Blood smears of the lens

Discourse of Media Coverage on hostage crisis

By: Nikko Norman C. Izar

The nostalgia of horror and drama during the Jun Ducat and the Manila Pen Siege resurrected from its
memorial grave when the week jumpstart with a tragedy brought by former high ranking commissioned police
Rolando Mendoza hostage a tourist bus.

The 11-hour hostage drama has been a complete package of reel-to-real dealing the character’s of the
story and whom to pin the blame. From morning before the end of the day, the people from the actuality (by
stand mongers) and the viewing public have been thrilled to know what would be the resolution to the said story
of agony of a police and his rage to the Hong Kong and Chinese tourists.

Looking closely to the event will discern a “domino effect” of such incident to the country’s
picturesque and even an immediate clasp to the state, national security and media’s role and sufficiency to
provide a remedy for the tragedy. The story has been the talk of the town, everyone flock and geared with their
insights and personal buttress to express their views to the said event. The death of nine people is the worst
consequence of police incompetence and media insensitivity last Monday.

This paper will analyze how the media relinquished its role during the hostage crisis. Using experts’
insights and analysis of the event, the paper will prove a justification as to what media do and failed to do
during the hostage crisis. This paper will also provide scrutinized justifications by citing the main points of the
faults of media during hostage crisis.

Scoop mentality: Immediacy over relevance and risks

The fundamental criterion of such coverage and responsibility is not to make an already bad situation
worse. The hostage crisis is too dangerous and sensitive since it involve lives. The media must not put into
practice that protocols have to be observed or even ignorant from the event itself.

The self regulatory regime and the freedom of expression as well as the shield law seem to be the
fortress of the media to exempt themselves from determining the values and liability of their action. However
the responsibility for social welfare is to minimize the harm and not just covering the story for the public. The
media should prohibit the continuous coverage to further residing the issue and not inflammation it.

The hostage crisis has been a “real package” and actuality wherein subjects are victims and there is an
antagonist whom was raged and any time will kill a victim. The media on its haste and realization of their
private priority chose their own pace to make and remake the story out of its fatal pedestal. Here the “scoop
mentality” has been incense for the media to pursue covering and do beyond of it without any precautionary
measures of the possible effect. Media chose immediacy over relevance and risks that the crisis might bring. A
spectacle wherein the media failed to give way to the police and the state to relinquish its role. Neglecting such
idea is too dangerous to the lives of the hostages. Assumption of the “might” is rejecting the entire vulnerability
of the event not thinking that any time lives might be taken.

The three leading stations abused the roles of the media as they capture the event with their cameras
giving a picturesque of a drama abducting people into a “mediated reality” and “an event that was staged”.
Canned, ready to serve and spoon-fed. These stations were afraid to be “out scooped”.

Self-positioning on the tragedy; report or being reported?

Another mistake is the media as a negotiator, doing an interview from replacing the power of the police
now a subject of the story. It is wrong to interview the hostage for the following reasons. One is that the
interview will cause “an accomplice like” action since it was aired live. Next, the negotiating is a rejection of
psychological attributes that the hostage taker might render. Loss of control, impatience might occur. Moreover,
the hostage takers might see his/her enemy which will provoke for further demands or false reactions. Lastly,
the media were “interviewer” accord to purpose of information retrieval and not “negotiator”. Here the
networks exhibit a very obvious failure of submission to the police and to the state’s response or even make fun
with the police and making them a great contributor of making the event worse. As a result the police were also
included on the “black lists” of the public.

Interviews weren’t just the case but also the airing and coverage rules. The unpredictability of the event
must be noted and taken into a big point of view. The media savvy is too poisonous that it made the coverage
infested. Live airing will trigger the event since the TV on the bus will shows the movements and plans of the
police. The anticipation of the hostage taker (whom is also a police) further prolongs the crisis. Given that idea
will bring us to the driving point of ignorance especially when the arrest of Mendoza’s brother was aired on TV.

Turning tragedy into a package of spectacle

Preoccupied mind of the networks made them report the “who-did-what-to-whom-when-and-where”.

Too much of the details are given some were relevant but most of it are embellishments and gift wraps to make
the story appeal. Unnecessary detailed reporting resulted dangerous because they divulged details from tactical
to trivial; details that may have incensed the hostage-taker or compromised the operations of the Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. The media continued airing sensitive incidents.
 “I don’t know if the media were aware that whatever they were reporting was getting to the hostage-
taker and, therefore, was likely to provoke a reaction. I don’t know if they were aware of that. If they
were, they should have known better,” said Luis V. Teodoro, deputy director of the Center for Media
Freedom and Responsibility and former dean of the U.P. College of Mass Communication, in an
interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Forgotten or never recognized?

In crisis situations, rule number one for media is to report with restraint, especially when reports are
broadcast live. The stations blow-by-blow coverage made the saga continued. Turning the tragedy into a
spectacle, into a show where everyone can flock and mock about it. The inept police and hysterical media made
a bungle clash that made the hostage crisis a bloody ending.

According to the National Union of Journalist in the Philippines, much of the guidelines have to be
examined and be implemented to make the coverage even more useful rather than a spectacle and trivialized.

In addition, Journalist teacher Luz Rimban calls for introspection into when live coverage is really
needed. Live coverage is a must in situations such as the disaster that Typhoon Ketsana caused in record floods
in 2009, when media had to report the extent of damage and identify where help was needed. However, the case
is entirely different from the covering of a typhoon rampage. Here the public service was rejected over the blast
of news reports.

Most guidelines in covering crisis situations were forgotten during the Aug. 23 hostage drama, points
out Red Batario, Asia-Pacific coordinator of the International News Safety Institute, which provides safety
training for journalists worldwide.

