Problem solving journalism

THE FIRST blog for 2014 may be a good time to suggest once again that we need to change the way we do journalism. This is not the first time I have echoed the call heard in other press communities to re-think and revise the notions of news, of re-inventing the practice. Communication has submitted to revolutionary change. The staple of “bad news” now reflects such complex problems that the news formats and the practice designed for reporters on the clock can no longer serve. The changing environment also mandates a different approach to news, expanding on the basics of the “who”, “what”, “when”, and “where” and forcing more work on the “why” or “how.”

The call for more purposeful journalism has been heard in press communities which have done more in providing context, analysis, and commentary. Newsrooms which have explored “public”, “process”, or “precision” journalism, the latter incorporating techniques of the social sciences, continue to review the way they do the news, seeking ways of improving their service. In developed countries, the digital revolution has deepened its hold on the chain of communication and daily newspapers are floundering. But this has led to the flourishing of journalistic periodicals and magazines and the exploration of lengthier news segments to supplement quick headline stories in radio or television.

In developing countries, such revision of journalism is even more necessary, because the media need to assist in the building of citizen participation and engagement as a way of forcing governments to improve governance and public service. Journalism has not one, but various purposes. But in our country, one hopes that news rooms will move forward, take a pro-active role and provide news approaches for problem-solving.

Jay Rosen, a scholar who has studied and analyzed “civic journalism”—also called “public journalism”—asserts its critical principles: “democracy is something we do, citizens are the ones who do it, politics as public problem-solving.” Obviously, few politicians see public office this way. And neither does the press accept that they are “actors” with a role in public life, or that their work has influence or impact on the course of events. The notion of “objectivity”—the neutral transmission of news—is invoked, despite the evidence of how practice has been captured by partisan bias, by profit and self-interest.

Two stories which reported events reflecting profound problems in Metro Manila’s transport and traffic show up the limitations of the old mode. These related issues reveal the magnitude of failure in a basic service which in more progressive places is a major criterion in measuring how well or poorly government is doing to provide quality life in urban centers. Even in relatively poorer countries, governments have focused on finding solutions to their transport woes, such as the rapid bus transit in Bogota.

But the coverage of transport and traffic in the Philippine press has not gone beyond the accounts of accidents, of traffic snarls that paralyze sections of the city, of explosions of road rage. News account report the problem as an episode. Follow up is limited to the fate of the culprits or the guilty. Period. Stop.

The run-away bus which leaped over the railing of the expressway, landing on another vehicle on the highway below was covered in the news as a tragic incident which killed 18 people on the spot and injuring many others. It followed up on the suspension of the bus company and the charges filed against the reckless driver.

The shooting of a bus driver by the owner of the car that the bus had side-swiped, wrecking the car’s side-mirror, was treated similarly, an event that happened, a single episode; its chronology faithfully recorded perhaps, but no more than the altercation between the drivers that went out of control.

Only passing attention is given to news rendered as isolate episodes. Such an approach does not engage the kind of public attention and engage public participation in shared problem-solving. These kinds of news will fail to pressure officials and agencies that are charged respectively with the different aspects of road safety and the protection of commuters; to think about what can be done. Such news serves only to distract from something else, and the response is the immediate distress, the passive nod or mindless tsk-tsk for the moment.

But obviously, the transport system in Metro Manila is a shameful failure of policy and governance, not to speak of the transport system that serves the provincial routes to and from the cities. These cannot be allowed to continue as they are. The bus accident should have triggered off some review leading to some intervention; but as it was, we allowed the event to drift into the realm of the “unavoidable”—together with all those things, like “superstorms” that we cannot do much about.

What is the purpose of this repetitive and cyclical reporting; with hardly any attempt to refer to past incidents, to include statistics that indicate a pattern, to reflect on the bigger issues reflected in the stories. If news consumers are fed news only as un-related and dis-connected events, then news is simply the telling of stories that have no larger meaning. And journalism becomes a practice that has minimal purpose in public life. As David Thoreoux wrote, dismissing the need for newspapers, I do not need to know about every killing, fire, accident and other disturbance. He was a philosopher recluse but his wisdom applies to our point. What good is this kind of reporting?

We do not need to refer to the exercise of public or civic journalism, the codification of which has divided journalists in the US and elsewhere. But its philosophy and practice actively connects journalism to democratic life and the shaping of communities of citizens, acting together for the greater good. The collective understanding of problems and what solutions might apply involves the kind of consensus that democracy requires. Journalism can help to establish such consensus, without which democracy can only be the contentious experience that it has been in this country. On the big and small questions gnawing at the core of our public life, we need to practice journalism that will promote a shared understanding of the problem and the options we have to address these.

I suggest starting on improving levels of public safety, specifically, those that arise from the problems of transport and traffic.

Government can work on solutions for development problems on its own, without much help from the press. But the democratic system does assign a role to the press, which is the reason for its protection; and we would be wasting the freedom we enjoy if we were not willing to examine how better we can do our part.

Expanded reports on the current transport system can start up the process and a shift to a new mind set and a new approach. A simple graph can illustrate a business model of bus companies, a model that is so dis-connected from the point of the public utility. Even with so many companies operating, the commuter cannot count on getting on a bus on time and yet one can see half-empty buses plying the EDSA route and taking up so much space. I have always wondered whether private companies should be able to operate so massively without a strong regulatory framework.

Everyone suffers from the disorder that plagues our roads and the sheer number of vehicles on the streets. These compel a search for long-term solutions that engages all stakeholders.

The holiday season suggest other areas where this can be applied. Reports on the exodus of people and their return called attention to and described the crowds in the terminals around the city. But it did not try to expand on the issue and introduce ideas: to start with a simple one, how improved terminals, ports authority and the non-entry of buses plying provincial routes into the city can relieve the stress of travel. As these stories from the past have shown, the trek to provinces is an imposed endurance test for those who travel for seasonal breaks: the Holy Week, Undas and end of the year festivities. As these seasons roll in and out, the press seems content with the rote reporting that simply showing what is happening.

Problem-solving journalism starts with a simple question—What can be done here? The question implies a purpose. That purpose can make a difference.

From the basic questions of inquiry (who, what, and where), the question takes the journalist on a different track. Hopefully, he or she will want to re-frame the story and break out of the old box. The new way may lead the public to ask the same question and maybe think about some answers. And hopefully, this kind of coverage could force the government to really do something about it.