Ethics 8th Media Monitor (the News Media 2) Parts 3 & 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Ethics 8th Media Monitor (the News Media 2) Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
The 8th media monitor (the News Media 2) (Fair, Foolish, or in a Fix: good practice, violation, or dilemma), can be posted here, either regular or bonus (but not both), with deadline on November 21, 2019 at 5pm. The regular post for this 8th media monitor is an evaluation of a news report/ news feature/ feature segment/ spiel/ announcement/ any interpretive report or opinion piece illustrating (either as a good practice or as a violation or an issue) any provision of Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics discussed in class last week (specify the provision being illustrated).
The Bonus for the 8th media monitor is the evaluation of the behavior of a media practitioner (either as “good practice” or as a violation or an ethical issue ), illustrating the following provision of the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics: ” I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” (the time frame for the media content or media practitioner’s behavior is August 15, 2019 to November 21, 2019). The deadline is Nov. 21, 2019. (REMINDER , again: The subject is media content and NOT the statements of news subjects; for the Bonus, it is the behavior of media practitioners such as reporters, news anchors, hosts, news presenters, etc., and NOT the behavior of those being covered in the news, i.e., NOT the behavior of news subjects. )
22 thoughts on “Ethics 8th Media Monitor (the News Media 2) Parts 3 & 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics”
8th Bonus Media Monitor
The Tulfo Brothers have long been infamous in the broadcasting field for their exposes and “conflict resolution” segments. However, they are also frequently criticized for their language and actions e.g. physical threats on air.
On September 8, 2019, Adonis M. Samson, an executive assistant at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), filed libel and cyber libel complaints against one of the Tulfo Brothers, Ramon Tulfo. Ramon Tulfo works as a columnist at Manila Times. The complaint rooted in the columnist’s release of a video clip and two-column pieces that attack him and BIR assistant commissioner Teresita Angeles on a personal level and further accused them of involvement in the corruption at their agency.
The columnist shared a video (on his social media page) showing a conversation of an “enraged man and a woman having a conversation after allegedly not receiving any portion of the ill-gotten money in the agency”. The video did not show who was in the video but Tulfo identified the voices as Samson’s and Angeles’. Moreover, the columnist claimed that the video happened in August 2017 when Angles and Samson were both enrolled for a short course at Harvard University in the United States.
When asked how he was able to ascertain the identity of the people involved, he has no statement. This clearly violates the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics provision: ”I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” Ramon Tulfo relied too much on a video clip from his “unidentified source” without seeking further evidence. Moreover, he failed to ask/consider (for) the voice of those he accused and rushed to the conclusion that they were, in fact, the voices in the video.
As of today, (November 18, 2019) no updates regarding the libel and cyber libel complaints were published.
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On August 29, 2015 (5:58 AM), Philippine Daily Inquirer posted an article entitled, “Media told: Beware of ‘smiling’, ‘blood’ money talking about accepting money during the election season of 2016. This article shows good practice in relation to Part 3 of the SPJ Code of Ethics specifically the provision saying “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.”
The news article talks about how veteran journalist Marites Danguilan Vitug received a text from a former goverment official asking her to support a then candidate wishing to run for presidency. She politely replied saying that journalists are not allowed to publicly endorse candidates. They can only cover and chronicle thri comings but they cannot anounce their support for any of them. She thought that was the end of it but she received another message form the sender telling her that she privately support the candidate by sharing advice to them on how to handle the media. She left that unanswered and cautioned reporters to resist temptation from candidates with fat purses.
According to her, there are two types of money being offered to journalists. One is ‘smiling money’ because it is not meant to pressure you to write a story with a certain angle, or kill a story. The other one is “blood money” where the journalist is basically “paid to do the person’s bidding”. She both refused to accept these offers made to her and the government officials ended up saying sorry to her. She considered these ethical violations as corruption and that all of us whether part of the media or the public, should work toward zero tolerance for corruption in the newsrooms.
This example of veteran journalist Marites Danguilan Vitug shows us of how media practitioners should act towards cases of bribery. Refusal of any form of bribery is part of protecting our integrity and credibility as journalists. Like what Ms. Vitug said, we should work towards zero tolerance of corruption not only inside newsrooms but also outside. According to her, “Media is a pillar of democracy. We play the role of watchdog; we hold public officials accountable; we beam our search lights on the dark corners of institutions; and we are a vehicle for the national conversation” so it is very important that we maintain our credibility as professionals and resist these temptations that come along with our jobs.
November 5, 2019 – Erwin Tulfo has been declared persona non grata in Cainta, Rizal for his impertinent remarks against Mayor Johnielle Keith Pasion “Kit” Nieto. This is due to the broadcaster’s viral Facebook post containing foul language, criticizing Nieto for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle on his way to a wedding.
While it is the media’s duty to point out the wrongdoings of the public officials, the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics states that:” I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as a journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” There is nothing decent and respectful with regard to what Erwin Tulfo posted on his Facebook account. In his exact words, “HINDI KO ALAM KUNG GUSTO MO LANG PUMORMA O IPINANGANAK KA NA PULPOL NA TALAGA? SAYANG PAGKA-ATTORNEY MO.”
Nieto, on the other hand, secured a citation ticket from the LTO and stated that he will go to the DILG for any disciplinary actions.
