Tempest in a teapot

It may all have been a bit of a “tempest in a teapot” – the furious exchange on social media about the spokesperson for the Supreme Court having issued a “ban” on the live coverage of a press briefing. But what happened this week reflects on what is always a contentious relationship between government and a free press. There is always something to be learned from these encounters.

Yesterday, CMFR cited digital reports quickly uploaded in news sites about this alleged ban and the critical reactions of journalists covering the High Court. “A big step backward in advancing good governance. . .” said one. Others: “So, Sereno Court, what is this media restriction all about?” ; “It (Supreme Court) should not only, as it does, uphold press freedom in its decisions. It should practice it.”

I found it hard to believe that Theodore Te would be guilty of encroaching on media’s prerogatives. His record reveals a most libertarian orientation on freedom of expression and press freedom. I had no doubt when he accepted the appointment that he would favor transparency and disclosure in the handling of news about the Supreme Court and its decisions.

His explanation on his FB wall is detailed, explaining his take on his responsibility as information officer. I agree with him that a spokesperson needs to think about the transmission of the message. Given the inherent sensitivity and confidentiality of the Supreme Court, the way the message is taken and delivered is a matter requiring some evaluation on his part, but such also calls for persuasive powers to have the media see his side. He also points out that he had never stopped live coverage of his press briefings in the past; even when he did not think that the matter of the briefings needed to be transmitted “live.”

Putting something on “live” does signal that this is important breaking news. Most news coming from the Supreme Court would be considered important and relevant; but some of it need not be reported live. Indeed, “going live” in itself accords importance to reporters’ stories.

But Tuesday’s briefing provoked him to hold on to his refusal. Te said, he did not start the briefing until “cables used for live broadcast” were pulled off. When media have to use the building facilities to connect cables and such to do live coverage, they do ask for permission; which condition gives the PIO the prerogative of refusal, in principle.

When the means of live coverage require cable attachments, it is necessary to seek the permission of the office. With more portable digital equipment that can use satellite or other means, the issue of permission becomes moot. Whatever the means, the decision to cover something live (or not) is something that news editors make, hopefully, with good news judgment. With or without that good judgment, it is still best to leave that decision to the media. There are however exceptions when endangerment to life, security and other ethical considerations justify official regulation.

Te said that in the past, he had said “no” to requests before which were ignored, and he never stopped the media from going ahead with live coverage. But this time, he stood by his initial refusal. He also surmised that he would probably have acceded to the request later that afternoon; but no repeat request came.

So his refusal must have been triggered by something else. And it is easy to imagine what this could have been.

I have watched, spoken and shared views with press officers about their experience in dealing with the press, with Filipino spokespersons and information officers as well as a few who have taken similar jobs abroad. I can only sympathize with their frustration and anger. The press can be difficult, even arrogant; their right to cover and report becomes the only consideration, given their deadlines or simply their sense of self-importance.

Nevertheless, information officers are advised always to learn to keep their cool and we can only hope that Theodore Te learns the virtue of grace under pressure to last through his term. He is a good man at this post.