On the statement of Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot on the class action suit filed by journalists filed against Mike Arroyo, that: the lawsuit was laudable and just and individual PDI reporters and columnists were free to join the class action suit but that the newspaper as an institution would not do so, because it might affect the reputation of the newspaper for objectivity and neutrality (I’m 
paraphrasing I didn’t take down notes, sorry Gani, but I think this was the essence of the statement): Following are the comments of some students on the matter:
(1.this was actually given in an exam; nine problems, three hours; so, an average of 20 minutes per problem; 2. they wrote down their “permission to publish”; or “no permission to publish”; or “permission to publish but no name of author, student number only.” 3.The question was never discussed in class before; 4.I do not necessarily endorse any of these views; 5.not all the views here necessarily show a clear understanding of the problem or the code of ethics. They’re just here to give you an idea of other people’s opinions; and, 6. as usual, I did not edit; not even grammar, or syntax, or idiom.
By: Student number: 2004-11624With permission to publish but student number only 1)The Inquirer’s move to allow their individual journalists to join the class suit filed against FG Mike Arroyo is not in conflict with any concepts in ethics. The PPI Expanded Code of Ethics entitles journalists to advocate causes and join organizations (in this case, a class action), as long as they will not impose it on their readers. It is a good move to issue a statement like that so that their journalists who were hesitant at first to join the class suit may now have the courage (and permission from their higher-ups) to stand out and join the action. The class suit is, in a way, defending their rights to practice journalism in this democratic country. It is also commendable for the Inquirer to clearly state that their institution will not join the class action since it will interfere with their work as a media organization. If Inquirer joined the class suit, it can be concluded that all of their journalists are also part of that class action. The Inquirer’s involvement in the class suit will affect its ability to report, write, or edit “faithfully, factually, impartially or fairly” on the subject. With their current stand, whenever they need to report on that issue, Inquirer has the option to select journalist who are not involved in the class action to write about that; unlike when they commit the institution as a whole, they will never have the option of finding an unbiased journalist to cover the event since the whole line-up, through the higher-ups decision, is part of the class action. ###
By:04-38716
With permission to publish, student number only
- I do not agree with the Inquirer’s action of letting its journalists
- join the class action against the First Gentleman. It poses a conflicts of interest issue. In the PPI Expanded Code of Ethics it was written that “journalists must weigh their obligations against the impact of involvement in certain activities”. For the Inquirer journalists who joined, indeed, it can be argued that they have the right to join it, but considering their responsibility of writing ‘balanced’ reports as journalists; they shouldn’t join in the first place. The Inquirer even wrote in their statement that joining the activity will ‘interfere with their work as a media organization’. If reporters joined the class action, it can be expected that they couldn’t write unbiased reports anymore, because they will always be against the First Gentleman.
###
By: Student number: 2004-08330
with permission to publish but with student number only)
1. I agree with Inquirer’s statement to support the class suit and allow it’s (sic) journalist to join it but to not join as an institution. In my opinion, the moment that they join it as an organization, it will be implied that inquirer as a publication is anti-mike arroyo. This can affect their work as an institution as bias will be explicitly shown. They will lose their credibility on reporting news about the First gentleman, even the first family, even the President, because the people know that it joined the class suit and is therefore, anti-mike. On the part of the reporters who joined the class suit can either not report on him or when unavoidable, should state their bias. Supporting is different from joining in the sense that, their support and wish for its success may mean that they support their fellow journalists’ goal of achieving press freedom and not be anti-mike. Or support can mean that they support the defense of their fellow journalist and that’s all.
By: Student number: 2004-02955
(with permission to publish, but with student number only)January 15, 2007
- It seems that the Inquirer is contradicting itself. On the one hand, it supports its journalists who will join the class action, but on the other, it will not join the class action, “as an institution”, that is, because it will become an interference in their work. Is it not an interference already, when they allow their journalists to join the class action, since it is also these journalists who work for the publication? And what exactly is this interference they are talking about? It seems to me that the Inquirer is more concerned with protecting its relationship with the powerful people. 2/3 of the Inquirer’s shares are, after all, owned by the Prietos, who are still part of the country’s elite, and will therefore have their own priorities, especially when it comes to their affiliations. Perhaps, even though they are the more critical of the broadsheets, their move to not join the class action “as an institution” is also a move to protect the status quo of the paper.