In Saksi sa Dobol B, a radio program anchored by Mike Enriquez, an advertisement for Pocari Sweat was deliberately told on air. From PAGASA’s report of an incoming rainy season, Enriquez segued to the the prominence of heatstroke and the negative effects of it. He tells the listeners to wear comfortable clothes, avoid hot places, and drink lots of fluids. He says, “Pinakamainam na inumin natin sa ganitong panahon ng tag-init, mga Kapuso, yung mga electrolyte! …Ang dapat iinumin natin, Pocari Sweat. Produkto po yan ng Otsuka Pharmaceutical. Masarap ito ah!” Right after he completes this advertisement, he moves on to another report as if nothing happened.
By not stating that the spiel for Pocari Sweat was an advertisement, this is in clear violation of the provision in the part 3 of the SPJ Code of Ethics which states “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” By moving on from one report to the next, the advertisement was not distinguished as an advertisement. There is also no label or notice that the spiel for Pocari Sweat was sponsored content. The video for the segment was posted on May 22, 2016.
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On September 30, 2019, Rappler published an article online titled “Police probe show’s Dormitorio’s life inside PMA was living hell” on the experiences of the late Cadet Fourth Class Darwin Dormitorio in the Philippine Military Academy before his death due to hazing-related injuries.
An earlier version of the article identified Cadet Third Class Rey Matthew James Dadiro Volante as one of the witnesses to Dormitorio’s ordeals, though this was proven erroneous and corrected in a later update, with an editor’s note at the bottom detailing the previous mistake.
By displaying this correction, I believe the article shows an example of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics principle to Be Accountable and Transparent, specifically the provision that states “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Last October 17, 2019, ABS CBN News posted a feature article on their website showcasing the latest OPPO mobile. OPPO, a Chinese brand, is one of the leading mobile phone brands in the Philippines. In the article, it listed the specs and details of the newest Oppo Reno2 series. It was mentioned that “their [Oppo] latest innovation aims to help make content creation for Filipino story makers become easier and more convenient whenever and wherever they are.”
This is a good practice from the SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” Because at the end of the article they disclaimed that the article was sponsored––”BrandNews articles are promotional features from our sponsors and not news articles from our editorial staff.” Even the keywords of the article had the words “advertorial” to distinguish it as such.
Last September 4, 2019, Rappler published a news report discussing Duterte’s order of transfer of the high-profile convicts who were witnesses in the trial of the detained Senator De Lima. Duterte said that he transferred the prisoners from Bilibid to the barracks in Fort Bonifacio because he had feared for their safety, claiming they could be harmed by the senator’s ‘henchmen’. He did not want anyone to question his order since his “power to commute and to pardon is absolute and given in the Constitution”. Furthermore, he assumed full responsibility for such transfer and even admitted granting pardon to other unnamed convicts.
The reporter had erroneously referred to the witnesses in De Lima’s trial when he talked about commuting sentences and granting pardons to convicts. In reality, Duterte left these convicts unnamed. This was rectified by Rappler in the same month: the editor placed at a note at the end of the article, and the sub-headline was changed to highlight a “fourth update” in the story.
I believe that this reflects the SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.” It is an example of a good practice as the changes were made and were reflected in the article with little delay.
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Last October 10, 2019, at 3:51 pm, GMA News Online posted a “Brand Talk” article on their website about “choosing the right college course for you”. In the article, while giving advice on how to choose the right college course, they’re also showcasing AMA University and Colleges as an example of a college that offers quality programs by putting video interviews of the AMA students titled, “AMAzing Stories”, and descriptions about the college. In the last part of the article, it was mentioned that “Deciding on a college course is important. Choosing the right school that can help build your career is equally essential. AMA University and Colleges offer programs such as Computer Studies, Engineering, Business Administration, and Arts & Science. The leading school in IT education in the Philippines accepts freshmen, transferees, ALS passers and foreigners.
To know more about AMA offers and its campuses, visit http://ama.edu.ph”
This is a good practice from the SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” Because at the end of the article they disclaimed that the article was sponsored content: “Brand Talk partners with the advertisers of GMA Network to create content valuable to its audience.” and “Presented by: AMA University and Colleges”. Moreover, there is also a highlighted label on their GMA news facebook page that the article was a paid partnership/branded content with the AMA University and Colleges.
Last November 5, 2019, Jhesset Enano, a Filipina journalist from Inquirer, was cursed at by Foreign Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin. on the social networking site Twittter.
On November 4, 2019, Enano was tweeting news updates about the closing ceremony of the 35th ASEAN Summit in Thailand. One particular tweet enraged Sec. Teddy Locsin. He quoted the tweet, saying
“h, did you get the put***na I sent you? That’s the last event, purely ceremonial and short. Jokowi had left, Mahathir too.”
Because of this, Teddy Boy Locsin drew flak from various media outlets, with people calling for his resignation.
Enano did not reply back on Twitter. Now that is the example of what I want to showcase. Journalist Enano held the standards true. She did not reply to Locsin’s tweet and waited for the Inquirer to release its official statement rearding the indent. Instead of replying back to Teddy Locsin in the same manner, she hasted to comforted herself and not reply at all.
Last November 5, 2019, Jhesset Enano, a Filipina journalist from Inquirer, was cursed at by Foreign Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin on the social networking site Twittter.
