compatibility… one can look at the current Radio Code and see why.

MTRCB can be considered a relatively new development made for television and film.

which brings me to this juncture: even IF — which i feel should be contested — IF the NTC can revoke licenses of stations based on whoever’s judgment that a broadcast was seditious, both radio and television, the NTC, to the best of my knowledge, has no set of guidelines to govern cyberspace journalism…. their only fall back are the guidelines set by the KBP, NUJP, and other journalism groups for their own members.

heck, it can even be argued that Justice Holmes limit to free speech doesn’t apply in cyberspace.

i’ll end with these: 1) NTC’s basic jurisdiction is over technical aspects of radio and TV, some degree over radio content; 2) NTC can only revoke licenses via a long-established procedure of successive hearings; 3) MTRCB has jurisdiction over television and film content, but classification, not editing (read: censorship); 4) no government agency thus far has control over the Filipino bit of cyberspace; 5) no laws enacted thus far can apply directly to statements made by netizens of the blogosphere (but there are legal precedents in Singapore) — talk about enforcing such laws as well; 7) for as long as journalists remain responsible and professional, no government agency can very well issue them guidelines (how the heck will a press remain independent, being beholden to someone for content?); 6) the KBP et cetera should clarify their own guidelines so that everyone knows what they are (for all you know, one could be on the news, in a manner not in keeping with journalistic principles — a question: would a journalist group aid a private citizen victimized by a member journalist? what form of aid would that be? would it include legal aid, or perhaps appearing as witnesses in a libel/slander suit? what sanctions can one expect be handed down to the said journalist?)

pasensya na po, late night. too woozy to think straight heh heh

Thanks for your comments Sheila. However, I must still beg to disagree with your opinion that NTC Memorandum Circular No. 01-03-2006 is an “extension” of media controls implied by Proclamation 1017. The circular is saying nothing new, and is in fact, explicitly reiterating guidelines ALREADY in place prior to 1017.

As to ANC’s being questioned about their coverage of the marine standoff, I believe this is justified, given that fact that the ones calling for the administration to step down are members of an armed group. An armed group calling for the stepping down or overthrow of an administration is quite clearly an act of inciting to sedition, even rebellion. The fact that they are bearing arms constitute a real (or if you are feeling more like Tom Clancy, “CLEAR and PRESENT”) threat against the administration, and under these circumstances, the latter may be justified in implementing measures to contain this threat.

In other words, kung may isang taong may hawak na baril na nagsabi na papatayin ka niya, ang tendency ay paniwalaan mo siya, kesa sa isang taong walang baril ang nagsabi nito, simply because the man with the gun has the means to immediately carry out his threat.

The key words here are “overthrow of government by FORCE and VIOLENCE.”

Cory Aquino calling for the resignation of GMA is not a treasonous or rebellious act taken in and by of itself. However, if she had been allowed to rendevous with Col. Querubin’s troops in Fort Bonifacio, then that call for resignation MAY become treasonous when taken into context that she now has the backing of an armed group. Her call, now takes on the shape of a THREAT, by virtue of the clear and present danger that the weapons of the marines constitute.

There is clearly a fine line between airing an OPINION and airing a THREAT. I don’t think that our media practitioners will have any difficulty distinguishing between the two. UNLESS of course, their intent behind their coverage is in fact to espouse the overthrow of government.

Malinaw ang mensahe ng NTC: maging responsable tayo sa ating reporting dahil buhay ng estado ang nakataya dito.

Anyone familiar with the Ecommerce law and related legislation? I just noticed that the 12.5 minute Propaganda Video on Proc. 1017 is hosted at the palace website as two links: one at http://www.gov.ph itself (legit, i guess) but another points to http://www.macapagal.com (clearly a private site!). Doing a TouchGraph GoogleBrowser probe on that site, it is pretty clear that site is a creation of the government, probably funded by it too since it’s radius 1 relatives are the office of the President and various palace website. A lil online graft and corruption, maybe? Minor crime really but check it out…links on my site also…

Shinbrouken,If you asked any broadcaster before the events of February if he or she knew that the guidelines from 1985 and 1989 about speech that “tends” to incite to sedition still prevail, you would have been given a blank stare. Those guidelines were reissued after PP1017 with a clear intent to warn the media and cast a chill on their reporting. The fiction is that they are harmless and merely reinforce existing practice. The vagueness of these guidelines remains, even in your explanation. How does one draw the distinction in the midst of live reporting? How does one second guess what the NTC or the police will interpret as “tending to incite to sedition” ?

