Media Monitor of ethics class members: News reports one-sided in favor of the police. Free promo for presidentiables etc. PART ONE
From Patrick: “xxx Aksyon reported that 99 police were injured in Kidapawan, whereas there were only 10 farmers injured. This was according to their source, the PNP. According to the PPI Code of Ethics, it states that journalists should “air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.” Obviously, this is not a very credible source because first of all, they didn’t get the side of the farmers or at least a report from the area. Secondly, these are reports coming from the very people that are inflicting the danger in Kidapawan so of course, they wouldn’t release a report where the “rebels” had more casualties than their own.
“More over, it is frustrating enough that there were a number of sources and other news reports where it showed that the number of casualties and deaths of farmers were way larger than the ones with the police. TV5 Should’ve known that by getting the PNP as their source, that there would already be bias in the data as well as inaccuracy. It is outrageous that a news station would even report this in the first place.”
From Yella: “ xxx (N)ews article by GMA News that contains a video footage (care of the Kilab Multimedia Facebook page) of the happenings on the day the farmers were met with bullets from the police, instead of the aid they have been asking for months since the state of calamity was implemented. The article describes the different points of view of the key persons in the issue: protesters and their supporters (i.e. the Methodist Church in Kidapawan through the Sisters Association), versus the local government and the Department of Interior and Local Government. The conflicting points that were raised were the difference in the reported number of casualties/injuries of the different camps, as well as the appeal of both camps as to the truth of what transpired during the rally. Another key player is the Commission of Human Rights who also gave a statement regarding the investigation they are conducting.
“I think the article displayed rather good practice because of the following reasons:
“As per the SPJ Code of Ethics and the Expanded Code of Ethics by PPI, sources were clearly identified, and the different parties involved were given the chance to explain themselves.
Specifically, the Expanded Code stated that “Getting the other side is a must, especially for the most sensitive and critical stories,” which the article was able to achieve. The video released by Kilab Multimedia made rounds on the Internet very quickly, but through the article, the other side (government) was able to appeal to the public to hear their side of the story.”
From Iya Valenzuela: “xxxRappler used the Facebook status updates of Kilab Multimedia, a popular “news” page on Facebook, as the basis of their news article. This is problematic because first of all, Facebook updates/posts are arguably considered unverified sources of information. Moreover, Kilab Multimedia’s Facebook is not transparent on their identity as an “organization”, which means that they could be anything; perhaps a propaganda page of any interest group. By posting news based on Kilab Multimedia’s facebook post, Rappler could have spread false information that could mislead/ misinform the readers, which is irresponsible journalism. Also, in this news report, Rappler mainly relied on secondary information. This further decreases the reliability of the report. Responsible journalists should include primary sources of verified information in their news report, and Rappler failed in this aspect.”
From josefgacutan: “PNP: Kidapawan cop injured by gunshot.
“The article talked about the Kidapawan clash between farmers and PNP, and it gave both sides of the story, but focused more on the PNP’s statements. There were no statements mentioned that were directly from the farmers. This goes against the first provision under the PPI Code of Ethics that states that you should air the other side of the story. In this case, the farmers’.
“It also goes against the provision under PPI that states that you should avoid improper emphasis – the title, “Kidapawan cop injured by gunshot” focuses on the injured policeman, when in fact, there were injured (even dead) farmers, as well.”
From Joyce: “Kidapawan “shooting”/ “clash” / “bloodbath”
“The struggle of the Kidapawan farmers had been exposed to the world by recent news circulating online and traditional media. The number of deaths, injured and missing people had been reported as well as the plight of starving farmers in the face of El Niño. Various accounts on government officials’ response to the situation had been covered. As indicated in the SPJ Code of Ethics 2014, it is indeed a part of the role of journalists to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and the government, as well as to give voice to the voiceless (which in this case are the Kidapawan farmers).
“On the other hand, it appears that many of the accused to be responsible for the violent dispersal of the protesting farmers and the problem on starvation in the province had barely been given coverage for their responses on the allegations made about them. This includes the PNP officers, the Kidapawan mayor, the provincial governor, agriculture secretary and even the Philippine president. I believe that this is an important part of a balance reporting and that ultimately, the people will be the ones to decide whose account on the incident they will believe.
“It is also noticeable that as the coverage on the incident continues, candidates for high posts (such as Miriam Santiago, Bongbong Marcos, Rodrigo Duterte, Allan Peter Cayetano) in the national government had been given the opportunity to have a free advertisement for their own benefit as they were interviewed on their opinion about the matter. While it is important to know the stance of the future leaders of the nation in such an issue, it is obvious that no candidate in his or her right mind will condone the incident. The attention of the audience will now tend to be diverted from the important issues concerning the Kidapawan shooting to the competition among the candidates.”
From Micha: “PNP: Kidapawan cop injured by gunshot
Published: April 4, 2016
“Source: rappler.com police-injured-gunshot-kidapawan
“The article is basically about a cop being shot in the leg at the clash between the police and the local farmers in Kidapawan city. Mainly, the article sided with the PNP and there were no information retrieved from the opposing side. According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, journalists must“Seek the truth and Report it” and in the PPI Code of Ethics, “All efforts must be exerted to make stories fair, accurate and balanced. Getting the other side is a must.”
“However, Rappler has been able to “Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story (SPJ Code of Ethics: Seek Truth and Report It)” which is important prior to updating the public about the current events in Kidapawan city regarding this issue.”
(TO BE CONTINUED)