###
By:
CONRAD S.C. LACSINA (WITH PERMISSION TO PUBLISH NAME BUT NOT STUDENT NUMBER)
- I disagree with the move of the Inquirer. The statement issued by Inquirer when seen in the light of its action is inconsistent. I cannot see the difference between allowing their reporters to join the class action suit and the Inquirer joining the class action suit as a media organization. It seems to me that whatever interrupts a member of an organization in the performance of that member’s task in that organization necessarily interrupts the task of the organization to which the member belongs. In other words, interrupting a part of a group is tantamount to interrupting the entire group because a member of an organization (or a group) has specific tasks in that group. To begin with, that member was hired to perform specific task/s. What if the concern of the Inquirer in not joining the class action suit but allowing its reporters to do so is the heavier task the organization has to undertake were it to be a party in the case? This, it seems to me, is laziness on the part of those who occupy higher positions in the Inquirer. It allows its reporters, the foot soldiers, to be subjected to inconveniences and possibly, be subjected to harassments while it excuses itself on the pretext of “[interference] to [their] work as a media organization.” For such lawsuits as libel cases are parts of the nuisances of the trade of the press. There is nothing extraordinary about a media organization being a party to a judicial case. And what if the concern of the Inquirer is the perception the public will hold about its objectivity and impartiality in reporting the case? Suffice it to say that the Inquirer issued a statement of support for the journalists who filed the class action suit. Later, in reporting about it in the progress of the case, they will have to disclose that they have expressed their support for the journalists and that they may even have journalists as party to the case in the interest of disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. Indeed, media organizations are the object and therefore, have always been parties to cases such as libel, prior restraint, and other violations of the constitutional right to free expression. Media organizations, and this must include media owners, executives, publishers and editors of the Inquirer will do well to take it upon themselves to combat what for them are violations of their constitutional rights. Not doing so by preferring to retreat into the sidelines reeks of hypocrisy and lack of care for reporters and other small journalists.
By: Student #162004-04032 (C permission to publish with the student# only)
- The move itself that was done by the Inquirer is unethical in the sense that their statement contradicts with their action. This can mislead the public and end up with a question, “What does the Inquirer want to imply?” The fact that it is a “class action” might result into a clash because it can trigger other media organizations. First, the element of truthfulness and objectivity was sacrificed and it didn’t benefit the public at all. Inquirer just places their credibility at stake. Above all, as a part of the expanded code of ethics, journalists are entitled to advocate causes and join organization but they are not allowed to impose this on the readers. Disclose your advocacies and organizational involvements.
###
By: 2004-78849with permission to publish, but student number only 1) The Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct of the Philippine Press Institute, the expanded code of ethics, it states that a journalist is “entitled to advocate causes and join organizations”, however he is not allowed to impose this on the readers. Instead, he is expected to “[d]isclose [his] advocacies and organizational involvement.” Although the issue greatly affects journalists such as those working in the Inquirer, with this statement they made it clear that they do support without actually participating also becaus eof he nature of their work. By ethics, what the Inquirer did is right. ### 
By: Kristine Felisse Mangunay04-79149a. With permission to publish
1. The Expanded Code of Ethics of the Philippine Press Institute explicitly argues the need for journalists to disclose their advocacies and organizational involvements. Since the latter clearly constitute potential conflicts of interest, it is only understandable that the Inquirer issue such a statement of support for the filing of class action against the First Gentleman. In this manner, readers of Inquirer stories dwelling on this particular issue will be reminded beforehand of the media outfit’s stand on the issue, thus enabling them to discern in which articles has there been a clear interference of subjectivity on the part of the writer. With this in mind, readers will be empowered to separate the objective stories from the subjective ones. At the same time, the Inquirer’s refusal to join the class action as a media institution, I agree, is in keeping in line with one particular provision of the same code of ethics. As such: “Staffmembers should avoid any involvement in any activity which could compromise, or appear to compromise, the staffmember’s role or the newspaper’s capacity, ability or disposition to gather, report, write or edit, faithfully, factually, impartially or fairly.” Had the Inquirer joined the class action as a media institution, its credibility as a newspaper organization covering this particular issue would have been undermined.
###
By: 02 – 44794 with permission to publishauthored by: Katrina Paula Herrera 1. I believe that by issuing a statement that they support the actions of journalists, who will join the class action against First Gentleman Arroyo, the Inquirer has made its beliefs public and therefore people would then be wary to think if the Inquirer would still indeed be able to come up with objective reports about the matter. There is a degree of conflict of interest because the Philippine Daily Inquirer itself is an institution that might greatly be impacted by the results of the suits. It is somewhat understood that the Inquirer might side with the journalists and what they did was to disclose their bias. By saying that they support the move, even without joining it, the Inquirer has not retained neutrality. Ideally, the newspaper should remain as uninvolved as they can. Realistically however, I do understand why they chose to publish that statement because in essence they are making their interests known to the public.
