First Media Monitor of the first class 2018 August (Deadline Aug29, 5pm)

First Media Monitor of the first class 2018 August

        The first media monitor of the first class (Fair, Foolish, or in a Fix: good practice, violation, or dilemma), can be posted here, either regular or bonus, with deadline in six days or at 5pm of August 29. The post can either be an embedded, or a pasted link leading to the student’s own site. Only a review of events that are current (a review of media coverage starting July 1, 2018 or news events starting July 1, 2018) will be given points.
       Late submissions are considered a forfeit for the week and would be credited to next week’s media monitor instead;
provided that no student would be allowed to exceed the maximum number of media monitor to make up for forfeits or to pile up his/her media monitor posts to make up for forfeits. (a week lost, is lost forever — the credits will be moved forward but only up to the last week before final exams).
Instructions have been given in class. (As stated before: Students may use pseudonyms or pen names, and conceal their faces, and may also use their own platforms and simply paste the links in the comments section. (If pseudonymous, pls provide the department assistant with your pen name).
        Pls use the comments section of this post. As stated, the media monitor commentary may either by typed as text in the comments section or as a link leading to the post in the platform of the classmember/ post author. Pls type in the first line whether the post is a regular media monitor (1st Regular Media Monitor) or a bonus post (type the Bonus Title) to aid the checker in locating and categorizing each box. Tnx).
Baseless rants will not merit any points – the commentary should use, cite, and quote the pertinent provisions of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics as taken up in class this week. For the succeeding weeks, members of the class should be able to cite also the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics (PPI Code of Ethics and PPI Expanded Code of Ethics), the KBP Broadcast Code, etc.) Failure to provide the pertinent provision will result in a score of zero. The SPJ provisions have been provided in the handouts distributed in class this week. They were also discussed in powerpoint in class. For students who are completely incapable of reading the handouts given to them, the provisions taken up in class are embedded below.
                        BONUS POSTS
            FOR DOUBLE THE POINTS
       As a heads-up, a bonus post on any of the following topics could be submitted in any week for double the points of a regular media monitor post (provided that only one post, either regular or bonus, can be submitted for every week: Choose between either a regular or a bonus in submitting a post; only one post per week will be given points, no cramming of posts is allowed). Please type the bonus title as heading to identify the post.
           Here are the bonus topics to choose from, in no particular order (choose any one bonus title for any week provided no bonus topic/ no bonus title can be repeated; a class member may post either a regular or a bonus but not both, i.e., only one post per week, no cramming is allowed) :
        Bonus Title: HATE SPEECH (fomenting prejudices that may lead to violence against those tagged) etc. : A review of any news report or news features on Red-tagging as hate speech or news reports or news features on other forms of hate speech based on gender, race, ethnic origin, poverty, physical appearance, etc.
         Bonus Title: RAMON TULFO: Ramon Tulfo at the triage of the PGH ER (not news reports on the incident but how he conducted himself; or how his staff “covered” the incident; etc.)
        Bonus Title: BEN TULFO: Ben Tulfo and contracts with the Department of Tourism as approved by Wanda Teo, and related events, etc.
       Bonus Title: MARCOS DICTATORSHIP: News reports/ news feature on the Aug. 21 commemoration, and related events;
       Bonus Title: “DRUG WAR”. Media coverage of crime news reports/ interviews/ features on Operation Tokhang, buy-bust operations, investigations of cases of EJKs related to the drug war, and other related media coverage.
       Bonus Title: SUPERNATURAL, ASTROLOGY, etc. (leading up to the weeks prior to Oct. 30-31, Nov. 1 ) (this would require advance reading if done earlier than when the topic is taken up in class: the KBP Broadcast Code: ” “Art. 13 SUPERSTITION AND THE OCCULT: “Sec.1 Programs featuring superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices, such as supernatural powers, foretelling of the future, astrology, phrenology, palm-reading, numerology, mind-reading, hypnotism, faith healing or similar subjects shall be careful not to induce belief in them. Care shall be taken to prevent the exploitation of people who may be easily swayed by such superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices. Sec.2.Programs or program materials that promote or encourage occult practices, black magic, witchcraft, and similar activities are prohibited.” (KBP Broadcast Code) )
      Bonus Title: DISASTER-REPORTING: Coverage of the habagat and related events: You can either do some advance-reading of the assigned articles on disaster-reporting as stated in the syllabus; or bank the news report and post it after we take up the topic)
      Bonus Title: ADVERTORIALS (leading up to the Christmas season)
       Do not repeat bonus posts or bonus titles.
      Each of the bonuses can be posted at ANYTIME or in any week in lieu of a regular media monitor (just type the bonus title as heading for ease of identification and recording)
       As stated, only one media monitor per week (which can either be a regular media monitor or a bonus post) is allowed to avoid cramming and jamming up of posts: the purpose of observing the weekly media monitor is TO BUILD THE HABIT OF READING/ VIEWING MEDIA CONTENT REGULARLY WITH DISCERNMENT.
       Pls do not embed gory images on this page without a trigger warning.
     For the first regular media monitor: (2014 SPJ): “SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT
“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
– Label advocacy and commentary.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
– Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
“MINIMIZE HARM
“Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate
ACT INDEPENDENTLY
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
Journalists should:
– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
– Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
– Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
– Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Journalists should:
– Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
– Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
– Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
– Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
– Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.”
   

