GMA NEWS:
When President Aquino announced the results of his legal team’s review of the hostage crisis, he was careful with his words when he touched on the media. “We view media as an effective partner in providing checks and balances, and to this end, allies in our goal of good governance. We will continue to champion freedom of the press as guaranteed in our Constitution," he said.
However, he pointed out instances of abuse, especially those by Michael Rogas and Erwin Tulfo of Radyo Mo Nationwide (formerly Radio Mindanao Network): “Rogas interfered in the negotiations and effectively aided and supported the hostage taker by giving him a platform to air his demands. Tulfo, by his own admission, violated police instructions. Their behavior was irresponsible bordering on the criminal."
The president warned that if “this kind of unprofessional behavior" is repeated, the government may be compelled to “ask Congress for appropriate regulations to protect the safety of the public, our security forces and media itself."
In a commentary last June about the results of the KBP investigation, republished below, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility grappled with a similar question: does self-regulation have a future in the Philippines?
The media are not only failing to regulate themselves; more importantly, some media organizations are actually depending on the government to intervene, in effect eroding the very principle of self-regulation itself.
The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) Standards Authority released recently a decision on the Aug. 23, 2010 hostage-taking incident, which included the imposition of fines on member-networks for violating the KBP Broadcast Code. Before it issued the decision, the KBP also revised Article 6 (Crime and Crisis Situations) of its Broadcast Code to help media organizations avoid making the same mistakes they made during the Aug. 23 hostage taking incident should something similar happen in the future.
On that date, Rolando Mendoza, a former police officer, took hostage 25 tourists from Hong Kong and some Filipino staff who were in a tourist bus about to leave Manila’s Fort Santiago the Luneta Park. The incident ended with nine individuals, including Mendoza, dead.
The press, particularly the broadcast media, has been at least partly blamed for the bloody outcome of the hostage taking. Their ethical and professional lapses during the 11-hour coverage made the situation worse. The government, recognizing the existence of the self-regulatory mechanisms of the press, asked the KBP to investigate the media violations and to impose appropriate sanctions.
REACTIONS
The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism sought the reactions of media groups to the KBP decision and its proposal to craft a Broadcast Code. Their replies below:
TV5:
“TV5 is disappointed in the KBP Standards Authority Decision dated 15 December 2010, and the KBP Board’s Order dated 12 April 2011, particularly because it, among all other networks covering the hostage taking crisis, had applied self-imposed restraint in its coverage, as evidenced by
(i) its refusal to cover and interview the hostage-taker, despite the latter’s request;
(ii) the fact that its news crews stayed well behind the police lines as instructed by the authorities;
(iii) its decision to air the arrest of the hostage-taker’s brother – not in real time, as was done by other networks – two hours later, as part of the late evening newscast; and
(iv) its reticence in airing its footage on the SWAT Team’s practice assault. TV5’s coverage was strictly in line with its duty to inform the public of newsworthy events, and patently did not reveal information, vital or otherwise, that the hostage-taker – who, in the elevated bus, had a 360-degree view of the scene – did not himself have.
“Nevertheless, as a current KBP member, TV5 was constrained to accept the Decision and Order, and had in fact complied with the penalty provision thereof last 29 April 2011."
GMA:
1. The network’s position is the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), as a trade organization like the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), Makati Business Club, etc., should be promoting/advocating the common interest of its members and should leave the regulation of the operations of its members to the government agencies that are statutorily authorized to regulate the pertinent aspects of its members’ operations (e.g. NTC, MTRCB, etc.).
The KBP was created and established during Martial Law for the regime to indirectly control broadcast media in the guise of self-regulation. It is of common knowledge that the key and influential officers of the KBP at that time were those nominated and/or installed by the regime.
2. GMA Network left the KBP in September 2003 after it determined that it was being discriminated against by the unequal application of the rules by KBP.
3. After the Manila Peninsula incident the broadcast media members and the DILG/ PNP reached an understanding on how media should cover crisis situations, including hostage taking.
4. The real and effective self-regulation is when each broadcast media operator applies its own code of ethics and existing applicable laws and regulations. Outside of such real self-regulation, by the broadcast company itself, the other regulation that would be effective will be the enforcement / application of existing laws and regulations by the entities authorized by law to do so.
