Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Kimberly C.

Villegas
Through the past years ever since the term journalism was coined, numerous
interconnected debates evaluating the role journalism ought to play in the society and how
journalists ought to act have constituted the major arguments within the field of media ethics,
much of which are engaged with one of the two defining theories of the Philippine press and the
very characteristic of American journalismthe libertarian theory. Such debates have raised
arguments that take the side of objectivity as the key method to obtaining and delivering the
truth.

On one hand, our journalistic landscape also adopts the social responsibility theory,
which lies between Authoritarian and Libertarian traditions and is more commonly known as
advocacy journalism. This is underpinned by the creation of the Philippine Journalists Code
of Ethics ratified during the April 30, 1988 annual convention of the National Press Club of the
Philippines and the Broadcast Code of the Philippines 2007, which are willingly adhered to by
Filipino journalists since then.

Assessing the recent issues born out of the aftermath of the supertyphoon Yolanda
involving Filipino journalists seem to revolve specifically around the context of how journalists
ought to do their practice and is intrinsically linked to the meaning of news and its role in
society. Thus, we have to trace our paths back to the mechanics of the theories that characterize
our journalistic landscape to critically evaluate the issues.

This is particularly applicable to the recently momentary special attention given to ABS-
CBN broadcast journalist Atom Araullo for his brave live coverage of the storm surge aired
right before the communication lines were cut. The video showing Araullo reporting along the
street right in the middle of the storm surge went viral and earned a lot of positive comments
from the viewers especially the netizens who even labeled him as the local Superman. He was
right there in the middle of the street, holding his microphone while doing the live report, with
the roofs flying over him and the exceptionally strong wind bending the trees down and almost
carrying him away. Chances are anyone who sees the video would instantly call him a hero for
that. It was obviously dangerous, and who wouldnt be amazed by that?

The coverage appeared to be very heroic to most of the people who have seen it that
some had even compared Araullo to the other three news correspondents from GMALove
Aover, Jiggy Manicad, and Micaela Papawho were also there in the ground to report live as
the destruction occurred and have covered the same intensity of storm surge like Atom had. The
only difference is that Atom have braved to go outdoors while his team stayed inside during that
particular moment and did his live report right there while the storm was actually destroying
everything around and the sea water was about to step onto the pavement, while the three stayed
under a safe roof and the camera facing outside. The questions now are, first, does that make him
a better journalist than the other three? Second, can we say it was an ethically job well done or an
unnoticeably publicity stunt?

This has nothing to do with channel biases whatsover but first, I honestly dont think
Atoms coverage made him a better journalist than the other three news reporters from GMA.

First, I dont think Atom was any better as a journalist compared to Love Aover, Jiggy
Manicad, and Micaela Papa for merely planting himself outside the safe building along the
pavement while the storm was hitting hard. Some may ask: if it did not, then what caused his
video coverage to go viral and earn positive comments, for there has to be something with it that
made it sensational? One thing that I can surely point out as the major reason is simply because
the dangerous live report made Atom appear really brave. I agree with that, for it takes a lot of
courage to risk your own life. The debris and the roof carried away by the strong wind may cut
any of his body part at any moment! But then again I would like to repeat, why do so when a
safer spot is equally conducive for an equally accurate live report?

In this particular context, the spot where the reporter is literally standing does not affect a
single bit of the news report, but could merely either increase or decrease the attractiveness of
the video coverage itself because of the brevity of the reporter to stand outside while the storm
was blowing debris around. That was indeed brave, but I dont think it was enough to say he was
a better journalist for doing that.

Brevity can be a measure of good reporting in another news assignment of its sort, that is,
if not venturing into a particular spot or place will affect the quality or the content of ones news
report. An example is a news report about an armed conflict in a specific area. Of course, it takes
a lot of courage for a journalist to come to the area of armed conflict as close as possible to get a
good shot of the occurrence and be able to describe it way better as it unfolded right before his
own eyes. However, it is way too different from the context of the Yolanda coverage, of Atom
for this matter. Whether he goes out of the building or stays inside, a similiar view he will have,
hence a similar quality of coverage. Not a single fact will be distorted nor would bring any
change to the news content. Thus for me, the viral video coverage is not enough to say that
Atom is a better journalist than Love Aover, Jiggy Manicad, and Micaela Papa. Above all, he is
safest inside the tall building, underneath its stable roof. So, why risk your own life when you
can opt to stay in a much safer place with your team and still both get a good shot of the actual
scene from inside the building as it unfolded and describe the intensity of the destruction, in a
clearer way even?

