2 blogs in 1: Korina Sanchez and Her Irresponsible Comment

Recently, Typhoon Ruby struck Visayas. During the time it was approaching Philippines, it got stronger and stronger until it became a Super typhoon and is feared to bring the same power and destruction like Super Typhoon Yolanda. During one episode of TV Patrol, its main anchors, Ted Failon, Noli De Castro and Korina Sanchez were doing their usual banter at the tail-end of the newscast when Sanchez and de Castro made side comments and shared their opinions live on the air.

Sanchez said, “Kaya pa natin idasal yan para lumihis." (We can still pray to change its direction.)

De Castro then commented, “Sana ay hati na lang tayo." (I wish we could split the storm) “Kalahati sa Pilipinas, kalahati sa Japan (Half of it for the Philippines, half for Japan),” De Castro said, to which Sanchez replied, “Puwede bang sa kanila na lang lahat?" (Can’t they have all of it?)

De Castro then said “Wag naman” hopefully not, but Korina defended her stand, saying “Sa kanila na lang lahat. Parang mas kaya nila." (Let them have it all. It seems that they can handle it better).

Korina’s remarks have caused an uproar in social media, calling her insensitive and irresponsible. I understand the fact that she is only concerned for her people, like praying for the typhoon to change its direction but the fact that she involved Japan on her comments can be considered as an ethical lapse. Keep in mind that she is one of the top broadcasters in the country and she is one of ABS-CBN’s most famous news anchors. Her opinions matter and it can easily influence a lot of people.

Korina Sanchez is known for many unethical comments on air. I believe it is time for her to change this kind of attitude. In my opinion, there is no problem in making side comments of subjects on air as long as they are neutral and not subjective because these side comments can also be helpful like presenting facts from the other side that the viewers don’t know. Besides, they are the people with the most experience and they are credible enough to handle these kinds of stories and information but I really believe that a media personality should value neutrality in giving comments. Your goal is to inform and educated the public and not to persuade them. Maybe it is time for Sanchez to listen carefully to herself before she opens her mouth. She needs to think twice about what she’s going to say especially when she is live during national television or via radio and the internet. 

2012-15300 (2)

========================

ABS-CBN news anchor Korina Sanchez became viral on social media again for her controversial comments on Typhoon Ruby. This is the second time in recent Philippine TV memory that this veteran news anchor made headlines; the first was when she commented on-air about CNN journalist Anderson Cooper during the Typhoon Yolanda. This time, Korina, along with her two co-anchors, was about to end the their on-air program TV Patrol when she said that she hoped Typhoon Ruby would hit Japan instead of the Philippines. Her comment drew anger from netizens. A satirical website The Adobo Chronicles even made satire news about Japan banning Korina from their country. Why do media still tolerate such irresponsible news commentaries?

According to KBP Broadcast Code, Article 2. Section 2, “public affair programs and commentaries shall be handled only by persons who have thorough knowledge and practice broadcast ethics.” Given this ethical standard in broadcasting, Korina Sanchez is guilty of a broadcaster who does not practice broadcast ethics. Korina probably was motivated by her freedom of speech to express her opinion regarding her hope for Typhoon Ruby to hit Japan instead; it is still an act of irresponsible reporting. KBP preamble posits, “broadcasting, because of its immediate and lasting impact on the public, demands of its practitioners a high sense of responsibility, morality, fairness and honesty at all times.”

This is not the first time Korina made rude or harsh commentaries. Since she is a prominent figure in broadcasting, it is important that she gets another briefing about the ethical broadcasting standards.

(2009-25438)

A Rape Story: Balancing complete truthful reporting and sensationalism

UPDATED! New blog appended below!

Journalists are tasked to report news daily; to deliver news, to inform and to entertain. But what comes out of the newsroom, particularly television, is a rush of who will do this and that. With this kind of environment, always running and hurrying, someone along the way will make a mistake –professionally or ethically –but we [journalists] should always keep in mind that we are supplying information to millions of people and that we need not make mistakes.

I was browsing on YouTube when I came across the ABS-CBN TV Patrol News published last August 18, 2014 entitled ‘The family of the latest rape victim calls for justice. A woman in Calumpit, Bulacan was raped then killed’. I thought it was a simple rape case, and then I found out that yes it was a simple rape case with an ethical lapse of reporting.

TV Patrol News is aired from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm when many watchers are having dinner. And by merely describing how the rape was done, it can invoke a loss of appetite. Reporter Doland Castro specifically described, “…halinhinang hinalay ng higit sa dalawang lalaki ang biktima bago tuluyang sinaksak ng screw driver at tinalian pa ang leeg ng kadena…”

It is always important to present accurate reporting at the same time upholding truth telling and providing the right basic information. However, when sensationalism is involve by adding unnecessary details in order to boost ratings or appeal to the emotion of the people, you become guilty of violating the journalist’s code of ethics. Whereupon,

“I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”

            In order to avoid such mistakes, we should always check and recheck news stories, taking care to omit unnecessary details that will only appeal to the emotion of the people. When reporting a rape case it is enough to state the who, what, where, when, why and a little of how. Since rape cases sometimes result to more traumas to the victims when repeated descriptively, we must refrain from doing so.