The result
The KBP Standards Authority December 2010 decision declared that:
“The Authority finds cause to hold the following respondents liable for first offenses (against) certain provisions of the Broadcast Code, as follows:
“On respondents Radio Mindanao Network (Radyo Mo Nationwide, RMN), Michael Rogas, and Erwin Tulfo, for having violated Sec. 1, Art. 6, Part I of the Broadcast Code (Coverage of crimes in progress), the following penalties are hereby imposed: The sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and censure on respondent Radio Mindanao Network; the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) and reprimand on respondent Michael Rogas; and the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and reprimand on respondent Erwin Tulfo, all in accordance with the offense classification and range of penalties provided in Art. 4.1, Part III of the Broadcast Code.
“We, however, find no cause to hold Jesus J. Maderazo of RMN liable under the Broadcast Code.
“On respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, for having violated Sec. 4, Art. 6, Part I of the Broadcast Code (Schedule of Penalties for Grave Offenses) , the following penalties are hereby imposed The sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and censure, in accordance with the offense classification and range of penalties provided in Art. 4.2, Part III of the Broadcast Code.
“On respondent Associated Broadcasting Company (TV5), for having violated Sec. 4, Art. 6, Part I of the Broadcast Code, the following penalties are hereby imposed: The sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and censure, in accordance with the offense classification and range of penalties provided in Art. 4.2, Part III of the Broadcast Code."
The penalties do not seem to be commensurate to the wrongdoing. Among its options, the KBP chose not to suspend Rogas and Tulfo for the major ethical offense of interviewing Mendoza during the most crucial stages of the crisis.
In the first place, however, the KBP decision, comparable to a mountain’s laboring to produce a mouse, had been almost a year in the making. In all that time, its Standards Authority simply decided not to include GMA Network Inc. (GMA-7) in its investigation because the network is not a KBP member.
Beyond ironic
And yet GMA-7 committed similarly egregious violations of the Broadcast Code as ABS-CBN 2 and TV5, among them that of reporting police and SWAT team movements in the afternoon of the 23rd. The KBP “solution" to this dilemma was to ask the government to get involved, in effect providing government a justification for media regulation in the name of self-regulation!
The KBP actually suggested that “the Office of the President, through the Office of the Executive Secretary, and with the assistance of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), support the KBP in establishing a system or mechanism by which the Broadcast Code is made to apply to all broadcast stations in the country, without exception, in the interest of promoting the principle of self-regulation (and accountability) in the country’s broadcast industry."
The statement is beyond ironic. Media self-regulation means that media institutions themselves enforce ethical and professional standards among their members without intervention from the government or any other external agency. And yet here is one of the alleged mechanisms of self-regulation itself asking for government intervention— and in the name of self-regulation.
Although it does not have authority over non-members, there is nothing to stop KBP from reviewing and evaluating the performance of all broadcast media organizations.
ABS-CBN 2 paid the fine of P30,000 imposed on it for its lapses in the coverage of the Aug. 23 hostage taking, but neither agreed with, nor admitted any liability in connection with the KBP decision.
On the other hand, TV5 appealed the decision, arguing that the police should have intervened in its coverage, again in effect arguing for government regulation by admitting its inability to itself decide, on the basis of media ethics and professional standards, how their reporters should have behaved. TV5 also argued that it was unfair that while it was being sanctioned, non-KBP members like GMA-7 “get away unscathed no matter what it does."
RMN similarly appealed the KBP decision, insisting that they had not violated any provisions of the broadcast code.
GMA-7’s withdrawal of membership from KBP has indeed prevented its being investigated by KBP and exempted it from whatever sanctions it may impose, in both the Aug. 23 hostage-taking incident as well as others. And yet the KBP could have looked into GMA-7’s coverage despite its non-membership, and cited it for the lapses in its coverage without imposing such sanctions as fining it the paltry sum of P30,000. Non-KBP membership, as TV5 correctly argued, should not be a license for any media organization to commit ethical and professional lapses that help make things worse rather than better during crisis situations.
KBP needs to review its mindset as far as non-KBP members are concerned. It needs to affirm that it has the option to evaluate GMA-7’s and other non-KBP members’ performance, if for no other reason than the fact that public interest requires it.
Of equal concern for KBP, however, should be the lesson it is imparting to both its members and non-members otherwise: If non-members can “get away unscathed", as TV5 complains, what is to stop KBP members from taking the same path of resigning their membership as GMA-7, and eventually scuttling the entire self-regulatory imperative in Philippine broadcast media?
Reprinted with permission from the CMFR and Eye on Ethics websites
Information Courtesy of GMA NEWS / Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
If You Like This Kapuso Post, Click Here To Subscribe Via Email