On November 4, 2019, Enano was tweeting news updates about the closing ceremony of the 35th ASEAN Summit in Thailand. One particular tweet enraged Sec. Teddy Locsin. He quoted the tweet, saying
“Uh, did you get the put***na I sent you? That’s the last event, purely ceremonial and short. Jokowi had left, Mahathir too.”
Because of this, Teddy Boy Locsin drew flak from various media outlets, with people calling for his resignation.
Enano did not reply back on Twitter. Now that is the example of a good practice in my opinion. Enano held the standards true. She did not reply to Locsin’s tweet and waited for Inquirer to release its official statement rearding the incident. Instead of replying back to Teddy Locsin in the same manner, she managed to comport herself and not get caught in the heat of the moment of replying back in kind. She maintained her dignity by not dignifying Teddy Boy Locsin with a response.
Last October 23, 2019, Broadcaster Rafael “Raffy” Tulfo invited Gretchen, Marjorie and Claudine Barretto on his radio program “Wanted sa Radyo” to have them settle the feud among the sisters.
After his co-host Sharee Roman mentioned the family feud, Tulfo started giving his opinions and commenting on the sisters’ feud on air. Among the things he said were, “Sana magkabati-bati po kayo, magkapatid po kayo… Kalimutan ang tsismis, ang importante kayo ay magkakapatid,”, expressing his wish for them to make up. He also said that fixing things among them would not be simple since the conflct runs deep.
Furthermore, he invited the three sisters on his show to settle their differences. He made this open call on-air during his show and even repeated it multiple times. The host said, “Bukas po ang aming tanggapan kung sakali man po, nagdesisyon poi tong Barretto sisters na magusap-usap at pagbabatiin po naming sila dito.”
In my opinion, this does not follow provision of the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics: ” I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” Tulfo expressed his opinions about a feud he was not part of on-air. The issue is a personal issue between the Barrettos, and yet media practitioners like him are taking advantage of and sensationalizing it. Since he is not the most knowledgable about the issue, he should not have spoken about it, since his opinion might influence his audience. Furthermore, his invitation towards the Barretto sisters was unprofessional and unbecoming of a radio host. It does not maintain the dignity of his profession, because he wanted his next episode/s to revolve around a celebrity feud, while the duty of a journalist should be informative in nature.
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On August 30, 2015, broadcast journalist Anthony Taberna announced in his Instagram account that he is to take a leave of absence from all of his programs in ABS-CBN and DZMM because, as he had cited, of “conflict of interest.” During that time, there was a massive protest of the members of Iglesia Ni Cristo. Taberna, considering himself as an active member of the church, explained that he will take a leave for his remarks and statements on the said issue might be biased and not credible. He further said that he will come back to his regular programming duties as soon as the issue dies down.
In the SPJ Code of Ethics part 3, it is stated that, “Journalists should avoid conflict of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” Taberna had surely followed this provision, however, this move of him might affect his overall credibility as a journalist even after his temporary leave in the industry. But as the articles all mentioned that his business and life is in danger because of the past incidents surrounding Iglesia Ni Cristo, I also feel like taking a leave of absence is the best thing Taberna did way back.
Yesterday, November 20, 2019, Inquirer.net posted an article with the title “Driving the young generation’: Here’s how HP helps fuel the creativity of the Gen Z’s and millenials”.
The article highlights how “young millenials will find the HP Pavillion x360’s ultrathin and light design ideal for their mobile lifestyles”. HP Pavillion x360’s specs include 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor, micro-edge 14-inch screen, and a 128 SSD and 1TB HDD dual storage.
This article shows its accordance with the SPJ Code of Ethics Provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” because it was specifically included under the “advertorial” part of inquirer.net’s website.
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Yesterday, November 20, 2019, Inquirer.net posted an article with the title “Driving the young generation’: Here’s how HP helps fuel the creativity of the Gen Z’s and millenials”.
The article highlights how “young millenials will find the HP Pavillion x360’s ultrathin and light design ideal for their mobile lifestyles”. HP Pavillion x360’s specs include 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor, micro-edge 14-inch screen, and a 128 SSD and 1TB HDD dual storage.
This article shows its accordance with the SPJ Code of Ethics Provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” because it was specifically included under the “advertorial” part of inquirer.net’s website.
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Last November 9, 2019, Philippine Daily Inquirer released an article, titled, “Make unforgettable family moments this Christmas at SM Malls”. The article was written under INQUIRER.net Brandroom. It highlighted the roster of highlights per SM Mall. For example, in SM Mall of Asia, they promoted that there is a 60 feet tallest indoor Christmas tree, which is framed by an illuminated grand staircase. As for SM Aura, they put up a Christmas display which is Chinoiserie-inspired. It has a 33 ft. Christmas tree, which was unveiled with a grand circus performance. On the other hand, there is SM Mega Mall. In the Mega Fashion Hall, Santa’s Crystal Castle has a 40 ft. Christmas tree, which is inspired by the remarkable streets in London. What was also evident was the mention of SM Mall with other brands to complete their Christmas highlights such as McDonald’s and Canon Philippines.
What’s notable about this article is that it was explicitly classified as an advertorial in Inquirer. Hence, they were able to comply with the SPJ Code of Ethics Provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
Rappler columnist JC Punongbayan often uses Twitter to share his newly published articles in Rappler. When not promoting and sharing his pieces, he usually uses his Twitter to comment on news articles linked on said platform. Often times, he receives vulgar remarks from Duterte supporters.