      Advanced Happy Heroes Day!

 

24 thoughts on “First Media Monitor of the first class 2018 August (Deadline Aug29, 5pm)

  1. 1st Media Monitor
    BONUS: Ramon Tulfo

    SPJ Code of Ethics: “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrong doing.”

    Article: Ramon Tulfo won’t apologize to PGH over video –– https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/21/1844462/ramon-tulfo-wont-apologize-pgh-over-video

    This article by Philippine Star is a good example of this provision because of how the article was able to highlight both sides of the story. Prior to getting a statement from Ramon Tulfo, the news organization released a statement from the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) which said, “In light of all the facts, a public apology from Mr. Ramon Tulfo is warranted and a commitment to take down as soon as possible the video taken at PGH as well as all objectionable related posts.”

    Afterwards, Philippine Star was able to seek out a response from Tulfo to give him the chance to explain his side of the story through a telephone interview. Tulfo stated, “I won’t apologize for my actions at the PGH, but I would like to apologize to the patients who got agitated from my outburst.” I think this article is really a good practice of that provision because of the prominence of the journalist’s effort to reach out to Tulfo after the criticism against him was published.

  2. Thank you for this. Pls see instructions on Bonus Title Ramon Tulfo — your post will be considered a regular post and not a bonus post: You can still submit a bonus post on the topic in another week 🙂 Tnx. -marichu

  3. Hate Speech

    Where do social media sites draw the line between freedom of speech and hate crimes? Facebook may have been able to tell when to ban certain users on the account of hate speech, but Twitter may have not. In this article, Vox explains Twitter’s decision to not ban Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones on their site, but with evident bias (Romano, 2018). This violated the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics in seeking the truth and reporting it. As a left-leaning news organization, Vox failed to
    “support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant” (SPJ, 2014). Most of the time, they post emotionally inciting headlines with equally riveting content. In this article, the writer shows her disdain for the right-wing users of Twitter. Though she aimed to critically examine the hypocrisies of Twitter, she tainted the text with extreme disapproval. She may have shown both sides, but favors the other. This is a big mistake in reporting, as there should be no personal insights or bias in the media coverage.

    Sources:
    Romano, A. (2018, August 11). Twitter is planning to draft a policy on “dehumanizing speech”. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2018/8/11/17660902/twitter-dehumanizing-speech-policy-alex-jones

    SPJ. (2014, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  4. BONUS: Ramon Tulfo
    1st Media Monitor

    A provision in the SPJ Code of Ethics states that one must “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage” as well as to “use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles or subjects who are unable to give consent”. Tulfo and his staff took videos of the scene which was 1) in violation of the hospital’s policy, and 2) in violation of the Data Privacy Act of the patient since they did not obtain the consent of the mother and her daughter who is a MINOR (note: the video was not even blurred to hide the victims’ faces). Aside from violating the Data Privacy Act, they also violated the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 by posting the video on a public platform wherein the doctor involved was being orally defamed by Tulfo.

    Media practitioners must also be accountable for their actions and transparent. A provision in the SPJ COE states that one must “acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently” as well as to “expose unethical conduct in journalism”. Tulfo and his staff were clearly in the wrong (violating multiple laws and promoting unethical conduct), and yet they refused to admit their mistake, with Tulfo even releasing a public statement saying, “I will not apologise”.

