What is at stake?

PNoy’s complaint against the negative news coverage and comment focused on ABS-CBN’s anchor, Noli de Castro, who had served as vice-president in the Arroyo administration. Why comment at all, since the previous administration had also failed to address these problems during their term?

The underlying issue is conflict-of-interest, as journalists take leave to run for office, or take on a government position and then decide to return to their posts in the media. Given the prominence of his position both in media and the one he held in government, De Castro’s case has been subjected to critical scrutiny of columnists and bloggers.

Indeed, this problem is not entirely new. The “revolving door” through government and media, or “cross-overs” from one or the other are terms which have been used by academics in analyzing the phenomenon in the US, the first by Lewis Wolfson and the second by James McEnteer in papers published by the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center at the Kennedy School, in Harvard University. There have been numerous cases in the US and we have now seen enough of these returnees from government to the press.

The close links that develop between government and the media prime these movements. The relationship between the two institutions involves a powerful synergy, each one in need of the other in fulfilling their objectives. In a perfect world, these objectives while separate from one another contribute to the common good. In the less than perfect world we live in, we need to understand the issues that raise appropriate concern.

McEnteer notes the “career-shuttle between journalism, politics and government” and warn of the risks when journalists and politicians change tracks–a journalist taking a position in government and then returns to the field; or when bureaucrats shift from politics and move over to the press.

But neither Wolfson and McEnteer see the situation in terms of black or white, noting that there are positive gains on either side when someone capable changes hats. Experience in government can inform both reporting and commentary with greater insight. The journalist who moves to take a government position can assist policy-making with the perspective he brings from the outside.

In 1991, I noted in a piece written for the Philippine Journalism Review, that both papers “called for editorial responsibility to exercise the necessary caution so that such ‘cross-overs’ distance themselves from issues where they had been involved as policy actors in government.” In the case of De Castro who served one breath away from the presidency, the restraint should cover just about everything in the conduct of the present government.

In returning him to the post of main anchor, the least that ABS-CBN should have done, was to instruct De Castro from ever commenting on the news he reads. Even the consistently negative coverage, which is probably written by the reporters, anyway, may lose legitimacy mouthed by someone with his partisan credentials. So ABS-CBN needs to answer the basic question, why take him back to his old post?

The same scrutiny should apply as well to his co-anchor, Korina Sanchez, who being the wife of the failed presidential candidate and now Cabinet appointee in the current administration, is pretty weighed down with vested interest that should be kept out of the news and opinion of the network.

And while we’re at it, include as well the commentary of Rigoberto Tiglao in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, who was not just a political appointee of the Gloria Arroyo to an ambassadorial post but was spokesperson, press secretary and close counsel of Arroyo. It was no secret that the “Strong Republic” concept and slogan was drawn from a thesis that Tiglao had written.

Cross-overs from media and business need to be cautioned as well. In the early nineties, Terry Savage, a respected and highly credentialed financial columnist was appointed as member of the board of McDonald Corporation. She wanted to continue to write her syndicated column. The editors of the newspapers and TV stations carrying her columns and comments found it necessary to impose certain restrictions to which she readily agreed–she could not report on any of the McDonald’s competitors and suppliers, and these then included several large companies, including Coca-cola, Pepsico, Kraft-General Foods, among others. And because of McDonalds’ involvement in certain areas, Savage was also instructed not to write about industries based on beef, potato, recycling and the stock market, where the company was a major player.

I would have to say that policy discussion in the public forum is enriched by the perspectives of experience on either side of government and private sector. What we need to watch out for is partisan use of a press position by an ex-government official or former politician.

Editorial enforcement of checks and restrictions must oversee these movements between and among powerful institutions and the press. Otherwise, further “blurring of the lines” between the press and other influentials may weaken even more the already fragile credibility of the institution that is assigned its specific and critical role in democratic society.