Yesterday, Novermber 20, he published his analysis piece on Duterte’s banning on rice importation and vaping. He tweeted “Duterte’s ban on rice importation and vaping last night are but the latest additions to his growing list of whimsical, capricious policies.” along with the link of his article.
Also yesterday, he quote retweeted a news article about Duterte defending the 50-M SEA Games cauldron saying that “Just because you commissioned a National Artist for a project doesn’t mean it’s corruption-free. 🙄
Till when do we have to put up with Duts and his lack of logic???”
The two tweets received few sensible replies from people who understood what the articles detailed, and what his commentaries added. He replies to them and engages a discussion. However, other replies contained, not even criticism, but vulgar insults to his piece. One account [account handle redacted] says: “Your piece is shit.” Another reply from another user, [account name redacted], was directed to his comment on the Sea Games cauldron. “and the question is may corruption nga ba? if so then patunayan niyo!, wag puro ngawngaw dito sa socmed, eh kasi naman diba diyan lang naman kayo magaling!,,ahahaha TANG-INA NIYONG LAHAT!,,ahahahaha.” The reply meant that JC only blabbers in social media when he literally added to the discussion on the article.
JC Punongbayan, as much as possible, doesn’t engage with the hateful and not value-adding replies in his tweets. This shows his control in reacting to these criticisms given that while the DDS are blind to reality, they are still part of the audience his news pieces and commentaries are trying to target. Thus, he does not try to alienate them.
JC observes proper decency in social media whether he’s tweeting about his work, or when he’s just practicing his right to expression as a fellow citizen. He provides example as to how journalists shall act, as also provisioned by the SPJ Code of Ethics. “I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.”
On November 9, 2019, Rappler posted an article entitled “POPS Burgers: Underrated goodness.” The article consisted of several pictures showcasing the burger joint’s general ambience and interiors, as well as the various food items available on their menu.
The article talked about the writer’s own visit to the burger joint, reviewing the food that she has tried. It details the restaurant’s main menu item—burgers. It depicts the burger in a positive light, calling it “everything you need in a burger.” It also mentions the prices of the restaurant, listing down the various types of burgers available.
It also mentions other menu items such as their milkshakes and fruit shakes, and even other items on the menu such as their rice meals, pastas, and salads. For each item, pictures and prices were again provided.
While overall a good and informative article for those on the lookout for new places to eat out in along Katipunan, the article fails to mention whether it is sponsored or not. It gives a very positive view, almost as if it were advertising the place. However, it is unclear whether the article is indeed an advertisement or not, making it a violation of the following SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On November 9, 2019, Rappler posted an article entitled “POPS Burgers: Underrated goodness.” The article consisted of several pictures showcasing the burger joint’s general ambience and interiors, as well as the various food items available on their menu.
The article talked about the writer’s own visit to the burger joint, reviewing the food that she has tried. It details the restaurant’s main menu item—burgers. It depicts the burger in a positive light, calling it “everything you need in a burger.” It also mentions the prices of the restaurant, listing down the various types of burgers available.
It also mentions other menu items such as their milkshakes and fruit shakes, and even other items on the menu such as their rice meals, pastas, and salads. For each item, pictures and prices were again provided.
While overall a good and informative article for those on the lookout for new places to eat out in along Katipunan, the article fails to mention whether it is sponsored or not. It gives a very positive view, almost as if it were advertising the place. However, it is unclear whether the article is indeed an advertisement or not, making it a violation of the following SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On September 4, 2019, Rappler published the news article “Duterte tells released heinous crime convicts to surrender.” It is basically about President Rodrigo Duterte wanting almost 2,000 heinous crime convicts released due to the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law to surrender to the government for a “recomputation” of their benefits under the measure.
In the article, Rappler mentioned that the President set a bounty for the capture of any freed heinous crime convict who’d choose to disobey his order. In the original version of the article, Rappler said that the bounty was P10-million. On September 5, 2019, Rappler corrected this information and changed it to P1-million. At the very bottom of the article, Rappler even placed a note saying that they’ve erroneously reported about it and mentioned that they have made the necessary corrections.
Rappler owning up to their mistake and correcting the wrong information that they had put in their article as quickly as they can are acts that are in accordance with the SPJ Code of Ethics, particularly the provision “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
In October 30, 2019, Philippine Daily Inquirer published an article titled “5 things every girl with low self-esteem needs to hear”. They explained how a person’s self esteem is affected by internal and external factors. They further emphasized that there are days that people are not on their best and how others can help by saying “it’s not a competition”, “it’s okay to be critical”, “it’s okay to talk about it”, “you are valid and enough”, and “you should be your own advocate”.
At first glance, readers would think that Inquirer is advocating for mental health and well-being until they read the sign saying that the article was sponsored by Dove.
By stating that it was a sponsored content, the article followed the 2014 SPJ code of ethics provision to “distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On August 17, 2019, an article was published on ABS-CBN’s ANC X entitled, “How to deal with gifts when they’re actually bribes (a guide with blind items)”. The writer listed encounters, some of which were experienced by his peers, where gift-giving may take place.
Some of the offers consisted of a blank envelope filled with “a generous wad of bills” being passed through a handshake. The journalist refused but due to the presidential candidate’s insistence, he relented. He went straight to the church and with the camera rolling, he dropped the enveloped into the donation box. Later, the candidate watched the show, and protested that the envelope was not a bribe but a “love offering”.
