Sanctioning media

The sensitive subject of sanctions against the media has been raised with me through questions that, not unlike in a school exam, calls for straight answers. The questions have come in fact from journalism students, provoked by an actual case—that involving the brothers Tulfo, practitioners all, who closed ranks against news subjects, a show-business couple, with whom one of them had gotten himself into a brawl.

Here, reproduced absolutely untouched, is my e-mailed exchange with the questioners:

Q. What were the ethical violations involved in the unnecessary commentaries/threats blurted out by the Tulfo brothers in their program T3: Kapatid, Sagot Kita! in response to the airport incident involving their elder brother Mon, Claudine and Raymart Santiago?

A. I didn’t catch what the brothers actually said, only read about it. But, by commenting on the issue (never mind what they said) publicly, they crossed a most basic ethical line, one meant to keep out anyone who, by virtue of his/her connection to the primary player/players on either side of the issue, may be reasonably presumed biased under the conflict-of-interest principle. And what connections, indeed, can be closer in this sense than one between brothers!

Q. What other courses of action could TV5, as the station responsible for the program, and its talents consequently, have taken with regards to the matter? Or did sanctioning the brothers suffice?

A. A public apology from both the network and the brothers; suspension, demotion, fine, dismissal, depending on the professional records of the brothers.

Q. Was the suspension of the program by the MTRCB (Movie and Television Review and Classification Board) rightful and understandable contrary to what the station (TV5) argues wherein they claim that it “threatens the independence and freedom of the Broadcast industry”?

A. MTRCB or any other government office has no business sanctioning the media for what it holds to be an editorial—professional or ethical—transgression. All it can do is say what it pleases—like everyone else. Official regulation is limited to franchise use—a technical territory. Indeed, if there’s anyone deserving to be watched for any threat to freedom, it is the government. The Constitution no less raises that warning in the first instance.

Q. Can the program really be regarded to “pose danger”, by which censorship is deemed necessary as claimed by the MTRCB?

A. I don’t know. In any case, if any binding answer is required, the courts should be able to provide it, not MTCRB.

Q. What could have been the best and most effective remedy to the situation?

A. Education.

Indeed, the power to sanction the media has been taken from the public that rightfully possesses it by those whom the media and that public should be allied against in the first place. The power has been lost to the government and the rest of the powers that be—lost, that is, by all manner of default, of which default in education is the most grievous.

The principle governing their relationship is not complex, really: As the media’s own market, the public has the power to sanction them; but, as protector of its interest, the media deserve its support, too. It’s where to draw the line between sanction and support that public could use some enlightening on.

Unfortunately the media don’t seem bothered enough.