The point is this: the NTC does not have the right to impose restrictions on media coverage. Only the courts do. Our constitution says “no law shall be passed abridging freedom of the press.” Any guidelines are an infringement on our constitutional right. Only the courts have the mandate to decide whether the media are guilty of inciting to sedition, based on existing law.

I recognize abuses in the media. But frightening them into compliance will not result in better reporting, only in obsequious journalism. We need to strengthen media self-regulation, not ask the NTC or any other government body to tell us how we should practice journalism.

ms. sheila,

“I recognize abuses in the media… We need to strengthen media self-regulation.”

statement: there are media abuses.

statement (paraphrased): journalists/ journalism outfits are self-regulated.

off-topic question, sorry, but i do have to ask: how do journalists perform reparations to those whom they’ve hurt, in the spirit of self-regulation?

see, i’ve never believed that retractions/ errata truly work. libel cases are third-party decided (courts being the third party between the journalist and the injured party) and take ages, and the burden of proof is on the victim, for him to prove malice and what-not. what if there was no malice, yes, but the story was bad enough to change the victim’s life for the worse?

see, it is the front-page story that stays in the mind of the reader, not the section B18 erratum. i’ve never even seen a retraction made after a gross error in print (even if via third-hand i’ve seen a victim of shoddy reportage that damaged said person’s reputation), much less in broadcast media (same issue).

can/ do/ will an erring journalist’s peers make him make just reparations to his victim? or will the victim have to rely on the courts (third-party judgment doesn’t seem quite self-policing to me).

mind you, i’m not attacking the corps, not with the high respect i accord professional practitioners of the craft. i do want to know how the feedback loop of works if a person is injured by a member of the corps, in keeping with the idea of self-policing and self-regulation.

off topic, i know. i can wait for another blog post.

shinbrouken,

“As to ANC’s being questioned about their coverage of the marine standoff, I believe this is justified, given that fact that the ones calling for the administration to step down are members of an armed group.”

no different from live interviews of the milf, npa, abu sayyaf, et cetera. it’s news, it’s not propaganda. it’s propaganda when questions are leading, when a slant is being made for or against someone, and so on.

shoving a camera and microphone into a person’s face and letting him speak freely, without the reporter editing, coaching, clarifying the words for the audience, that’s just good reportage.

okay, maybe not the shoving part. apologies to broadcast media practitioners, i think that doing so is rude towards your interviewee.

“I cannot contend that I have always been right or wise, but I have attempted to pursue the truth with diligence and to report it even though, as in this case, I had been warned in advance that I would be subjected to the attentions of Senator McCarthy.

We shall hope to deal with matters of more vital interest next week.”

- Edward R. Murrow

jester-in-exile

that was excellent, the first (your) comment
on the guidelines;
a lackadaisical congress by default had
given immense powers to bloggers
and cyberfighters of press freedom.

somebody should explore the limits
of blogging and other roads in
the information highway and tell us how we
little indians can be ferocious Geronimos.

Thanks again Sheila.

My rebuttals are as follows:

First, ignorance of the law excuses no one. As professional and licensed media practitioners, it is the responsibility of a broadcaster to know the limits of coverage based on already existing guidelines set in place by the KBP. The courts will not take unfamiliarity with your own professions’ guidelines as an excuse for committing a breach of those same guidelines. Bakit ka pa naging brodkaster kung hindi mo alam ang mga patakaran na kaakibat ng trabaho mo? Hindi ba’t bahagi ito ng mga requirements ng pag-issue sa iyo ng licensiya ng KBP/NTC? Kaya nga’t may oath kung saan sinasabi mo na “I solemnly swear to abide by the established rules and regulations set by my profession” di ba?

Second, I already mentioned that it is relatively an easy matter to distinguish from someone who is airing his/her “differing” opinion against the state and someone who is airing a threat. The basis of course, is whether or not the statements made are within the context of a “clear and present” danger to the state.

Malinaw ito. Hindi ba’t pumasok rin ang gobyerno para kontrolin ang reporting tungkol sa airing ng statements ng grupong Abu Sayyaf? Dahil ang armadong grupo ito na may malinaw na kakayahang maghasik ng karahasan laban sa estado. Ganun din sa kaso ni Col. Querubin.

Ang dapat na itanong ng isang broadkaster sa kanyang sarili tuwing na-nag-ko-cover ng grupo na nag-i-isyu ng statement laban sa gobyerno ay: may kakayahan ba ang grupong ito na gumawa ng karahasan sa estado? At kung oo, ang pagbibigay ko ba sa kanila ng air-time ay makakatulong pa sa pagpapatumba ng estado?

Third, yes, I agree with you that the NTC, as a government entity, SHOULD not have any power to impose guidelines on media coverage, by virtue of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. However, broadcast media is a special case because of their use of airwaves for their broadcasting. The use of airwaves or radio signals is a government regulated activity, i.e. the government has the right to issue liscenses to those who wish to use the country’s airwaves, based on guidelines on the use of those airwaves. Which is the reason for the NTC’s existence.

If the NTC believes that the use of airwaves is contributing to a clear and present danger against the state, then it may be justified in revoking the license of the one using those airwaves.

Finally, we come to the real heart of the matter, which is media regulation. My undergraduate thesis is precisely on media self-regulation, and through my research and interviews with the two established self-regulatory bodies in Philippine media (the PPI and the KBP), I found out that it is exceedingly rare for these bodies to impose sanctions against their practitioners for breaches of conduct/guidelines.

Given this track record, you can begin to understand why the government takes steps to regulate media, even if it means hovering on the cusps of unconstitutionality.

I wholeheartedly agree with the principles behind a free press. However, I also strongly believe that the burden of proof for maintaining that freedom lies with the media itself. If the media cannot show responsibility for its broad freedoms then you can be sure that someone, whether it be from the government or private sector, will move towards restricting that freedom.

In fact, it has already begun, even before Proclamation 1017. If you would look closely at the proposed revision of the constitution made by the Consultative Commission (link here: http://www.concom.ph/), one word has been added to the entry on freedom of speech. The term “responsible” here, may look innocuous enough. But it in fact holds the key towards stricter government controls on media. Who determines what is “responsible”? What constitutes irresponsible use of freedom of speech? You see my point?

I hope to add to a clearer perspective on the issues involved, both for myself and for those interested.

“Malinaw ito. Hindi ba’t pumasok rin ang gobyerno para kontrolin ang reporting tungkol sa airing ng statements ng grupong Abu Sayyaf? ”

pero nung panahon ni erap, where every week ini-interview ng media (PDI, Philstar) si kumander robot giving them media millage, ayaw ng media na sumunod sa media blackout request ni erap.

bakit dati ayaw nila mag-cooperate, pero ngayon sunod sunoran na sila?

sheila?

shinbrouken,

“Ang dapat na itanong ng isang broadkaster sa kanyang sarili tuwing na-nag-ko-cover ng grupo na nag-i-isyu ng statement laban sa gobyerno ay: may kakayahan ba ang grupong ito na gumawa ng karahasan sa estado? At kung oo, ang pagbibigay ko ba sa kanila ng air-time ay makakatulong pa sa pagpapatumba ng estado?”

i find myself sort of agreeing. however:

among the basic tenets of journalism are objectivity and nonpartisanship. if what a journalist does or does not do favors only one side of the story, then i would be justified in saying that his sense of fairness is shot, and that he is not a journalist and is rather a propagandist/ PR guy.

i get reminded of imelda marcos’ saying that “truth is good and beautiful”, when justifying that only good news (especially that crafted by the regime) should be published. heck, truth can be downright ugly. not reporting or severely censoring stories of, say, the abu sayyaf, denies the people information. who are they? what do they want? why do they do what they’re doing? what can we do to help stop them?

information is power, and power ultimately belongs to the people.

i agree with you that the media has to “show responsibility for its broad freedoms”. heck, i want to know what excesses were committed by the media in the recent past and how the media took responsibility for them.

no point calling for truth, justice, and freedom for others when one cannot practice it himself.

ms. sheila, i do hope you’re bearing this out.