'Everybody was so caught up in drama. They were trying to outdo each other to get the better shot and
break the story first,'…should have considered that by airing live they could have endangered lives,
including their own.'-Red Batario

Moreover, Vergel Santos of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility added that the media
naturally proceeded to position themselves as close to the action as they could: it's a professional frame of mind.
From holding the camera now, holding a simulated gun ready to fire when there’s a new story to tell. Some top
officials at the scene were 'scarcely heard from or seen taking command, effectively inviting the media to feed
freely on the spectacle. The entire story not only depicts the hostage crisis but the clash of National security and
the media.
Too much of divulging sensationalized and editorialized information

Faculty, staff, and students at the UP College of Mass Communication (CMC) had called the media to
account for their coverage.

"While (they) should be commended for providing up-to-date information on what transpired, some
media organizations should be criticized for the same reason because they ended up giving TOO
MUCH information," - Rolando Tolentino.

Much of information is a driving point from public welfare to media private interest. The shortcomings
became a neglecting the idea of media identification of its freedom, responsibilities and ethics. It is
informing and transforming the public but not giving them “what to think of something out of nothing”.

Media should consider leading the public for responsible decision and cooperation for preserving their
democracy and freedom of ideas. Such act now invited the government intervention to restrict press freedom
addressing the concerns for responsibility and values.

The media's handling of Monday's incident has prompted proposals in government to tighten protocols
on crisis coverage like House Bill 2737 of Cebu Rep. Luis Quisumbing.

In addition, Roberto Del Rosario, board member of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas
(KBP) said they are willing to sit down with authorities and review standard operating procedures.

"If we had unilaterally pulled away, it wouldn't have affected the situation. If we didn't give you what
happened, would you have known, could we even have this debate? That doesn't absolve us of our own
(mistakes)," she said.

It must be stressed the need for journalists to have processed the information they gathered before
broadcasting it to the public. Furthermore, if there were a direct line between newsroom heads during the crisis,
they could have agreed on controls in such an uncontrollable situation. The tragedy may have shown another
side to the local media's growth in ethical adherence.

As a review I included the code of KBP for broadcast ethics.

Broadcast code 2007

Article 6. CRIME AND CRISIS SITUATIONS

Sec. 1. The coverage of crimes in progress or crisis situations such as hostage-taking or kidnapping
shall not put lives in greater danger than what is already inherent in the situation. Such coverage should
be restrained and care should be taken so as not to hinder or obstruct efforts of authorities to resolve the
situation. (G)

Sec. 2. Coverage should avoid inflicting undue shock and pain to families and loved ones of victims of
crimes, crisis situations, disasters, accidents, and other tragedies. (S)

Sec. 3. The identity of victims of crimes or crisis situations in progress shall not be announced until the
situation has been resolved or their names have been released by the authorities. The names of fatalities
should be aired only when their next of kin
have been notified or their names released, by the authorities. (S)

Sec. 4. The coverage of crime or crisis situations shall not provide vital information or offer comfort or
support to the perpetrators. (G)

Sec. 5. Stations are encouraged to adopt standard operating procedures (SOP’s) consistent with this
Code to govern the conduct of their news personnel during the coverage of crime and crisis situations.
(A)

Sec. 6. Persons who are taken into custody by authorities as victims or for allegedly committing private
crimes (such as indecency or lasciviousness), shall not be identified, directly or indirectly -- unless a
formal complaint has already been filed against them. They shall not be subjected to undue shame and
humiliation, such as showing them in indecent or vulgar acts and poses. (S)

From the way the media commodified the story as a real drama that the public will always be amazed to
buy; the scoop mentality and media’s priority that made the story a “stationary reality” caused much framing of
the wrong viewpoint of the story. Moreover, it also inculcates how the 11- hour hostage drama coverage
dominates public opinion on how the PNP, SWAT that government failed to render the role in promoting peace
and orderliness in the country. The fact that the media must not be a chronicler of the event but a community
servant meaning a part of the public. The ethics has been a code of suggestions. Turning the event into an entire
spectacle is the greatest sin that the media have portrayed because of the wrong exposition of functions during
the event.
 On the other hand, reporters must be active on proffering answers and solutions to the questions and
problems that they themselves have raised. They must realize not to diminish the objective, if they will say
represent the people; therefore they are not just chronicler of an event. To ferret the most insightful part of news
story must be the goal but must set apart when needed.

According to Professor Luis Teodoro, the reporters are limiting their role. They are not uncovering and
describing the problems in a belief that at the end of the day, the last paragraph of an expose is just an end, a
release, a catharsis. Furthermore, Teodoro said that instead of meaningful engagement, they just hammered the
idea of neutrality and objectivity in sense of involvement – reports by them are observed without participation.
Teodoro concluded that balance can be dichotomized into either objectivity or compassion.

Sensationalism and commodification of news brought about by the very nature of media as business
entity, always harangue the media. Sadly, when the media was veiled by the mist of interest and economic
imperatives they fail to see that once sensationalism is justified on the grounds of expediency, a habit then a
malaise. The worst? An embedded ideology, once the plague started, the cure will always be palliative. The
producer and recipients? Things would happen as what they used to see it, voyeur, sneak in and later on will
leave without compunction and guilt. Lapses of reactions are observed but actions are artifice.

For the last point, let me end up an assessment that [m]edia may not be entirely to blame, but
nevertheless, some of that blood is on their lenses.

Sources:

www.nujp.org

www.asiacorrespondent.org

www.cmfr.org

www.manilatimes.net

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19329

Nikko Norman C. Izar

AB-Broadcast Communication
University of the East - Manila
nikkoizar@gmail.com/nikkoizar@yahoo.com
0906-516-7105/0932-590-7753