    Sources:
    http://www.interaksyon.com/behind-tulfo-brothers-rant-against-the-philippine-general-hospital/
    https://www.rappler.com/nation/210015-ramon-tulfo-will-not-apologize-to-pgh

  5. 1st Media Monitor
    BONUS: Hate Speech

    CBS News posted an article revealing how Facebook is having a problem in monitoring and decreasing the hate speech against the Rohingya community, a minority group in Myanmar.

    It was found out by an investigative reporter, Steve Stecklow of Reuters, that Facebook has failed to be transparent about how many Burnese speakers monitor the content for them to rid out the people who falsely accuse the minority group. Facebook is the only news source for many people in Myanmar, that is why the article notes how important it is for the social media network to get rid of rumors and fake news as to not lead to terrible consequences.

    CBS News showed good practice and abided in SPJ code of ethics since of the provisions stated is that media organizations should “Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.” CBS News revealed to the public how Facebook is not really handling the hate speech in Myanmar very well through facts and an investigative report.

    Another provision they abided in is as stated “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.” This is proved to be true since they cited Steve Stecklow of Reuters and linked the audience to the study that the investigative reporter did. CBS news cited their source for the article as well as added a link to a documentary so that the audience can get more information about the issue while not presenting the article in a bias manner.

    SOURCE:
    CBS NEWS. (2018, August 21). Facebook failing to tackle hate speech in Myanmar, investigative report finds. Retrieved from
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-failing-to-tackle-hate-speech-in-myanmar-investigative-report-finds/

  6. Bonus Title: RAMON TULFO
    1st Media Monitor

    Ramon Tulfo published a column in response to Kay Rivera’s article, “Tulfo’s Hospital Tantrum” (see Rivera’s article here: http://opinion.inquirer.net/115504/tulfos-hospital-tantrum). In his column, however, instead of explaining his side, he replied with ad hominem attacks against Rivera. For instance, “I’m sorry that I have had to make this reply to a young upstart from University of the Philippines College of Medicine who thinks she knows everything about journalism” (Ramon, 2018). This is a violation of one of the provisions in SPJ Code of Ethics, which states: “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant” (SPJ, 2014).

    Tulfo was also biased in his choice of words. In the article he stated, “Did you see the face of that doctor who refused to take a look at the child-patient because he was insisting in enforcing the PGH no-video policy?” further adding, “I didn’t see a shred of empathy in the doctor’s face” (Ramon, 2018). By reporting his take on the scenario in this manner, he has breached another provision, “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story” (SPJ, 2014).

    Also, at the latter part of his article, Tulfo shared two “bitter” experiences he and agriculture secretary, Manny Piñol, had in PGH. Both of which were times when the doctors failed to attend to the patients. He then ended the passage with, “Is that the way doctors at PGH emergency section should treat their patients?”(Ramon, 2018). This is a clear generalization of PGH doctors as arrogant and apathetic. This fails to comply with yet another provision in the SPJ Code of Ethics, “Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting” (SPJ, 2014).

    Sources:
    Ramon, T. “Yes, I had a hospital tantrum.” Inquirer, 25 Aug. 2018, newsinfo.inquirer.net/1024769/yes-i-had-a-hospital-tantrum
    “SPJ Code of Ethics.” SPJ, 9 Sept. 2014, http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  7. 1st Media Monitor
    Bonus Title: “MARCOS DICTATORSHIP: News reports/ news feature on the Aug. 21 commemoration, and related events”

    The Philippine Star published an online article by journalist Dhel Nazario detailing the commemoration of the late Sen. Ninoy Aquino Jr.’s 35th death anniversary led by Former President Noynoy Aquino III.

    The commemoration last August 21, 2018 happened at the tomb of the late Senator at Manila Memorial Park in Sucat, Parañaque. A mass was offered at 11 AM led by Rev. Fr. Manoling Francisco. Aside from the Cojuangco-Aquino family, there were also many political figures such as Senators Franklin Drilon, Kiko Pangilinan, and Antonio Trillanes IV.