2012-69361 (1)

Morbid Representation of a Rape-Slay Case by ABS CBN

On August 18, 2014, ABS CBN covered a rape-slay case at Calumpit, Bulacan. The images and descriptions shown in the aired report were the ones that caught my attention.

At first, they showed pictures of the victim that they got from Facebook. Naturally, I assumed that the next pictures are the same but I was wrong. They showed the actual picture of the girl in the actual crime scene without even blurring the content. She was faced down and her head was submerged in the water. This already violated Article 24. Sec. 3 (Violence shall not be encouraged and horror shall be minimized. Morbid and gory details are prohibited.) of the KBP broadcast code. Yes morbid is relative to people but I did consider that particular picture as very morbid and a very wrong representation of the victim.

     

            Second, with the same violation, the way Doland Castro relayed the crime to the public.

Doland: At dito nga po sa Baranggay Sapangbayan, halinhinang hinalay ng mahigit sa  dalawang lalaki ang biktima bago tuluyang sinaksak gamit and screwdriver at tinalian pa ang leeg ng kadena.

            Rape cases are very sensitive subjects to air. So please practice sensitivity. Again, morbidity is relative.

2012-69318 (1)

Sensational reporting: Olongapo slay victim

           It is really funny when you think about the purposes of all media outlets – to inform and to entertain the public. But this fact is really vague when you reflect on what is really the standard of informing and entertaining the public.

            Being one of the watchdogs of society, I’ve been observing ethical lapses from the past days and TV Patrol’s report about the murder of a Filipino in Olongapo caught my attention. It was aired last October 13, 2014 and I was really in the middle of eating my dinner. Frankly speaking, this newscast episode has violated various ethical values.

            The universal rule in broadcasting and writing news is to be truthful. You can’t just invent or make up words. That is strictly unacceptable. According to the Broadcast Code of the Philippines under Article 1 Section 3a (News and Public Affairs – Fairness and Objectivity), news reports should be factual and unbiased. The report was contradicting when the reporter said that Olongapo Police still didn’t release any statement about the person’s identity but the program’s crawler already stated that the suspect is a US marine.

            Another mistake was when the reporter said “Idiniin ang leeg niya sa toilet seat habang isinusubsob ang mukha sa inidoro.” So how about the minors watching the report especially that it was aired during meal time? With reference to Section 5 of Article 24 (Crime and Violence), we have to avoid giving specifics about the crime to prevent the viewers from repeating the act.

            The report also mentioned the two possible causes of death – disappointment of the suspect because his partner was a transgender and robbery made by the victim. My point is, do we need to frequently emphasize that the victim is a transgender? That the victim is not a legitimate female? We must keep in mind that discrimination is off-limits in our state even under Article 22 (Discrimination) of the broadcast code. And what does it mean that the victim might have the intention of stealing the belongings of the suspect? Is the newscast putting Filipinos in a bad light by saying that we are only after the money or properties of foreigners? KBP Broadcast Code’s Section 9b of Article 1 (News and Public Affairs – Sensationalism) said that disturbing details not vital to a report have to be omitted. Otherwise, we can add the information after investigators have verified it. Besides, these “two reasons” can be left out for the news can stand alone without these speculations.

            Errors like publishing pictures of the victim particularly the one in which the victim was wearing swimsuit must not be included. This will only affect the opinion of the viewers and more importantly, this has no interest in the public. Section 1 of the Article 7 (Individual Rights – KBP Broadcast Code) said that private matters must be excluded for this is not necessary in delivering straight news. We must always respect a victim and also his or her family when it comes to personal activities.

            And the most annoying thing I saw was when the news report showed a close-up shot of two used condoms inside the trash can. We can filter this before airing the news or just projecting the clip as monochrome on the screen. We have to take into consideration the sensitive audiences. Section 1 of Article 25 (Sex, Obscenity, and Pornography) mentioned that the broadcasting industry must obey what is generally conventional and proper.

            As a final point, when we voice our opinions or views, it must be properly identified before making commentaries (Section 3d of Article 1). In the last part of report where the news anchor asked the correspondent about the possible witnesses, the reporter did not provide any attribution to her answer making it appear that she had first-hand information about the witnesses. She even said that these two possible witnesses could be tapped for the investigation. Where is she coming from? Is that her opinion?

            Beyond doubt, we have to essentially keep in mind our obligations for the people to tell the news objectively and fairly. It’s just simple and I think it doesn’t require so much energy to do that. Immanuel Kant once said that we have to care for people as an end and never as a means. We don’t have to chase the ratings because this will not dictate our credibility. We have to avoid misleading the public because at some point, we are the daily source of information. Let’s strive to have truthful and careful reporting.

2012-28136 (1)