Another incident was about airport officials who offered P2,500 a week to reporters to keep away from the customs area. This however was turned down by the superiors of the news corporation.
“Gifts” not only come in the form of money, but also in food. A friend of the writer showed good practice by refusing to partake in the “libreng pakain” during the lunch press conference while her peers indulged in it.
This article is an example of good practice of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics provision, “ 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.” The writer, through an account of past encounters with bribery, gave an insight as to how people of power use “offerings”in different forms. It also serves as a guide for all media practitioners, especially young journalists, to be wary of these schemes.
On October 27, 2019, ABS-CBN News published an article on its online platform about Starbucks’ 2020 planner and travel organizer.
The article proceeded by describing both planners and travel organizer – from its design, where they are made, the materials used in making them. The article also introduced the limited edition beverages the big coffee shop is offering for the Christmas season. The article ended by discussing the mechanics to avail the planner and the travel organizer.
Along the course of the article, there is no explicit indication that the content is a paid advertisement. This goes against the provision of the SPJ Code of Ethics to “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two” and to “prominently label sponsored content.”
marichulambino.com 
8th Bonus Media Monitor
The Tulfo Brothers have long been infamous in the broadcasting field for their exposes and “conflict resolution” segments. However, they are also frequently criticized for their language and actions e.g. physical threats on air.
On September 8, 2019, Adonis M. Samson, an executive assistant at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), filed libel and cyber libel complaints against one of the Tulfo Brothers, Ramon Tulfo. Ramon Tulfo works as a columnist at Manila Times. The complaint rooted in the columnist’s release of a video clip and two-column pieces that attack him and BIR assistant commissioner Teresita Angeles on a personal level and further accused them of involvement in the corruption at their agency.
The columnist shared a video (on his social media page) showing a conversation of an “enraged man and a woman having a conversation after allegedly not receiving any portion of the ill-gotten money in the agency”. The video did not show who was in the video but Tulfo identified the voices as Samson’s and Angeles’. Moreover, the columnist claimed that the video happened in August 2017 when Angles and Samson were both enrolled for a short course at Harvard University in the United States.
When asked how he was able to ascertain the identity of the people involved, he has no statement. This clearly violates the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics provision: ”I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” Ramon Tulfo relied too much on a video clip from his “unidentified source” without seeking further evidence. Moreover, he failed to ask/consider (for) the voice of those he accused and rushed to the conclusion that they were, in fact, the voices in the video.
As of today, (November 18, 2019) no updates regarding the libel and cyber libel complaints were published.
References:
(1) https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1162277/bir-exec-assistant-sues-ramon-tulfo-for-libel-cyber-libel
(2) https://journal.com.ph/news/nation/irresponsible
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On August 29, 2015 (5:58 AM), Philippine Daily Inquirer posted an article entitled, “Media told: Beware of ‘smiling’, ‘blood’ money talking about accepting money during the election season of 2016. This article shows good practice in relation to Part 3 of the SPJ Code of Ethics specifically the provision saying “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.”
The news article talks about how veteran journalist Marites Danguilan Vitug received a text from a former goverment official asking her to support a then candidate wishing to run for presidency. She politely replied saying that journalists are not allowed to publicly endorse candidates. They can only cover and chronicle thri comings but they cannot anounce their support for any of them. She thought that was the end of it but she received another message form the sender telling her that she privately support the candidate by sharing advice to them on how to handle the media. She left that unanswered and cautioned reporters to resist temptation from candidates with fat purses.
According to her, there are two types of money being offered to journalists. One is ‘smiling money’ because it is not meant to pressure you to write a story with a certain angle, or kill a story. The other one is “blood money” where the journalist is basically “paid to do the person’s bidding”. She both refused to accept these offers made to her and the government officials ended up saying sorry to her. She considered these ethical violations as corruption and that all of us whether part of the media or the public, should work toward zero tolerance for corruption in the newsrooms.
This example of veteran journalist Marites Danguilan Vitug shows us of how media practitioners should act towards cases of bribery. Refusal of any form of bribery is part of protecting our integrity and credibility as journalists. Like what Ms. Vitug said, we should work towards zero tolerance of corruption not only inside newsrooms but also outside. According to her, “Media is a pillar of democracy. We play the role of watchdog; we hold public officials accountable; we beam our search lights on the dark corners of institutions; and we are a vehicle for the national conversation” so it is very important that we maintain our credibility as professionals and resist these temptations that come along with our jobs.
References:
(1) https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf
(2) https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/717324/media-told-beware-of-smiling-blood-money
LikeLike
8th BONUS Media Monitor
EVALUATION OF BEHAVIOR OF NEWS PRACTITIONER
November 5, 2019 – Erwin Tulfo has been declared persona non grata in Cainta, Rizal for his impertinent remarks against Mayor Johnielle Keith Pasion “Kit” Nieto. This is due to the broadcaster’s viral Facebook post containing foul language, criticizing Nieto for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle on his way to a wedding.
While it is the media’s duty to point out the wrongdoings of the public officials, the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics states that:” I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as a journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” There is nothing decent and respectful with regard to what Erwin Tulfo posted on his Facebook account. In his exact words, “HINDI KO ALAM KUNG GUSTO MO LANG PUMORMA O IPINANGANAK KA NA PULPOL NA TALAGA? SAYANG PAGKA-ATTORNEY MO.”
Nieto, on the other hand, secured a citation ticket from the LTO and stated that he will go to the DILG for any disciplinary actions.
Sources:
https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2019/11/05/erwin-tulfo-barred-from-cainta/
Abante News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybY_VfkazhQ
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor
In Saksi sa Dobol B, a radio program anchored by Mike Enriquez, an advertisement for Pocari Sweat was deliberately told on air. From PAGASA’s report of an incoming rainy season, Enriquez segued to the the prominence of heatstroke and the negative effects of it. He tells the listeners to wear comfortable clothes, avoid hot places, and drink lots of fluids. He says, “Pinakamainam na inumin natin sa ganitong panahon ng tag-init, mga Kapuso, yung mga electrolyte! …Ang dapat iinumin natin, Pocari Sweat. Produkto po yan ng Otsuka Pharmaceutical. Masarap ito ah!” Right after he completes this advertisement, he moves on to another report as if nothing happened.
By not stating that the spiel for Pocari Sweat was an advertisement, this is in clear violation of the provision in the part 3 of the SPJ Code of Ethics which states “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” By moving on from one report to the next, the advertisement was not distinguished as an advertisement. There is also no label or notice that the spiel for Pocari Sweat was sponsored content. The video for the segment was posted on May 22, 2016.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vdCsQaLCNA
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On September 30, 2019, Rappler published an article online titled “Police probe show’s Dormitorio’s life inside PMA was living hell” on the experiences of the late Cadet Fourth Class Darwin Dormitorio in the Philippine Military Academy before his death due to hazing-related injuries.
An earlier version of the article identified Cadet Third Class Rey Matthew James Dadiro Volante as one of the witnesses to Dormitorio’s ordeals, though this was proven erroneous and corrected in a later update, with an editor’s note at the bottom detailing the previous mistake.
By displaying this correction, I believe the article shows an example of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics principle to Be Accountable and Transparent, specifically the provision that states “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Last October 17, 2019, ABS CBN News posted a feature article on their website showcasing the latest OPPO mobile. OPPO, a Chinese brand, is one of the leading mobile phone brands in the Philippines. In the article, it listed the specs and details of the newest Oppo Reno2 series. It was mentioned that “their [Oppo] latest innovation aims to help make content creation for Filipino story makers become easier and more convenient whenever and wherever they are.”
This is a good practice from the SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” Because at the end of the article they disclaimed that the article was sponsored––”BrandNews articles are promotional features from our sponsors and not news articles from our editorial staff.” Even the keywords of the article had the words “advertorial” to distinguish it as such.
Source: https://news.abs-cbn.com/advertorial/life/10/17/19/oppo-steps-up-its-videography-game-with-the-new-reno2-series
LikeLike
Last September 4, 2019, Rappler published a news report discussing Duterte’s order of transfer of the high-profile convicts who were witnesses in the trial of the detained Senator De Lima. Duterte said that he transferred the prisoners from Bilibid to the barracks in Fort Bonifacio because he had feared for their safety, claiming they could be harmed by the senator’s ‘henchmen’. He did not want anyone to question his order since his “power to commute and to pardon is absolute and given in the Constitution”. Furthermore, he assumed full responsibility for such transfer and even admitted granting pardon to other unnamed convicts.
The reporter had erroneously referred to the witnesses in De Lima’s trial when he talked about commuting sentences and granting pardons to convicts. In reality, Duterte left these convicts unnamed. This was rectified by Rappler in the same month: the editor placed at a note at the end of the article, and the sub-headline was changed to highlight a “fourth update” in the story.
I believe that this reflects the SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.” It is an example of a good practice as the changes were made and were reflected in the article with little delay.
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Last October 10, 2019, at 3:51 pm, GMA News Online posted a “Brand Talk” article on their website about “choosing the right college course for you”. In the article, while giving advice on how to choose the right college course, they’re also showcasing AMA University and Colleges as an example of a college that offers quality programs by putting video interviews of the AMA students titled, “AMAzing Stories”, and descriptions about the college. In the last part of the article, it was mentioned that “Deciding on a college course is important. Choosing the right school that can help build your career is equally essential. AMA University and Colleges offer programs such as Computer Studies, Engineering, Business Administration, and Arts & Science. The leading school in IT education in the Philippines accepts freshmen, transferees, ALS passers and foreigners.
To know more about AMA offers and its campuses, visit http://ama.edu.ph”
This is a good practice from the SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” Because at the end of the article they disclaimed that the article was sponsored content: “Brand Talk partners with the advertisers of GMA Network to create content valuable to its audience.” and “Presented by: AMA University and Colleges”. Moreover, there is also a highlighted label on their GMA news facebook page that the article was a paid partnership/branded content with the AMA University and Colleges.
Sources:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/hobbiesandactivities/711204/planning-for-life-after-high-school/story/?utm_source=GMANews&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1V5ihhyMDlXUJHz_IggC-gVvLVEFuzLv7NkvyjxaSwC1TFWja2xPq_Q8U
https://web.facebook.com/gmanews/posts/10157928259231977
LikeLike
8th Media Monitor, BONUS
Last November 5, 2019, Jhesset Enano, a Filipina journalist from Inquirer, was cursed at by Foreign Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin. on the social networking site Twittter.