    According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, it is important to “Provide context [and] [t]ake special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story”. I believe journalist Nazario covered the commemoration well, but the article could be improved if he added context to explain why the late Senator’s death is significant so as to deserve a commemoration even after 35 years since his death. Yes, the assassination of late Sen. Ninoy Aquino Jr. is significant in Philippine history; however, I don’t think it’s acceptable to assume that all readers that chance upon this article will be able to understand the circumstances of his death given that the event happened long ago. The addition of context also shows that the journalist is detail-oriented and is knowledgeable of the whole picture surrounding the event.

    Sources:
    https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/08/21/ninoy-supporters-commemorate-35th-death-anniversary-in-paranaque/
    https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  8. Error: In my post, I referenced an article from the “Philippine Star”. Such information is incorrect. The article I referenced is published in “The Manila Bulletin”.

  9. Bonus Title: “DRUG WAR”
    1st Media Monitor

    ABS-CBN complied with the SPJ Code of Ethics in their Buy-Bust Operation news report last August 10, 2018. By heightening sensitivity through censorship of the dead body, they avoided their viewers to feel disturbed or offended. They did so by showing a long shot of the image with the subject blurred. This also enables them to minimize harm as they treated the subject (the suspect) with respect.

    Sources:

    Hinayon, R. (2018, August 09). Lalaking nanlaban sa buy-bust sa Surigao del Sur, patay. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/10/18/lalaking-nanlaban-sa-buy-bust-sa-surigao-del-sur-patay
    SPJ. (2014, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  10. 1st Media Monitor
    Bonus title: HATE SPEECH: A review of any news report or news features on Red-tagging

    SPJ Code of Ethics
    “Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.”
    and
    “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.”

    Article: Sagada locals scared by 54th IBPA red-tagging
    http://www.nordis.net/2018/08/sagada-locals-scared-by-54th-ibpa-red-tagging/

    This article is an example of a good practice of the first provision stated above. Considering the details in the news report, in which several residents in the area are being wrongfully tagged as supporters/members of the New People’s Army and are being questioned by the military, it is only right for Northern Dispatch Weekly to keep the anonymity of their sources. Revealing the identities of their informants may put them in hot water with the authorities and put their safety at risk. As explained in the article, their sources did not want to be identified for security reasons.
    Still, even without disclosing their names, the article gave brief descriptions of their informants – that one is a Barangay official and the other is a resident of a different village. This is in accordance with another provision of the SPJ Code of Ethics, which requires journalists to give as much information as possible on their sources so their readers will be able to gauge if they are to be believed or not.

  11. 1st Media Monitor
    BONUS: Hate Speech

    “Tumblr is changing its community guidelines to more explicitly ban hate speech, glorifying violence, and revenge porn,” as reported by Shannon Liao, posted in The Verge, an American technology news and media network.

    Liao showed good practice and reported in accordance to the SPJ Code of Ethics that states that journalists should, “identify sources clearly,” and “take responsibility for the accuracy of their work, verify information before releasing it, and use original sources when possible” by providing links to Tumblr’s post regarding the new changes to its policies, the Tumblr’s community policy page itself, and even a webpage with the unmodified version of the policies so that her readers may be made aware of the changes that Tumblr has made.

    She also provided a few of Tumblr’s previous posts, which lead to the revision of their community policies, clearly stating that the posts have since been deleted explaining [to her readers] the lack of links pertaining to the actual post. By doing this she also exhibited how journalists should, “provide [the public] with as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources,” and “explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”

    SOURCES:
    Liao, Shannon. “Tumblr Is Explicitly Banning Hate Speech, Posts That Celebrate School Shootings, and Revenge Porn.” The Verge, The Verge, 27 Aug. 2018, http://www.theverge.com/2018/8/27/17786584/tumblr-hate-speech-ban-school-shootings-revenge-porn.

  12. 1st Media Monitor
    
BONUS: Ben Tulfo

    One of the trending corruption related issues recently involves Ben Tulfo and the dealing between the Department of Tourism and PTV-4. Any reader who is not provided with the proper context regarding this issue would find it confusing as to why two government institutions dealing with each other is seen as controversial.

