Covering CoronaMedia in aid of accountability
By Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo
Published in PJR Reports, January-February 2012
THE MEDIA coverage of the ongoing impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona is generally fair. But the tendency of the press to be reactive when reporting has once more made it vulnerable to spins.
Sidebar
Journalists in the news
Some journalists who covered or are still covering the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona—which for weeks has been the biggest story in print, broadcasting, and online media—have become the story themselves.
News and media organizations have kept the issue on the public’s radar screen with breaking news reports and up-to-date coverage. Their effort to make the proceedings  understandable to ordinary folk and allowing the public to participate in the discussion through polls/surveys, interviews, and social networking sites should also be noted.
PJR Reports (PJRR) monitored the coverage of the Manila newspapers Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star; primetime TV news programs 24 Oras, Aksyon, and TV Patrol; and selected websites from January 1 to 31.
The House of Representatives, with 188 of its members, impeached Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona on grounds of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and graft and corruption last Dec. 12, 2011. The House transmitted the eight articles of impeachment to the Senate and the impeachment trial began Jan. 16, 2012. The hearings are conducted from Mondays to Thursdays, 2 to 5 p.m. This is only the second impeachment trial in Philippine history, the first being former President Joseph Estrada’s.
Full coverage, an advantage
The press has been pouring resources into the impeachment coverage. More than a thousand local and foreign media practitioners sought accreditation from the Senate Public Relations and Information Bureau to cover. The Senate, which will try and decide the impeachment case, set up access to the proceedings via live streaming (http://www.senate.gov.ph/videos/live2.asp). The full coverage of the trial allows the public to monitor the proceedings as they happen.
News and media organizations cover the impeachment trial live, airing the proceedings over their news channels, dedicated microsites, and/or special report web pages. These microsites and web pages also contain news reports, analyses, commentaries, timelines, profiles, videos, and feedback from the media audience. Since Jan. 16, the live coverage of the impeachment trial  lasts four hours and thus requires at least two  news teams to report the day’s events. The media organizations have also invited experts and analysts to comment on trial developments.
The live coverage provides the public firsthand knowledge on how the impeachment trial of a high official is conducted. But the social networking sites offer a more convenient platform for the public to share insights and provide immediate feedback. Blogs, Facebook, and Twitter have broken the press monopoly over  information and serve as checks on media bias.
PJRRÂ monitored the live coverage, but will release a more comprehensive analysis in a follow-up report at the end of the impeachment trial.
Personality-oriented, trivial
Most of the news reports were on the  pre-trial preparations of the Senate, the House prosecution panel, and the defense panel; the constitutionality of the impeachment case; definitions of such terms as “impeachment” as well as the process itself; the requirements on the filing of statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) by government officials; Corona’s doctorate degree; the Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP); Hacienda Luisita; alleged premium properties owned by and the bank accounts under the name of Corona;  the witnesses and their testimonies; and how the trial is playing out. However, the reports also relied heavily on press conferences, statements, and interviews  by those involved as well as what transpired daily. The  overall tendency was to produce the usual “he said, she said”   reports.
As of this writing, the prosecution had managed to present evidence only on Article II of the Articles of Impeachment: “Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.” This led to news reports focusing on the properties and bank accounts  that Corona allegedly did not disclose or underdeclared. To the credit of the news and media organizations, they have reported the side of Corona, and have repeatedly reminded the public that the trial is only just beginning and the defense has yet to present its case.
But the problem with personality-oriented reporting is that  it subjects the public to confusing claims and counterclaims. Therefore, it is not enough for the press to get quotes accurately or verify information from all sides. It is also necessary to double-check through research so as to establish which side is telling the truth.
Neither does it also help when the press highlights the trivial. The impeachment trial is not a “telenovela (Coronavela, sarswela)”, which demands the most dramatic angles whether in print or TV. The reports should be more than about the color of the robes worn by the senator-judges, the  impeachment trial as a popularity contest, or the grandstanding and political posturing of those involved.
The tone and  the word choice in headlines can also influence readers and/or viewers. Although the news reports  so far have been generally accurate, a number of misleading headlines were outright  expressions of opinion.
It is irresponsible for the press to consider the impeachment trial as a “boxing match” or use a “scorecard” to evaluate the daily proceedings. Reducing the discussion on the trial to points for or against either side undermines the public’s capacity to appreciate the seriousness of the purpose of the impeachment trial as a means through which, via their elected senators and representatives, citizens can exact accountability from the highest unelected officials of the country whom they cannot vote out of office the way they can presidents, governors, mayors, senators, and congressmen.
Leave a Reply