By: 04-40685With permission to publishauthored by: Weisa Orejola
- Issuing the said statement was a wrong move by the Inquirer. It should have not commented as it only marred its integrity and credibility as a news provider. The very act of issuing the said statement is a proof that the issue has interfered with their work as a media organization. It’s because a media organization should take no particular side in any issue, even if it concerns the organization itself. Taking such side then will only result to questions of reliability and credibility of the paper’s news articles regarding the issue, and everything else for that matter.
A conflict of interest is present in this situation as the Inquirer revealed its stand in the matter. According to the PPI code of ethics, news organizations should be careful when making such affiliations. Though the Inquirer said it will not join as an institution, the rest of the statement implies its support for the class action. Because of its support for the cause, the Inquirer may not be completely credible in reporting the issue. Vigilant readers could not expect the newspaper to be unbiased and fair in reporting on the issue if it has made known its opinion. The public would also find it hard to believe that the Inquirer lives up to the provision in the code of ethics which says not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by improper emphasis if it says it wishes the class action success. In some ways, it will manipulate the news so their end may be reached. Of course, this stand will have its effect in the performance of the Inquirer’s duties.
By: Student No. 2003-60828(with permission to publish but student number only.) 1. I view Inquirer’s move as an attempt to disclose their biases or institutional principles, which is good. By letting their journalists join as individuals rather than joining as the whole Inquirer, however raises questions of media ownership. They said they would not join the class action “because it will interfere with [their] work as a media organization.” This statement was unclear. In what way shall joining a class suit affect their work as a media organization? If the management or owners were the ones who did not support the case and hence would not dare to include the Inquirer’s name and reputation in the class suit, then why not say so? ###
By: Student number: 05-78803With permission to publish.A
uthored by: Anna Kristine Pasco
1. The move of the Inquirer regarding the ‘class actions’ filed by the 50 or more journalists representing the members of the Philippine Press, against First Gentleman Mike Arroyo for the ten libel suits he had filed against 43 journalist is a way of showing their deep setting (sic) of professionalism.I distinctively support their move because according to the PPI Expanded code of ethics, individual journalist can advocate or join organizations, in this wire (sic) the Inquirer didn’t suppress their staff members in joining the action against the first gentleman. They also clearly stated that they support the class action, but as an institution, the Inquirer will not join the class action. From that statement, they abide the PPI Expanded Code of ethics by being a mere watchdog for the public and also they elude the issue of “Conflict of Interests”. They now that actions taken in this kind of situation may affect their reporting and responsibilities as a press institution to the public. By that, they cited that the their most important task is to inform the public, give them fair and balanced reporting and also give them the freedom to acquaint the public to form their own opinions about the issue. ### Publish)
Student #404-62930 Authored by: Jan Rhys Gopeng
1.The journalism profession doesn’t usually receive the merit (sic) it deserves for all the effort and the work that today’s journalists go through, a sentiment shared by almost everyone who practice in this field. Therefore, it is not unusual that there is a prevalent “all for one, one for all” attitude among journalists. But with all due respect to the journalists who filed the class action against First Gentleman Arroyo, the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s move of allowing their staff to involve themselves in the lawsuit but not lending to them its name as an institution and as a media organization is an intelligent action on the newspaper’s part – for practical reasons. For one, the work that is done in a media organization does not involve only gathering and presentation of necessary information. There is the issue of advertising that serves as the factor that keeps a media outlet alive. It is, after all, an enterprise. And for a business to be involved in a war waged against someone who has clout in the highest office in the land, the prospects are not that bright. Although, it can be argued that PDI is already an institution and that it wouldn’t bear any really damaging effect on it if they join in the class action; after all, it is said to be a fight against press censorship. The PDI cannot afford to let it be caught in the middle of a controversy if they like to maintain its supposed integrity and credibility. ###
By: Student No: 2004-42520 A: Permission to publish. Authored by Jo Hannah Lou Garcia1.) No. I don’t agree with the move of Inquirer because in the expanded version of the code of ethics by the Philippine press institute, there is a provision there that says “Individual journalists must weigh their obligations against the impact of affiliations with causes or organizations”. In my opinion, the journalists of Inquirer will have a difficult time being objective and unbiased in reporting stories regarding the First Gentleman and regarding issues about the class action.But I’m not saying that it is wrong not to support the cause of the journalists who filed the class action. I think that the journalists involved in filing the class action should refrain from reporting news about the case to achieve objective and fair reports as much as possible.
###
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