On November 4, 2019, Enano was tweeting news updates about the closing ceremony of the 35th ASEAN Summit in Thailand. One particular tweet enraged Sec. Teddy Locsin. He quoted the tweet, saying
“h, did you get the put***na I sent you? That’s the last event, purely ceremonial and short. Jokowi had left, Mahathir too.”
Because of this, Teddy Boy Locsin drew flak from various media outlets, with people calling for his resignation.
Enano did not reply back on Twitter. Now that is the example of what I want to showcase. Journalist Enano held the standards true. She did not reply to Locsin’s tweet and waited for the Inquirer to release its official statement rearding the indent. Instead of replying back to Teddy Locsin in the same manner, she hasted to comforted herself and not reply at all.
LikeLike
8th Media Monitor, BONUS (final version)
Last November 5, 2019, Jhesset Enano, a Filipina journalist from Inquirer, was cursed at by Foreign Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin on the social networking site Twittter.
On November 4, 2019, Enano was tweeting news updates about the closing ceremony of the 35th ASEAN Summit in Thailand. One particular tweet enraged Sec. Teddy Locsin. He quoted the tweet, saying
“Uh, did you get the put***na I sent you? That’s the last event, purely ceremonial and short. Jokowi had left, Mahathir too.”
Because of this, Teddy Boy Locsin drew flak from various media outlets, with people calling for his resignation.
Enano did not reply back on Twitter. Now that is the example of a good practice in my opinion. Enano held the standards true. She did not reply to Locsin’s tweet and waited for Inquirer to release its official statement rearding the incident. Instead of replying back to Teddy Locsin in the same manner, she managed to comport herself and not get caught in the heat of the moment of replying back in kind. She maintained her dignity by not dignifying Teddy Boy Locsin with a response.
SOURCE: https://www.rappler.com/nation/244264-teddy-locsin-blasting-expletives-inquirer-reporter-online-reactions
LikeLike
8th BONUS Media Monitor
Last October 23, 2019, Broadcaster Rafael “Raffy” Tulfo invited Gretchen, Marjorie and Claudine Barretto on his radio program “Wanted sa Radyo” to have them settle the feud among the sisters.
After his co-host Sharee Roman mentioned the family feud, Tulfo started giving his opinions and commenting on the sisters’ feud on air. Among the things he said were, “Sana magkabati-bati po kayo, magkapatid po kayo… Kalimutan ang tsismis, ang importante kayo ay magkakapatid,”, expressing his wish for them to make up. He also said that fixing things among them would not be simple since the conflct runs deep.
Furthermore, he invited the three sisters on his show to settle their differences. He made this open call on-air during his show and even repeated it multiple times. The host said, “Bukas po ang aming tanggapan kung sakali man po, nagdesisyon poi tong Barretto sisters na magusap-usap at pagbabatiin po naming sila dito.”
In my opinion, this does not follow provision of the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics: ” I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.” Tulfo expressed his opinions about a feud he was not part of on-air. The issue is a personal issue between the Barrettos, and yet media practitioners like him are taking advantage of and sensationalizing it. Since he is not the most knowledgable about the issue, he should not have spoken about it, since his opinion might influence his audience. Furthermore, his invitation towards the Barretto sisters was unprofessional and unbecoming of a radio host. It does not maintain the dignity of his profession, because he wanted his next episode/s to revolve around a celebrity feud, while the duty of a journalist should be informative in nature.
References:
(1) https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf
(2) https://www.msn.com/en-ph/entertainment/celebrity/raffy-tulfo-shares-his-opinion-and-prediction-on-the-barretto-sisters-feud/ar-AAJdxph?li=BBuSk52
(3) https://entertainment.inquirer.net/349152/raffy-tulfo-invites-barretto-sisters-on-his-program-to-resolve-feud
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On August 30, 2015, broadcast journalist Anthony Taberna announced in his Instagram account that he is to take a leave of absence from all of his programs in ABS-CBN and DZMM because, as he had cited, of “conflict of interest.” During that time, there was a massive protest of the members of Iglesia Ni Cristo. Taberna, considering himself as an active member of the church, explained that he will take a leave for his remarks and statements on the said issue might be biased and not credible. He further said that he will come back to his regular programming duties as soon as the issue dies down.
In the SPJ Code of Ethics part 3, it is stated that, “Journalists should avoid conflict of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” Taberna had surely followed this provision, however, this move of him might affect his overall credibility as a journalist even after his temporary leave in the industry. But as the articles all mentioned that his business and life is in danger because of the past incidents surrounding Iglesia Ni Cristo, I also feel like taking a leave of absence is the best thing Taberna did way back.
LikeLike
Yesterday, November 20, 2019, Inquirer.net posted an article with the title “Driving the young generation’: Here’s how HP helps fuel the creativity of the Gen Z’s and millenials”.
The article highlights how “young millenials will find the HP Pavillion x360’s ultrathin and light design ideal for their mobile lifestyles”. HP Pavillion x360’s specs include 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor, micro-edge 14-inch screen, and a 128 SSD and 1TB HDD dual storage.
This article shows its accordance with the SPJ Code of Ethics Provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” because it was specifically included under the “advertorial” part of inquirer.net’s website.