I hope what I have said was not gotten wrong. I, too, found something special with the
exceptional video coverage of Atom Araullo, which is his plausible brevity, and it is indeed
enough to earn peoples special attention and go viral. However, again, it shall not be a measure
of whos better as a journalist. For me, in this particular matter, the only legit measure of whos
better as a journalist is the content of the news itself. The thing is, all four of them have reported
the same facts and observation of the storm surge. Therefore they all have equally done their jobs
well. Now the ultimate skeptic question I would like to ask is, will he do the same dangerous act
if he does not happen to be a broadcast journalist, that is, his coverage will not be aired with a
video but merely via audio report? I think the answer is obvious, and it underpins the things I
have said earlier on. Moreover, it raises another question implicitly linked to media ethics.
For I certainly believe that the only thing that set the coverage of Atom Araullo apart
from the other three journalists mentioned was the formers display of brevity,which I also
fully believe has got nothing to do with the content of the news itselfwhy then did he choose to
do so?

I have mentioned earlier that our journalistic landscape assumes its climate between two
theories of press, the libertarian and the social responsibility. Thus, despite the spirit of
liberalism, Filipino journalists have a culture of willingly submitting themselves to the
provisions of the established code of ethics and other official codes. With this, evaluating the
issue we have at hand with official forms of ethical codes as reference is absolutely legitimate.

The Oxford dictionary defines industry as an economic activity concerned with the
processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories: a particular form or branch of
economic or commercial activity. Any commercial activity, as we all are aware of, involves
techniques that will help make people buy the service the industry offers. After all, the goal is
for the business to keep going and growing.

The ninth provision of the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics states: I shall not take
unfair advantage of a fellow journalist. In other words, journalists shall not seek to deprive
fellow journalists of their livelihood by unfair means. Though this code of ethics is particularly
applicable to newspaper journalists, it suggests that media, apart from being an authentic source
of information, is generally accepted in our country as an industry run primarily by the owners
with individual journalists as laborers working within the corporation. Such provisions found in
official Filipino journalist codes of ethics give liberty to media practitioners to compete but in a
way that will not adversely affect the news content and the society that consumes it so as to
protect the real essence of journalism. As such, it is important for and accepted in a broadcast
journalist to use techniques that will add up both to his and the companys image, attracting more
audiences in the process.

In the case of Atom Araullos news coverage of supertyphoon Yolanda surge, I would
outrightly say that it is a publicity stunt. Journalists hate to admit that media is an industry no
matter what, and every task is a business. Of course, what kind of an audience would get
attracted to patronize a news program that outrightly seeks the understanding of the public that
they are still an industry at the end of the day and behind the passion for writing and delivering
news for the public is the desire to keep the business going? That is why media companies would
never admit it. I am not in favor of journalism as a pure business and I do believe that to be a
journalist is to be a responsible mediator of news, but it is inevitably a business. I hate to
generalize, but observe for yourself.

In a larger view, the issue is not about media ethical disobedience whatsoever. There was
nothing unethical with his live coverage, for not a single provision of the Broadcast Code of the
Philippines was disobeyed and the exhibition of brevity did not in any manner distort the facts.
What I am arguing is that the video coverage of Atom Araullo is not heroic in a journalistic
sense. I am not saying that Atom has been doing journalism for the sake of business ever since
he entered it, nor do I say that his mere act of staying in Tacloban to let the public know what
was happening is not driven by his passion for public service. Rather, I am pointing out that in
this very particular issue, the dangerous act that he have done in his news coverage of
supertyphoon Yolanda does not make him a better journalist than Aover, Manicad, and Papa,
because his brave act of reporting live outside on the pavement as the storm surge was at its peek
did not bring any additional information to the news itself, but merely made his live coverage
sensational.

Another issue involving journalists that spurred various comments is the verbal tussle
between CNN broadcast journalist Anderson Cooper and ABS-CBN broadcast journalist and
senior news correspondent Korina Sanchez. The issue triggered an avalanche of hate comments
against Sanchez, others took the side of AC. However, there were also criticisms that surfaced
against Cooper, saying that his reports were merely coming from the perspective of a first-world
country person. It was a dizzying maze of critical opinions and a mix of comments governed by
emotions, raising questions engaging the media ethics, moral values, and political issues.