Sheila, if you were to judge the press freedom issue today, would you say that Arroyo is worse or better than erap in that issue? sinong mas garapal?

and if you going to review this old 2000 article of yours about the problems the press are facing then, anong idadagdag mo at anong babaguhin mo?

one other thing, this is not the first time the arroyo admin has harassed the media.

bottomline is, as what senator joker arroyo said, media cannot be regulated. imagine the US govt. banning journalist from airing interviews or tape messages of bin laden or al quida. or banning CNN & BBC from exposing abuses of the military from Iraqi prisons or Guantanamo bay. these are all threats to its national security. but we will say this is phils. yeah, where the likes of glue-ria, the gonzalesses, defensor, bunye heads the govt. the writings on the walls are very clear.

“Last week, Senator McCarthy appeared on this program to correct any errors he might have thought we made in our report of March th. Since he made no reference to any statements of fact that we made, we must conclude that he found no errors of fact.

He proved again that anyone who exposes him, anyone who doesn’t share his disregard for decency and human dignity and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be either a Communist or a fellow traveler.

I fully expected this treatment.

The Senator added this reporter’s name to a long list of individuals and institutions he has accused of serving the Communist cause.

His proposition is very simple: anyone who criticizes or opposes Senator McCarthy’s methods must be a Communist.

And if that be true, there are an awful lot of Communists in the USA.”

– Edward R. Murrow

I AM glad that we are debating media ethics. But this debate can go on endlessly. Let me reiterate my point: the existing Codes of Ethics suffice to cover all our concerns. Check out the expanded code of the Philippine Press Institute’. As many among you agree, the NTC has no power to police broadcasting content. But by issuing or reissuing those guidelines, it is obvious that the NTC believes it does have that power. I guess that at this point, only the courts — not us — can decide whether the NTC exceeded its authority by issuing those guidelines.

The problems that accompany a free press — sensationalism, corruption, the tendency to be fast and loose with facts — have been with us since 1986. These problems are by no means unique to the Philippines, but exist also in other places, especially where there has been a transition from a controlled to a free press. The solutions to these problems lie in upholding professional and ethical standards. This burden lies on the shoulders of media companies, professional organizations in the media, and individual journalists. For sure, existing self-regulatory bodies do not suffice. But given our experience with the MTRCB and martial-law era regulations, neither have government entities been successful in curbing media excesses.

Education, training, dialogue — together with more rigorous self-regulation and a public that demands better reporting — are the solutions. There is no quick fix These processes take time. Even if you close down several radio stations today, the remaining ones will not necessarily be more responsible in their reporting (because they would need more training, more education, more skills — all of which cannot be obtained overnight)). They will not be more ethical or better skilled, just more afraid.

Well said Sheila.

One of the main ideas behind a free press is to contribute to the free flow of goods within the marketplace of ideas. One way of strengthening our institutions (and this includes the media) is to keep alive public debate on the issues involved. This is the true essence of a healthy democracy.

The day we become afraid to air our views is the day democracy truly dies.

so do you support or not support proc 1017, sheila?

Sino kaya sa panig ng media ang papabor sa 1017???

Ke matino o hinde, hindi sila papayag diyan…

Got Bad News…Just published Legal Commentary by Alan Paguia…Proclamation 1021 Does Not Lift the Military Rule Portion of Proclamation 1017. Legally speaking we are under military rule and that is why these things are continuing…GMA’s has them covered legally.

ms. sheila, i’m curious: granting that government entities been not been successful in curbing media excesses, how have existing self-regulatory bodies given justice to individuals already injured by media excesses? i can understand how upholding professional and ethical standards of journalism protects the public from media excesses by preventing such occurrences.it’s just that i can’t quite see the corrective aspect.

to use an exaggerated analogy: peace officers keep the streets safe for women to walk at night. however, there are times when a woman gets assaulted. now, the courts can’t get a woman unraped, but the courts can make the woman’s abuser serve jail time as punishment and doubtless pay damages as well.

so, media companies, professional organizations in the media, and individual journalists all have published standards of ethical behavior (such as the blogger ethics in this site). these standards keep us members of the public at large safe from excesses. however, i don’t see the means by which the KBP, the NUJP, et cetera give justice to victims in the event media excesses are committed.

i do hope it isn’t the same as “i am sorry.”