    In the article posted on CNN Philippines, which was written by senior correspondent Cecille Lardizabal, an explanation of why this dealing was problematic in the eyes of the Senate was provided. This was because the DOT is headed by Wanda Teo, who is the sibling of Ben Tulfo. The partnership indicated that DOT would pay PTV-4 Php 120 million pesos, in exchange of them airing their ads on the involved government network. However, almost 75% percent of the stipulated amount in the deal was intended to go to Kilos Pronto, which is a block timer of PTV-4, and is produced by Ben Tulfo’s company. With this we see that one of the provisions in the SPJ Code of Ethics, which is states that it is important to provide context so as to not misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story, is fulfilled.

    Since the journalist was able to provide proper context, readers like myself were able to see why this issue was problematic and why the Senate’s opinion on the issue was justifiable. Furthermore the article also provided statements regarding the controversy from both the Senate and Wanda Teo as well as their insights on the issue. It was stipulated in the article that Sen. Richard Gordon explained how charges of graft and illegal procurement against Teo and Ben Tulfo are valid since a conflict of interest had occurred; due to the fact that this deal had happened under the behest of two siblings who are dealing with government money.

    The article also provided comments from Teo who said that if she really knew that majority of the proceeds from this deal would go to Kilos Pronto, then she would not have agreed to push through with it as she knew that doing so would affect her career. By providing these inputs, we see that another SPJ Code of Ethics provision is fulfilled, specifically that we should, “diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” 

By ensuring that these provisions are fulfilled, we lessen the chances occurring since news is meant to be as clear and objective as possible. 

Ultimately, the article indicated that the Senate had decided to not hold the PCOO, nor Erwin Tulfo liable as they were not directly involved in the decision making with regard to the dealing. It was also stated the the Senate aims to be able to close the investigation on this issue soon. 



    Sources: 

    Lardizabal, C. (2018, August 16). Senate panel eyes graft, illegal procurement charges against Teo, Ben Tulfo, PTV-4. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/08/15/Wanda-Teo-Ben-Tulfo-Tourism-DOT-ad-deal-Gordon-Senate-hearing.html
    
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  13. 1ST WEEK REGULAR MEDIA MONITOR
    BONUS TOPIC: MARCOS DICTATORSHIP

    Youth group to Imee Marcos: We still know what you did last…
    By: Marlon Ramos – Reporter / @MRamosINQ
    Philippine Daily Inquirer / 08:26 PM August 23, 2018

    ARTICLE LINK: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1024457/youth-group-to-imee-marcos-we-still-know-what-you-did-last

    SPJ CODE OF ETHICS STATES:
    “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” (Source: https://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethicscode/?p=131)

    “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”(Source: http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethicscode/?p=135)

    In this news article, journalist Marlon Ramos of the Philippine Daily Inquirer wrote an article entitled “Youth group to Imee Marcos: We still know what you did last…” The article basically was a response to Imee Marcos’ statement: “The Millennials have moved on, and I think people at my age should also move on as well.” at a press conference in Cebu City, when asked about the national commemoration of the assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr.

    This is an example of ethical journalism in line with the SPJ code of ethics mentioned above. The reporter diligently sought a representative of the youth sector (in this case Rep. Sarah Elago of the Kabataan Partylist) to answer Governor Imee Marcos’ criticism on the millennials’ opinion on the Marcos dictatorship and the Martial Law. This became a proper platform for Rep. Elago to answer the statement. Interviewing a representative of a disregarded sector allowed then to answer a strong commentary against the youth from a powerful government official and clearly gave them an opportunity to be heard. According to Rep. Elago, the youth does not forget Martial Law and rejects any form of historical revisionism to cover up her father’s crimes against the Filipino people. This article is really a good example of how to uphold two of the most important code of ethics in Journalism.

  14. 1st Media Coverage
    Bonus Title: Drug Wars

    SPJ Code of Ethics
    “Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment”

    Melvin Gascon, a correspondent from the Inquirer.net, posted an article based on the War on drugs. The article discussed the issues with regards the war on drugs such as; thousands of people being killed, the P500 million budget given to this operation, the “unprecedented” records, the cops involved and the debate as to whether the war on drugs is effective or not.

    The article posted clearly emphasises the summary of the Drug operation happening in the country. However, the most eye catching part of this article, would be the visual information used. The picture as seen on top can clearly caught anyone’s attention. The picture displayed a dead boy’s body and the face of a grieving mother. The boy otherwise known as Aldrin Castillo was a victim of the drug operation. As researched, Aldrin became famous last year because of his death.

    Melvin Gascon’s article, likewise the previous articles released using the picture clearly violated the SPJ Code of Ethics because they have displayed an image of a dead body and showed the face his mother without having to blur it out.

    Source:
    Gascon, Melvin. “War on Drugs: Filipinos Still Confronted with Many Questions.” Inquirer News, newsinfo.inquirer.net/1011866/war-on-drugs-filipinos-still-confronted-with-many-questions.

  15. Bonus Title: Ramon Tulfo
    1st Media Monitor

    According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, a provision states that one must “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage” and “use heightened sensitivity when dealing with sources or subjects who are unable to give consent.” When broadcaster and columnist, Ramon Tulfo, posted a video containing the events of his outburst in the PGH emergency room, he clearly violated this provision mentioned above. While he continues to insist that he acted the way he did because of his concern for the child, he also fails to recognize how other people can be greatly affected by his rather sudden and reckless actions. In the video he posted, Ramon Tulfo failed to use heightened sensitivity by publicly showing the faces of the child and the other surrounding patients in the hospital without their consent. This violated the Data Privacy Act, as well as the Code of Ethics of Media Practitioners.

    Also, as if uploading the video was not enough, the columnist even posted on his Facebook page, encouraging the public to secretly videotape PGH and other government hospitals. Now not only does this violate the Anti-Wiretaping Law and Cybercrime Prevention Act, but his message also encourages and invites other people to violate the SPJ Code of Ethics provision that one must “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information.”

    SOURCES:

    Article: https://www.rappler.com/nation/210420-ramon-tulfo-wants-secret-video-recording-doctors-pgh-government-hospitals
    SPJ Code of Ethics: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  16. Bonus Title: Ramon Tulfo
    1st Media Monitor

    According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, a provision states that one must “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage” and “use heightened sensitivity when dealing with sources or subjects who are unable to give consent.” When broadcaster and columnist, Ramon Tulfo, posted a video containing the events of his outburst in the PGH emergency room, he clearly violated this provision mentioned above. While he continues to insist that he acted the way he did because of his concern for the child, he also fails to recognize how other people can be greatly affected by his rather sudden and reckless actions. In the video he posted, Ramon Tulfo failed to use heightened sensitivity by publicly showing the faces of the child and the other surrounding patients in the hospital without their consent. This violated the Data Privacy Act, as well as the Code of Ethics of Media Practitioners.

    Also, as if uploading the video was not enough, the columnist even posted on his Facebook page, encouraging the public to secretly videotape PGH and other government hospitals. Now not only does this violate the Anti-Wiretaping Law and Cybercrime Prevention Act, but his message also encourages and invites other people to violate the SPJ Code of Ethics provision that one must “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information.”

    SOURCES:

    Article: https://www.rappler.com/nation/210420-ramon-tulfo-wants-secret-video-recording-doctors-pgh-government-hospitals
    SPJ Code of Ethics: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  17. 1st Media Monitor
    BONUS TITLE: Hate Speech

    A recent news about the new hate speech laws in Australia that does not cover gendered hate speech towards women breached a provision in the SPJ Code of Ethics. It is the provision that states, “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.”

    In this article, it displayed the harmful effects of the limited set of new rules about hate speech by failing to address the targeting of hate speech towards women. Hate speech laws in Australia include the rule of making it a crime when people start to “publicly threaten or incite violence towards another person or group on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, and HIV/AIDS status.”

    However situations, according to the article, that even politicians are able to get away with hate speech like sexist slurs on women does not fulfill the law ultimately. Sexist speech and harassment online is also a continuing problem on silencing women’s voices in online platforms. Instances wherein strong, opinionated, and tough women are being rebuked in a male-dominated workforce. These are examples proves that hate speech also contribute to other forms of gender-based harm.

    Even Australia’s anti-discrimination laws, stated in the article, that only apply to employers, qualifying bodies, educational authorities, providers of good or services or accommodation providers don’t cover acts of hateful speech of individuals outside context.

    In this article shows just how much hate speech can cause harmful effects, like assault, stalking or cyber bullying, to people and not just towards women when the government of the country doesn’t do anything to address the problem. Even if it’s news coverage or a set of laws, citizens are still able to access this information. Anyone acquiring this information has the decision to set a good example or to defy to satisfy their selfish decisions. In the end, citizens should all be responsible in handling this type of information, especially information that are sensitive in society that still has presence today.

