Fundamentals

by Luis V. Teodoro

IN THE last three weeks or so, PJR Reports has been accused of various offenses through letters to the PJRR editor as well as repeated text messages, phone calls and e-mails.

PJR/PJRR has admitted its errors and promptly corrected them in the past, but will not concede imagined offences such as its supposedly saying, implying or alleging that the Abu Sayyaf is in peace negotiations with the government.

The PJRR report on the kidnapping of ABS-CBN reporter Cecilia “Ces” Drilon (“When Journalists are News,” PJRR July 2008) has for some obscure reason been accused of that gross error, as well as of citing Ms. Drilon as an authority on the Mindanao problem.

The story was about Ms. Drilon and her kidnapping, and not about Mindanao, in the first place. The story’s lead was emphasizing Ms. Drilon’s attempt to imbue with public value an attempt to further her career by claiming that any interview with the Abu Sayyaf would enhance negotiations with the government. The second sentence in fact asks if government negotiations with the ASG should even be in the government agenda.

The entire lead reads:

“Would it have improved the prospects (underscoring ours) for peace negotiations between the Abu Sayyaf group and the government if ABS-CBN 2’s Cecilia Victoria ‘Ces’ Drilon had obtained and aired that exclusive interview with the bandit group’s new leaders she said she was after? Should peace negotiations between a police problem like the ASG and the government be on the national agenda at all?”

The criticism of PJR/PJRR has lately had a déjà vu quality. During its 18-year history, the Philippine Journalism Review and its successor monitoring publication, PJR Reports, have been accused of (1) not having the credentials to criticize press performance; and (2) of itself not being subject to the monitoring it does on the rest of the press.

The same claims are currently being made, in addition to accusations that PJRR has committed gross factual errors. The first charge was in the past also accompanied by claims that PJR/PJRR staff members, although holders of journalism degrees, are “too young” and “too inexperienced” to be evaluating the performance of “veteran practitioners”.

A public right and a duty

The question on the qualifications of PJRR staff is a fundamental one. Are lack of experience and youth disqualifications from commenting on the press, a public service whose performance has an impact on all of society? On the other hand, do experience and sterling performance in the past exempt “veteran practitioners” from criticism by anyone? Does past performance assure present and future professional excellence and ethical compliance?

To claim the first is to impose limits on criticism of the media and the press—a public service everyone is entitled to monitor and evaluate, in the same way that criticism of the performance of public officials is both a duty as well as a public right. Meanwhile, to exempt veteran practitioners from criticism is to deny that even such worthies do make mistakes. And yet the argument would exempt editors, senior reporters, or even anyone who’s been in journalism for, say, a decade or two, from the evaluation the press deserves and needs.

A prerogative of citizenship

Although run by senior journalists, neither PJR nor PJRR has ever claimed any special qualification for what it does except that of informed citizenship. The right to monitor and evaluate press performance is a public right that brooks no exceptions. It is a prerogative of citizenship. One doesn’t need to be a journalist or a media expert to evaluate press performance, in much the same way that one doesn’t have to be a public official to monitor government policy. To demand that critics of public institutions must have certain credentials first other than citizenship is to undermine the democratic dialogue both in and about the press.

Neither has PJR/PJRR ever regarded itself as exempt from the monitoring it does. Nothing prevents anyone from publishing or airing critiques of its reports, analyses and commentary—to which, of course, PJRR would claim the same right of reply press subjects are entitled to. The PJRR pages and websites are also open to those who’re ready to commit either to paper or cyberspace their criticism, just as PJR/PJRR is ready to respond to them.

PJR Reports has never claimed to be exempt from criticism, and, we repeat, has corrected its errors, as part of the responsibility attached to monitoring the media. The freedom to criticize imposes certain responsibilities on those who would exercise it. PJR Reports is fully aware of those responsibilities, as every critic, whether of the media or of PJRR itself, should be.

Comments are closed.