Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy
THERE ARE errors of malice and errors of incompetence in the practice of journalism.
A reporter may deliberately distort a story to manipulate readers, viewers or listeners into interpreting an event, a statement, or anything else in the news according to his/her or his/her media organization’s biases—or to those of whatever other interests he/she may be working for. He can also omit details crucial to the understanding of an event, and emphasize a detail to make a point at the expense of the more important one.
In all cases the intention is to put something or someone in a good light, or the opposite. The reporter may be moved by personal bias; he/she may also be acting in furtherance of what he/she believes is editorial policy. Or he/she may be acting in behalf of those political and business interests that contribute so heavily to press and media corruption. Malice is in all these instances an ethical failing. Reporters cannot yield the need for accuracy to their biases, personal interests, or, for that matter, to editorial policy.
On the other hand an error in the news, whether of fact, emphasis, or of omission, may be due to a reporter’s failure to accurately record the details of, or even to understand what has transpired in, the event he/she’s covered. Inaccuracy so driven is a fundamental professional flaw, and so is the failure to understand what has happened, and, consequently, to provide the “proper emphasis” the Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics warns is a primary journalistic responsibility.
Both types of errors abound in the Philippine press, which means that, at least theoretically, there’s a fairly even chance that an inaccurate report could be the result of reporter incompetence rather than individual or institutional malice. But there is a third possibility: an inaccurate report could be the result of both.
Every administration that has ever been in power assumes that an inaccurate press report is the result of malice, an assumption which ignores the reality that not only can inaccuracy be due to incompetence, the malice that results in inaccuracy can also be due to the inability to see the necessary link between ethics and professional standards.
The assumption of malice was evident in President Benigno S. Aquino III’s criticism of the press during his April 23 keynote address at the 16th National Press Forum and Membership meeting of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI). One of Mr. Aquino’s complaints was over a news story in a broadsheet whose name he did not mention, that made it appear as if the visit to the Philippines by the Emir of Qatar had ended precipitately.
What seemed at issue was the headline, which said that the Emir had cut short his visit, implying thereby that there was nothing significant about it, whereas, said Mr. Aquino, the visit had resulted in the signing of a number of agreements between Qatar and the Philippines—which the report itself mentioned, anyway, thus making this story a prime example of those types of stories so common in Philippine newspapers in which the headline says something different from, or even contradicts, the text of the story itself.
The intent, Mr. Aquino ventured, seems to have been to make the story as vague as possible (“parang sinadya na palabuin ang balita”). He went on to ask what was the point of making the public doubt if the visit had accomplished anything, if it was clear enough that something had been achieved.
The particular case Mr. Aquino was referring to qualifies as an instance of both malice (it’s practically an article of faith among many journalists to make whatever administration is in power look bad, while some reporters make it a point to trivialize even the most serious of events or issues) and incompetence (some reporters are unable to comprehend the nuances of foreign affairs, for example, are just too indolent to do a little research, or too intellectually challenged to arrive at an intelligent interpretation of the significance of whatever facts his/her research may have uncovered).
On the other hand, an inaccurate tweet that said he was on a date whereas he was chairing a meeting of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) board was repeated in the media and only later corrected, when, Mr. Aquino said, the damage had already been done. The inaccuracy underlines a disturbing tendency on the part of the old media (print and broadcast) to rely on, and to take their cue from, the new (the blogs and news and social networking sites). The tendency is driven by the competition for exclusives, or at least by the desire to be ahead of the pack. Some journalists think that aim to be reason enough. But speed cannot excuse inaccuracy.
Indeed, Mr. Aquino may have a point insofar as press inaccuracy is concerned, inaccuracy being so much in evidence in the press and media the public is often at a loss as to which report to believe. But his complaint about the Philippine press’ reporting foreign travel advisories is not as valid. Mr. Aquino said the travel advisories released by certain countries warning tourists of terrorism or some other perils have a negative impact on tourism. But the Philippine press insists on reporting these advisories, which, said Mr. Aquino, raises the question of whether it is too much to ask that the press and media also look after Philippine interests.
The answer to that is yes, the task of the press being to report what happened. To be so selective (Mr. Aquino declared that the press should not report the advisories at all.) would constitute a bias, and if observed as a principle, would mean reporting only those events that suit the country’s interests—to determine which is not as simple as it seems—or those of other groups, institutions and personalities. In addition, there is also the possibility that such advisories may prevent both foreign nationals and Filipinos’ coming to harm, should the advisory be in fact accurate. If they are not reported and an act of violence, whether a kidnapping or a bombing, does occur, the resulting publicity would have exactly the negative impact on tourism Mr. Aquino fears.
Concealing information is hardly ever justified. But Mr. Aquino’s criticism of press performance does help bring to the short attention span of the press those issues of reporting that make providing the public the information it needs so problematic in the Philippine setting. While it is to the interest of every administration to aspire for a good press, it is similarly in the interest of the press that while preserving its independence it also does what its own values and standards demand by first of all making sure that its reports are accurate. Discharging that seemingly simple responsibility in the concrete conditions of practice in the Philippines requires constant self-examination and correction.