But I didn’t see PCIJ take a position on the Mohammed Cartoons as an issue of Press Freedom. How do we expect solidarity from other countries when we don’t seem to really understand the fundamental principles — until they hit US on the head? Now we cry foul, now we realize how subtle is the phrase Responsible Journalism

[...] If you think 1017 is over, think again. PCIJ posts on the NTC’s guidelines for broadcasters. [...]

With apologies to Pastor Niemoller (Germany, 1939):

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist
Then they came for the DANISH CARTOONISTS
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Filipino Journalist
Then they came for the Daily Tribune
and I didn’t speak up,
because I work for the STAR.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

“Just a plea, for principled consistency”

Rizalist,

off-topic to pero just a question: how the heck did u name yourself RIZALIST?
care to elaborate?

Indiot,
I suppose I could ask you the same thing, but the reason is purely religious. . Yet, my identity is no secret–
Rizalist and I

indiot, rizalist is dean jorge bocobo.

[...] The petitioners asked the court to immediately issue a "certiorari and prohibition with application of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" against the respondents. They also asked the court to nullify NTC circulars that, they said, were "vague" and left "virtually unlimited discretion" to those administering the regulation. [...]

ta3, d ako magpapasakal sa gobernong bulok na to

Jester, The KBP imposes various sanctions, including fines and dismissals, for erring broadcasters. Read the KBP’s Radio & TV Code. The PPI has a press council that accepts complaints, mainly for failure to give the “right to reply.” Newspapers are asked to publish the PPI’s judgment and to make amends in terms of providing equal space to aggrieved parties. Some news organizations have internal Ombudsmen to look into these matters. There are also letters and complaints sections in newspapers and many broadcast media groups have interactive websites where readers can forward complaints. For sure, these self-regulatory mechanisms lack teeth. Beyond these, however, there are the laws on libel and defamation and invasion of privacy and those aggrieved can sue in court for redress. There is therefore a range of possible options that can be resorted to by those who feel the media have maligned or been unfair to them. In a crunch, I would say err on the side of freedom.

[...] Memorandum Circular No. 01-03-2006 of the National Telecommunications Commission is very interesting. [...]

Let me share with you something that one of the reporters covering our beat said to us once when we asked them why they boycotted one of our presscons due to the fact that the late Secretary Blas Ople, through no fault of his, gave the same presscon in Malacanang.

“Hindi niyo ba alam na we (referring to the media) have the power? You have no choice but to give us information! We are protected! Responsibilidad ninyo na ibigay sa amin ang impormasyong hinihingi namin!” And then goes on to lament how the Malacanang corps beat them to the story that’s SUPPOSED to be theirs, by virtue of their beat. That it was Secretary Ople’s fault that they boycotted his presscon.

I’m a graduate of Journalism myself. But I shuddered to think that some of our reporters now have the mindset that since press freedom is protected, that gives them the RIGHT to obtain information from you.

Blame it on lack of education? Maybe. But then, in order to become a journalist/reporter nowadays, don’t media outfits look for academic credentials first?

I know that before, journalists like Ka Blas were dropouts, but they went on to become some of the country’s best journalists, by virtue of their experience in being on the field.

So I don’t think its a matter of lack of education from the part of our media practitioners. There’s enough of that coming from the field itself.

The problem is lack of morals and ethics, and the means of effectively enforcing them on media practitioners.

Power begets abuse, and absolute power tends to be abused absolutely. Is Press Freedom absolute? Certainly not. But the fact that the burden of proof lies on those who question it (and the relatively small number of successful libel cases prospering in our courts) certainly gives it a feeling of being absolute.

I wrote a piece once (which I will no longer print here). I titled it “The Tyranny of Media”. That the title is an oxymoron was not lost on me when I wrote it. In fact, that was the subject of the entire piece: how something that’s supposed to safeguard our freedoms sometimes end up abusing those freedoms at our expense.

Alam niyo ba na ang dami sa amin ang takot magpa-interview sa media? Natatakot kasi sila na baka ma-misquote yung sasabihin nila. O ibang angulo ang paratingin ng media once i-publish/broadcast na ang interview.