Opposing opinions from netizens and citizens started coming when the annoyed Korina
Sanchez criticized Cooper in her morning radio show Rated Korina over dzMM for his mali-
mali news reports about the aids to victims moving too slowly and disorganized Yolanda
aid efforts. The day after it, Cooper immediately answered back Sanchez criticisms, claiming
that he only reported what he actually saw and urging her, as the wife of the countrys Interior
Secretary, to fly to Tacloban and see for herself.

First off, one thing for me is certainthe seemingly virtual catfight of Korina Sanchez
and Anderson Cooper did not actually drift away the attention of the people from the Yolanda
aftermath, in fact, it made people probe deeper into the issues embedded in the aftermath and the
difference of the perspective of a first-world country person and a third-world country one.

Evaluating the issue brings us back again to the debates in media ethics, particularly in
the role of news in the society and the notion of objectivity. Both the American and the
Philippine press are inclined to using the objective method of gathering and disseminating news
to achieve the ultimate goal of journalismto deliver the truth. Objective reporting is described
as a reporting that is detached, unprejudiced, un-opinionated, uninvolved, unbiased, omniscient
and infallible. This is exactly where we can start the process of evaluation.

To begin with, I do think that Sanchez criticizing the reports of Cooper without even
seeing the actual situation herself strongly suggests that she was protecting the government, for I
do think that she, a senior broadcast journalist, realizes how risky it is to give a commentary on
an issue that she has no concrete knowledge about and has never witnessed herself. And whether
she admits it or not, being the wife of the Interior Secretary greatly prevents her as a broadcast
journalist to view and report things objectivelydetached, unprejudiced, un-opinionated,
uninvolved, unbiased, omniscient and infallible.

Both countries from which Sanchez and Cooper come from are adherent of objective
journalism, however, the former belongs to a journalistic landscape that also tends to adhere to
social responsibility theory that has a strong sense of public sympathy. Moreover, Article 2 Sec.
7 of the Broadcast Code of the Philippines 2007 states that, Personal bias or prejudice shall not
be allowed to distort the facts. Thus, looking from the perspective of a Filipino journalist,
Sanchez was absolutely unethical.

Now, one may argue that though Cooper was personally there witnessing things happen
right before his own eyes, there is no guarantee that he would cover them unsubjectively. But I
argue, for what certain reason will then Cooper do the coverage subjectively? What benefit will
he gain for lambasting the rate of government aid for the victims? I dont think it will bring
him higher television rates, for either he reports it objetively or subjectively, the fact that he was
the first foreign broadcast journalist to fly to Tacloban and do a coverage is already a plus factor
for the show. Thus I dont see any reason for him to play subjective.

suspect that CNN reporters are viewing this through the eyes of a first-world citizen, with
an assumed framework of infrastructure and an expectation of certain service levels. I suspect
these are expectations that we would have never met, even in the pre-typhoon days.

I do recognize that although Cooper wont choose to be subjective, the first-world man in
him intrinsically comes out. Cooper even compared the Fukushima earthquake/tsunami tragedy
with the Tacloban Yolanda aftermath, which some suspects is viewed through the eyes a first-
world citizen. But then I also argue, why is that Korina Sanchez colleagues Ted Failon and Noli
de Castro who were also there in ground zero have reported the same aids to victims moving
too slowly and disorganized Yolanda aid efforts?












Sources:
Berry, David. 2(008). Journalism, ethics and society. Burlington, VT. Ashgate publishing
company. 157pp.
Tuazon, Bobby. (2007). Bourgeois Journalism vs Alternative Journalism in the Philippines.
Bulatlat. Vol. VII, No. 10. Retrieved from http://www.bulatlat.com/news/7-10/7-10-
journ.htm. Jan 1, 2013
Zamora, J.D.N. (2008). Clubbed to Death? A Historical Study of the National Press Club of the
Philippines from 1986 to 2007. Unpublished thesis, University of the Philippines
Diliman.
Webster's universal english dictionary
Blanco, Eunice. 2013, November 14. Korina Sanchez reacts to Anderson Coopers 'mali-mali'
report. Philstar.com. Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2013/11/14/1256607/korina-sanchez-reacts-
anderson-coopers-mali-mali-report January 2, 2013
Buelva, Alma. 2013, November 14. Anderson Cooper reports on govts failure in Tacloban.
Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/anderson-cooper-reports-on-
governments-failure-in-tacloban/ January 2, 2013

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi