Suppose you take a pillow full of goose down, climb to the tallest belfry in town and whilst ringing the bell loudly, scatter the feathers into the wind. Then, after a day or so, try and get them back into the pillow. Can’t be done. Gossip or innuendo published as NEWS by a large newspaper or broadcast network is like those goose feathers scattered all over town.
The Right of Reply Bill appears to be headed for the garbage heap as even the Palace has hinted at a veto. But I think there really is a problem involving the element of FAIR PLAY in our mass media that the bill’s supporters are rightfully calling attention to, but are wrong-headedly trying to solve with absurdly draconian or simply impossible measures. It is a seriously mistaken notion anyway that a private or public person could effectively reply to and combat the effects of innuendo packaged in a banner headline with a mere reply of the same length; that one could contain the malicious gossip incorporated into what appears to be a serious breaking national news story; unfair or skewed reporting on so-called “news talk radio”; and the other measures that seek to give equal access to the public, including public officials, to the vast resources of the Mass Media.
The proposition here is that all stories sold by the commercial mass media as NEWS ought to be labelled as such, and by-lined by a licensed professional journalist who is governed by legally-binding Code of Ethics. Just like doctors, dentists, nurses, xray technicians, the professionals who report the NEWS are helping the Public diagnose the illnesses of their society and government by passing on truthful and timely information about what is going on. Just like those critical service workers, journalists who purport to report NEWS ought to be tested, licensed and regulated.
By way of definition, a licensed professional journalist is one who is legally authorized to write NEWS articles for the commercial mass media, much like a licensed surgeon is required to perform heart bypass operations at a privately-owned and operated hospital. Below is a bare bones law that would govern licensed professional journalists who are entitled to write commercial news stories. I would appreciate comments on this proposed legislation to be administered by the Professional Regulatory Commission.
Section 1. Licensed professional journalists shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. Licensed professional journalists recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.
Section 2. Licensed professional journalists shall not violate confidentiality of information given to them by their sources.
Section 3. Licensed professional journalists shall resort only to fair and honest methods in the effort to obtain news, photographs and/or documents, and shall properly identify themselves as representatives of the press when obtaining any personal interview intended for publication.
Section 4. Licensed professional journalists shall refrain from writing reports that will adversely affect a private reputation unless the public interest justifies it. At the same time, Licensed professional journalists shall fight vigorously for public access to information.
Section 5. Licensed professional journalists shall not let personal motives or interests influence the performance of duties, nor shall they accept or offer any present, gift or other consideration of a nature that may cast doubt on professional integrity.
Section 6. Licensed professional journalists shall not commit any act of plagiarism.
Section 7. Licensed professional journalists shall not, in any manner, ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin.
Section 8. Licensed professional journalists shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise. Licensed professional journalists shall exercise caution in publishing names of minors and women involved in criminal cases so that they may not unjustly lose their standing in society.
Section 9. Licensed professional journalists shall not take unfair advantage of a fellow journalist.
Section 10. Licensed professional journalists shall accept only such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of the profession, invoking the “conscience clause” when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of conscience.
Section 11. Licensed professional journalists shall conduct themselves in public or while performing duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of the profession. When in doubt, decency should be the watchword.
Popularity: 1% [?]
With the concept of a ‘licensed professional journalist’, could the ‘licensed blogger’ (or licensed plurker) be far behind?
Do a mere commenter like me have to be licensed too?
djb, one word. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. you’d need a moron dictator (in a totalitarian state) to enact such a “law”. clever joke but not funny.
hehehe.
DJB,
While we’re at it, let’s also expunge freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble from the Bill of Rights.
Hey to hell with the Constitution eve.:!
Of course I realize your goal: to trigger a vigorous discussion. Kudos, Kuyang
Erratum: Hey, to hell with the Constitution even.:!
DJB,
The anecdote is nice.
The PRC-drafted bill resides in the limbo of meaningless utterances as it delves on what is ethical or moral – which is how any well-meaning citizen – governs his conduct in daily life.
There is nothing in it.
Just to add. More licenses, means more fees collected by that bureau or agency.
Leave media alone, PRC.
OOPS! I made a mistake (I guess on purpose). I may have given some the impression the “draft bill” that Bencard says is unconstitutional comes from the PRC. I never said that.
Actually it is a slightly edited copy of NUJP’s Code of Ethics for Journalists!
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=6286
DJB, to clarify, i have no problem with the words per se. It’s the concept of having to license journalists that is problematic.
I thought by you saying – the proposed legislation to be administered by the PRC – might imply, it is drafted by the same agency as in some cases, they in fact do, with a legislator endorsing it for authorship.
In any case, there is nothing to be administered yet, it being a mere bill – subject of public debate.
Karlpopper,
the anecdote is not original. It comes from a sermon the priest gives in Meryl Streep’s new movie.
cvj,
why is it problematic to license journalists but not doctors or lawyers or nurses or xray technicians or psychiatrists or road engineers. What makes them so special anyway. NEWS reporters I mean. Pundits can be amateurs like us.
cvj,
even public school teachers and the authors and publishers of textbooks are subject to licensing and regulation.
DJB, it is problematic because that means that news can then be filtered by the licensing authority or whoever controls it.
For a while there I thought venerable Manong DJB was referring to journalistS who engage in ACDC (Attack-Collect-Defend-Collect).
Imagine, licensing extortionist? That’s like licensing jueteng operators which is happening in Pampanga where, according to Gov. Among Ed Panlilio, the legal Small Town Lottery @(STL) Operators are also the jueteng lords! :)
As early as in grade school, there are student journalists provided there is a student paper in existence, just maybe or a newsletter of sort.
In high school and college, each at 4 years of journalism, theoretically speaking. Are they not covered by any licensing requirement if the bill be enacted into law?
What are commercial journalists? Are they those who write to get paid like editors and columnists?
Are they limited to those in mainstream or old media?
What is the licensing requirement aimed at? Libel law in itself is already a safeguard to every kind of exercise invoked by press freedom or the right of free speech or to peaceably assemble.
Too much red tape, I guess. It is not healthy in a democracy to even sort of abridge any constitutional right already guaranteed.
BTW, a PhD is the licence to do almost anything. And the State can’t even regulate those with that degree!
Following is a list of the professions regulated by the Professional Regulatory Commission(PRC). What makes Journalism so effin SSSPECIAL that it isn’t on this list??–
blackshama may probably wish to give a couple of instances where PhD holders cannot be regulated?
Karlpopper
Once tenured they can’t be kicked out! Also the courts are loath to decide on academic tenure issues. Academic freedom may be the most abused liberty ever.
Another instance, a PhD can yakkk and yakkk and he/she can claim academic freedom. The state can’t really regulate that yakking.
@DJB
is this a serious question? i read u may be kidding…
govt regulates when it wants to control the quantity and quality of a profession.
it wants to control what these people learn, and control (or at least limit) what these people do in a professional capacity.
obviously, for free speech reasons, journalists MAY NOT be controlled in this way.
you, kidding?
the licenses are issued by the board of the specific professions like board of accountancy, board of nursing after a comprehensive exam.
PhD’s defense of dissertation is only administered by a group if it is a thesis program. The SO is given by the CHED for non-state universities . If it is obtained abroad, no one can even verify if it did not come from correspondence school selling doctorate degrees. What agency is regulating the doctoral degree holders? Why is there a need for regulation?
just curious.
Why do they have to invoke freedom of speech for this licensing proposal?
I am a CPA. Did the licencing curtail the freedom of speech to express opinions about financial statements for those who did not pass the Board?
Here in the states, even the two-month vocational courses like CNA, cosmetologist(beautician, manicurist), plumber, have to take exams to get State license.
I argue by analogy. Everyone who drives a car must have a license. Most have ordinary driver’s licenses, but taxi and bus drivers require PROFESSIONAL LICENSES to drive public utility vehicles.
In the same way, I am proposing the creation of a new class of journalists–professional licensed journalists.
But this does not mean you are required to have a license to practice journalism. Only that you may not claim you are a licensed professional journalist in your work, whereas those with the proper credentials may.
That is the only change I am proposing. I am not suggesting that we have to require licenses to work as journalists.
But it becomes a kind of “Good Housekeeping Seal” just like it is for other professions.
I’m open to any non-hysterical objection that shows how this might “abridge” the freedom of speech in some way.
I think it would enhance the journalistic profession, not suppress it.
I guess another analogy would be teachers. Some are licensed for grade school. Others for grade school and high school. Yet others can be college teachers.