I remember having the darnedest time trying to get someone authoritative to speak on an issue, simply because he/she is afraid of being misquoted.

Are these fears unfounded? I’m afraid not. See I too have been a victim of misquotation once. And the problem is, once you’re misquoted, there’s no way to fully retract the effects of that misquotation, even though an errata is issued.

That is the problem with media: once they say something, people will tend to believe it, whether or not the statements issued are true. Like I said, the burden of proof commonly lies with those who question the media.

Does this mean that we should completely do away with Press Freedom? Certainly NOT. Then there would be no venue for us to air our grievances!

Ang gusto ko lang ipa-abot sa ating media ay yung kupas na linya ni Uncle Ben: “With Great Power, comes Great Responsibility”.

By the way, do you guys think it was lost on Stan Lee when he wrote these words that Peter Parker is also of the Press? Just something to think about.

No use debating on this matter, I pity the NTC as it would surely suffer the same fate as the PNP. SG Benipayo said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of PP 1017, that the PNP acted on its own when they raided the Tribune, dispersed rallies and conducted warrantless arrests. Malacanang never ordered, “DAW” these actions. Ganyan din ang isasagot ng administrasyon, they never authorized the NTC to monitor the media. In the end, they’ll be another scapegoat of this government. Kawawa talaga ang ating mga institutions na patuloy na winawasak ni GMA.

shinbrouken,

“That is the problem with media: once they say something, people will tend to believe it, whether or not the statements issued are true. Like I said, the burden of proof commonly lies with those who question the media.”

in the case i know of, a student who was arrested (erroneously) for something (drugs or something, i forget which), was portrayed in a TV newscast as a criminal. having watched a recording of the segment, but not knowing the student personally, i can tell you that the segment reeked of tabloidism and sensationalism.

the student and his folks complained to lots of people, but nothing happened. no apologies, nothing. they weren’t even given the courtesy of an erratum. they were ignored.

it ended there. they were told by their lawyer, “remember, in the absence of malice, there is no libel” or something like that, and they were told that the case wouldn’t prosper.

the kid got traumatized to the point he had to switch schools; even then, he has to live with the stigma (school authorities often refer to the newscast, unfairly of course).

“The problem is lack of morals and ethics, and the means of effectively enforcing them on media practitioners.”

i agree completely.

The bottomline is, the public remains the sole judge of what is proper and improper, balance or unbalance news. The government has no business controlling flow of information, otherwise we go back to stone age.

The state has laws to protect itself from all sorts of malicious attack. If the government find any broadcast material seditious or “pose a clear and present danger to the State” , then haul the originator/broadcaster to court.

The problem arises however when the public servant pressume herself as the state.
In my understanding,state is the people, the public servant is never the state.
Thefore a public servant, let say the president cannot claim to be the state. If her/his performance is questioned or critized it’s her not the state that is being attack. Because it’s obvious that the state cannot lie, cheat and steal for her.

To my mind the NTC did not act on its own,. its being used by
Malacanang in support of PP1017. When government agencies and institution are used to prop up an incidental person, disguise as protecting the state, what’s next? Saan tayo pupulutin, kung papayagin
natin ang ganitong sitwasyon? Can we move on when government institutions has been compromised?

God must be testing our patience, vigilance, courage, trust, perseverance, kindness, and forgiveness.

Gloria declared, ” I believe that I am here now because that is the plan of God for me and for us” Wow, NUTS ENTERTAINMENT!!

[...] Media groups, including the PCIJ, have filed petition before the Supreme Court to restrain government authorities from muzzling the media. They particularly asked the court to nullify NTC circulars that prohibit the airing of materials which "tend to propose/incite treason, rebellion, sedition, or pose a clear and present danger to the State." [...]

[...] It also criticized the move by the NTC “to impose censorship through the subterfuge of imposing guidelines” on broadcast media. [...]

[...] the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 11-12-8 and Memorandum Circulars No. 22-89” (SOURCE: http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=702)Oct 17, 4:32 PM — [ Edit | Delete | Unapprove | Approve | Spam ] — About 5.      Katrina [...]

[...] from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s blog’s post’s comment thread, posted by Sheila Coronel: Jester, the KBP imposes various sanctions, including fines and [...]