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)