I think writing NEWS stories –meaning those that by their placement and by custom are portrayed as factual accounts of important social or political developments–ought to become the domain of licensed news writing professionals who have something like the American Medical Association to monitor and guide them, as well as promote and advance the proomotion, as well as licensure exams, refresher courses, etc. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, CPAs all have such licensing traditions. Why not journalists
I have not yet heard any good arguments based on eternal principles. It’s all … innuendo hehe
The C at,
purring…
Readers are not stupid people like our politicians
and leaders. They know if a story is really good,
worth reading and worthy of their time.
You can print garbage in the media. Nobody will
believe it. The Politicians’s PR people can print
the virtues of those politicians. We will not swallow it, hook, line and sinker.
The government propagandist can extol the virtues
of the present administration. We will just laugh
at it.
Garbage in, Garbage out…
If the concern be a kind of continuing journalist education or another Philippine Journalist Academy, place the box.
And then, ask the license card later.
Pareng Karding,
What planet do you live on? Filipinos are fed with a steady diet of garbage in the media and the blogosphere. I disagree that they know what is good or bad. Freedom of Speech is the price we pay to avoid tyranny, which is worse, but the default condition is the lowest common denominators of what can be sold for money!
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that freedom of speech does not guarantee quality!
Let me be clear: the License for Professional Journalists is NOT a requirement for the practice of Free Speech of Press Freedom.
However, the mass media does not operate entirely on freedom of speech. Commercial media buys and sells not just news, but views, entertainment, tsismis, movie schedules, and of course cell phone load.
Mass Media is a commercial enterprise that uses Press Freedom to keep sources confidential. Press Freedom is not anything more than a General License to buy and sell thought and the products of the mind.
It is not some kind of religious experience!
To DJB,
if your purpose is to have responsible journalism in the Philippines, it’s just alright to have licensed professional journalists. But how about intruducing first licensed professional politicians in the Philippines? This may limit the garbage production in Philippine Politics and naturally the garbage journalism. In countries where polical garbage is a scarcity,there are also scarce garbage journalists.
Your analogy with doctors and engineers, etc., is not applicable in journalism for journalism is about opinions, words, emotoions, ideas and natural gift of writing that -although also requires analytical thinking like engineers, etc.,- do not necessarily requires the technical precision of a surgeon, an engineer or a nuclear phycisists to write something in order to be effective. Doctors, engineers, etc., can be effective journalists in their pasttime but the reverse does not hold true; to practice medicine and engineering you need to study and pass board exams for their skills are technical skills and their tools not words, emotions,writing style and ideas alone but scientific skills. Journalism is not an exact science, it is an art just like music. And many “unlicensed” musicians were and are even great and famous than licensed ones. Were Mozart, Beethoven, Isaac Stern- or the Beatles, Jimmy Hendrix, Wes Montgomery, Apo Hiking, Fredy Aguilar,etc., licensed musicians? But introducing licensed politicians is worth of a gamble and serious considerations for this could upgrade the Philippine politics.
Junasun,
Thanks for your comment. Better late than never, I say.
However, you perhaps misunderstood the point I was making about commercial journalism basically using licensed professional reporters and journalists (not necessarily opinion column writers) to write stuff for the front page.
I certainly did NOT mean that a license be a requirement for free speech and expression. That would be silly, though I think that was also the dead horse you just beat up on.
But imagine a world of journalism in which certain newspapers or future media outlets, the best ones I would think, can advertise the fact that their Front Page News Articles are all written exclusively by “Licensed Professional Journalists” as a sort of guarantee of best effort journalism to be objective, factual and innuendo or propaganda free.
No newspaper would be required to engage is such a good or best practice, and anyone can still write front page news. But they would not be allowed to make the simple claim that for whatever it was worth, their reporters are “licensed professional journalists.”
Junasun,
Thanks for your comment. Better late than never, I say.
However, you perhaps misunderstood the point I was making about commercial journalism basically using licensed professional reporters and journalists (not necessarily opinion column writers) to write stuff for the front page.
I certainly did NOT mean that a license be a requirement for free speech and expression. That would be silly, though I think that was also the dead horse you just beat up on.
But imagine a world of journalism in which certain newspapers or future media outlets, the best ones I would think, can advertise the fact that their Front Page News Articles are all written exclusively by “Licensed Professional Journalists” as a sort of guarantee of best effort journalism to be objective, factual and innuendo or propaganda free.
No newspaper would be required to engage is such a good or best practice, and anyone can still write front page news. But they would not be allowed to make the simple claim that for whatever it was worth, their reporters are “licensed professional journalists.”