Reporters hit Supreme Court spokesperson for “ban” of live coverage

CMFR/Philippines – Reporters covering the Supreme Court (SC) beat scored court spokesperson and Public Information Office (PIO) chief Theodore Te for his alleged “ban” on live coverage of the court’s press briefings.

Te denied that there is such a ban. He told CMFR that he had simply denied a request for live coverage only of that day’s briefing because he did not think the importance of the announcements, which he considered part of “court proceedings,” warranted it.

Te had refused to start the regular briefing on Tuesday until the “cables used for live TV broadcast are pulled,” a PIO staff member told reporters.

The briefing was delayed for about half an hour, a reporter later told CMFR.

“The court has never allowed live coverage of its proceedings and I read that to include the press conference,” a report from GMA News Online quoted Te as having said in a text message to reporters after the press briefing.

This came as a surprise to reporters who were used to broadcasting SC press briefings live.

“Te’s action did not only come as a shock to us . . . it is (also) . . . a big step backward in advancing good governance,” said Teresa Tavares, president of the Justice Reporters Organization (JUROR).

Reporters also questioned the interpretation of the press briefing as being part of “court proceedings” or deliberations that are not covered live.

“Yes, media may be banned during closed-door deliberation of cases. But once a decision is reached and promulgated, there is no reason to ban live television or radio coverage during the announcement of the decision,” said Reynaldo Panaligan, founding member of the Justice and Court Reporters’ Association (JUCRA).

In a phone interview with CMFR on 4 June 2014, Te said he did not issue a new “policy” banning live coverage. “There is no restriction or ban on live coverage, period.”

But he said he had declined a request for live coverage that day because he did not think the day’s announcements warranted it. “It’s simply a way of managing the court’s messaging.”

TV crew members nevertheless prepared for live coverage despite his rejection of the request, so he delayed the press briefing, said Te.

“I was simply standing by what I said. How many times have I gone into the room after I said no (to live coverage), and they’re (still) shooting? Have I said no? Have I said stop?”

But in explaining the incident in a post on social media, Te said that in denying the request for live coverage on the basis of his perception that what he was about to announce was not important enough, “that may have been an unwise presumption on my part that I was worthy of appreciating the newsworthiness of the stories that would be reported.”

CMFR deputy director Luis V. Teodoro said, “If what PIO chief Te was about to announce was not important enough, he could have simply cancelled the press briefing. The decision to cover events live or not on the basis of their newsworthiness is among the editorial prerogatives of the media. Unless a ban on live coverage is made in behalf of compelling public interest, it is not among the powers of any government institution in a free press regime.”

Te added he has called for a dialogue with SC beat reporters to further clarify the issue.