See, quite a number of the answers received since the questions were asked have been either vague or noncommittal.
I hope we can get coherent and repeatable answers from mainstream media at large and specifically per journalist, and finally put a tack on these questions. Don’t worry, folks, it’s a short list of five — it shouldn’t take too long for seasoned journalists to answer.
Here we go.
1. Should journalists get it right all the time?
Taken from an FV post, written on behalf of Gerry Kaimo:
Come on, let’s be fair. She cannot dare call herself a journalis(t) till she realizes that the first rule is verifying the facts.
2. If journalists don’t get it right, how does their self-policing mechanism work?
Taken 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 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.
A clarificatory note from the jester-in-exile: not every broadcast station nor broadcaster are part of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP); neither are all publications and print media outfits members of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI)
3. If the self-policing mechanism is shown to be ineffective, what are the remedies available to the general public?
From the same PCIJ comment by Coronel quoted above:
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.
From the same PCIJ comment thread, posted by the jester-in-exile:
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).
4. If externally-applied sanctions are part of mainstream media’s corrective mechanism, why do mainstream media practitioners support the virtual scrapping (defanging, if you will) of these legal remedies instead of proposing that they be improved?
From another post on PCIJ:
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) challenged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to declare urgent the passage of a law decriminalizing libel “to prevent a recurrence of a similarly brazen and ham-fisted and, ultimately, futile attempt to harass the media.”
5. With the seeming inconsistent stands of mainstream media at large with regard to the application of self-regulatory mechanisms and methods for the general public to seek redress if injured by MSM, how can MSM assure the public that MSM has the best interest of the public in mind?
Still from Coronel’s comment to the jester-in-exile:
In a crunch, I would say err on the side of freedom.
I hope that someday mainstream media practitioners provide the public with a clear and coherent set of answers that are practiced consistently when MSM is in error.
***
A special nota bene to MSM practitioners: please do note that the above are questions. Apparently, since I’m not a journalist, I’m not supposed to criticize you.
Oh, and Gerry? The answer to your question on where to contact Newsbreak here.
Now to make popcorn, get beer, and wait for MSM’s answers.
Nuninuninuninu.
Popularity: 1% [?]
On #5 above, as Richard Rorty said, “Take care of freedom and truth will take care of itself”.
it’s a nice soundbite, cvj, but what i’m looking for are concrete answers. you know, processes, procedures, contingency and mitigation plans, feedback and response mechanisms, and suchlike.
something along the lines of: if X happens, apply Y; if application of Y is ineffective, apply Z and provide continual improvement activities and preventive/corrective actions to Y; the goal is to either eliminate the occurrence or mitigate the impact of X.
(pardon me, my engineering training is showing.)
Jester, even the engineering disciplines have to follow design principles that would guide the build (and operations) process. You can consider the above statement by Rorty as a design principle which spells the difference between press freedom and press censorship (not to mention blogger freedom and blogger censorship). In your if-then lingo, that would determine the ‘Y’ to a given ‘X’. The ‘Y’ would be different in a system that prioritizes freedom of information to one that prioritizes information control.
fair enough.
design principle/ operational requirement: truthful, fair, and accurate reportage unfettered by prior restraint of any form.
event X (deviation from design principle/ operational requirement): MSM publishes untruthful/ unfair/ inaccurate report.
action Y: ?
action Y: Jester-in-exile blogs about it:-)
pity if that’s the only action that results… and it’s not even by MSM themselves.
It would be more of a pity if you were not free to blog about it. The freedom that protects the ‘MSM’ is the same freedom that protects the bloggers.
not to indulge in marocharim’s claim of debate, but the concept of freedom is irrelevant when looking at my five questions.
the freedom of MSM and bloggers is a given. fine, but let’s not stray from the questions themselves. let’s look at kaimo’s letter and use the five questions as a means of concretizing what i’m asking:
something of the sort.
answers — none.
FAIL…?
it would be helpful if you provided benchmarks. what are the procedures etc if lawyers provide wrong information, if scientists get a decimal point wrong, if an engineer makes a boo-boo designing the structural load of a building.
mlq3, when lawyers provide wrong information DELIBERATELY or NEGLIGENTLY, they get disciplined by either suspension or disbarment in addition to being liable civilly for malpractice. in some cases, they may even go to jail. i think if a scientist or an engineer makes “bo-boo” and causes damage, he could get sued in court and sanctioned by his/her organization, in addition to loss of prestige from their respective colleagues.
the media? i think if not held accountable for defamation or crimes against national security, they just go on with their merry ways.
Here in the Philippines, members of the media tend to get penalized if it gets too close to the truth.
how?
Different ways – libel suits, assasination.
so, no one is exempt from that. are “journalists” special?