    SOURCE/S: http://theconversation.com/the-gender-gap-in-australias-hate-speech-laws-100158

  18. 1st Media Monitor
    BONUS TITLE: Hate Speech

    A recent news about the new hate speech laws in Australia that does not cover gendered hate speech towards women breached a provision in the SPJ Code of Ethics. It is the provision that states, “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.”

    In this article, it displayed the harmful effects of the limited set of new rules about hate speech by failing to address the targeting of hate speech towards women. Hate speech laws in Australia include the rule of making it a crime when people start to “publicly threaten or incite violence towards another person or group on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, and HIV/AIDS status.”

    However situations, according to the article, that even politicians are able to get away with hate speech like sexist slurs on women does not fulfill the law ultimately. Sexist speech and harassment online is also a continuing problem on silencing women’s voices in online platforms. Instances wherein strong, opinionated, and tough women are being rebuked in a male-dominated workforce. These are examples proves that hate speech also contribute to other forms of gender-based harm.

    Even Australia’s anti-discrimination laws, stated in the article, that only apply to employers, qualifying bodies, educational authorities, providers of good or services or accommodation providers don’t cover acts of hateful speech of individuals outside context.

    In this article shows just how much hate speech can cause harmful effects, like assault, stalking or cyber bullying, to people and not just towards women when the government of the country doesn’t do anything to address the problem. Even if it’s news coverage or a set of laws, citizens are still able to access this information. Anyone acquiring this information has the decision to set a good example or to defy to satisfy their selfish decisions. In the end, citizens should all be responsible in handling this type of information, especially information that are sensitive in society that still has presence today.

    SOURCE/S: http://theconversation.com/the-gender-gap-in-australias-hate-speech-laws-100158

  19. 1st Media Monitor
    Bonus title: Hate Speech

    The Jakarta Post recently reported on the arrest of a miner in Papua by the Mimika Police. The said miner was arrested for making a video that the police described as “hate speech against Indonesia.”

    Mimika Police chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Agung Marlianto said that the miner (whose name was redacted and was instead called by his initials AY) was arrested at his house at last Aug. 23.

    The Jakarta Post practice ethical journalism and followed the SPJ Code of Ethics provision stating that journalists must identify their sources clearly. In the article, it is clear who was in charge of the arrest and how they went about their arrest of the miner.

    They also showed good practice in keeping the arrested miner anonymous for security reasons as the matter has already been taken into the authorities’ hands. This follows the provision to reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm. Having the miner’s identity leaked to the public during this time of rising tension between the public and the police could result to more violence. The article is short and simple but ethically sound.

    SOURCE:
    http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/08/28/papua-resident-arrested-for-alleged-hate-speech-against-indonesia.html
    https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

  20. Bonus Title: RAMON TULFO

    Last August 16, 2018, Ramon Tulfo’s driver bumped into a 6 year old girl along Navotas. They brought the child to PGH to be treated in the emergency room. According to Tulfo, attending physician Jay Guerrero refused to give the child first aid treatment saying he did not want it to be caught on video.

    SPJ Code of Ethics

    “Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.”

    The general rule of publishing photographs or videos of minors is to avoid doing so in order to protect the identity and privacy of the minor. The video on Tulfo’s facebook page not only published the 6 year old’s face, but also consciously pointed the camera at her, exposing her person to every one who views the video. This violates the SPJ code of ethics that clearly state that one must use “heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles.”

    Source:

  21. 1st Regular Media Monitor

    Last August 22, 2018 (Wednesday), another group of Overseas Filipino Workers who have been granted with amnesty in UAE was able to go home.

    With regards to the SPJ Code of Ethics, it is stated there that a journalist must, “provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story”. In the premise of the OFW being able to go home, the journalist was not able to provide the wider scope of it and the reason behind it is an urgent need for the OFWs to go home in the Philippines. It should have showed the current situation of OFWs in UAE and the hardships to have an amnesty. It must also have the point of view of the OFW who was able to go home, so that, there is a vivid understanding of the situation and the viewpoint of the OFWs.

    Source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/balitambayan/pinoyabroad/665909/panibagong-grupo-ng-mga-pinoy-na-kumuha-ng-amnestiya-sa-uae-nakauwi-ng-bansa/story/

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.