Source: https://technology.inquirer.net/92450/driving-the-young-generation-heres-how-hp-helps-fuel-the-creativity-of-the-gen-zs-and-millennials
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Yesterday, November 20, 2019, Inquirer.net posted an article with the title “Driving the young generation’: Here’s how HP helps fuel the creativity of the Gen Z’s and millenials”.
The article highlights how “young millenials will find the HP Pavillion x360’s ultrathin and light design ideal for their mobile lifestyles”. HP Pavillion x360’s specs include 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor, micro-edge 14-inch screen, and a 128 SSD and 1TB HDD dual storage.
This article shows its accordance with the SPJ Code of Ethics Provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” because it was specifically included under the “advertorial” part of inquirer.net’s website.
Source: https://technology.inquirer.net/92450/driving-the-young-generation-heres-how-hp-helps-fuel-the-creativity-of-the-gen-zs-and-millennials
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
Last November 9, 2019, Philippine Daily Inquirer released an article, titled, “Make unforgettable family moments this Christmas at SM Malls”. The article was written under INQUIRER.net Brandroom. It highlighted the roster of highlights per SM Mall. For example, in SM Mall of Asia, they promoted that there is a 60 feet tallest indoor Christmas tree, which is framed by an illuminated grand staircase. As for SM Aura, they put up a Christmas display which is Chinoiserie-inspired. It has a 33 ft. Christmas tree, which was unveiled with a grand circus performance. On the other hand, there is SM Mega Mall. In the Mega Fashion Hall, Santa’s Crystal Castle has a 40 ft. Christmas tree, which is inspired by the remarkable streets in London. What was also evident was the mention of SM Mall with other brands to complete their Christmas highlights such as McDonald’s and Canon Philippines.
What’s notable about this article is that it was explicitly classified as an advertorial in Inquirer. Hence, they were able to comply with the SPJ Code of Ethics Provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
Reference: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/350234/make-unforgettable-family-moments-this-christmas-at-sm-malls/#ixzz65skgnsd2
LikeLike
8th BONUS Media Monitor
Rappler columnist JC Punongbayan often uses Twitter to share his newly published articles in Rappler. When not promoting and sharing his pieces, he usually uses his Twitter to comment on news articles linked on said platform. Often times, he receives vulgar remarks from Duterte supporters.
Yesterday, Novermber 20, he published his analysis piece on Duterte’s banning on rice importation and vaping. He tweeted “Duterte’s ban on rice importation and vaping last night are but the latest additions to his growing list of whimsical, capricious policies.” along with the link of his article.
Also yesterday, he quote retweeted a news article about Duterte defending the 50-M SEA Games cauldron saying that “Just because you commissioned a National Artist for a project doesn’t mean it’s corruption-free. 🙄
Till when do we have to put up with Duts and his lack of logic???”
The two tweets received few sensible replies from people who understood what the articles detailed, and what his commentaries added. He replies to them and engages a discussion. However, other replies contained, not even criticism, but vulgar insults to his piece. One account [account handle redacted] says: “Your piece is shit.” Another reply from another user, [account name redacted], was directed to his comment on the Sea Games cauldron. “and the question is may corruption nga ba? if so then patunayan niyo!, wag puro ngawngaw dito sa socmed, eh kasi naman diba diyan lang naman kayo magaling!,,ahahaha TANG-INA NIYONG LAHAT!,,ahahahaha.” The reply meant that JC only blabbers in social media when he literally added to the discussion on the article.
JC Punongbayan, as much as possible, doesn’t engage with the hateful and not value-adding replies in his tweets. This shows his control in reacting to these criticisms given that while the DDS are blind to reality, they are still part of the audience his news pieces and commentaries are trying to target. Thus, he does not try to alienate them.
JC observes proper decency in social media whether he’s tweeting about his work, or when he’s just practicing his right to expression as a fellow citizen. He provides example as to how journalists shall act, as also provisioned by the SPJ Code of Ethics. “I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.”
LikeLike
On November 9, 2019, Rappler posted an article entitled “POPS Burgers: Underrated goodness.” The article consisted of several pictures showcasing the burger joint’s general ambience and interiors, as well as the various food items available on their menu.
The article talked about the writer’s own visit to the burger joint, reviewing the food that she has tried. It details the restaurant’s main menu item—burgers. It depicts the burger in a positive light, calling it “everything you need in a burger.” It also mentions the prices of the restaurant, listing down the various types of burgers available.
It also mentions other menu items such as their milkshakes and fruit shakes, and even other items on the menu such as their rice meals, pastas, and salads. For each item, pictures and prices were again provided.
While overall a good and informative article for those on the lookout for new places to eat out in along Katipunan, the article fails to mention whether it is sponsored or not. It gives a very positive view, almost as if it were advertising the place. However, it is unclear whether the article is indeed an advertisement or not, making it a violation of the following SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On November 9, 2019, Rappler posted an article entitled “POPS Burgers: Underrated goodness.” The article consisted of several pictures showcasing the burger joint’s general ambience and interiors, as well as the various food items available on their menu.
The article talked about the writer’s own visit to the burger joint, reviewing the food that she has tried. It details the restaurant’s main menu item—burgers. It depicts the burger in a positive light, calling it “everything you need in a burger.” It also mentions the prices of the restaurant, listing down the various types of burgers available.
It also mentions other menu items such as their milkshakes and fruit shakes, and even other items on the menu such as their rice meals, pastas, and salads. For each item, pictures and prices were again provided.
While overall a good and informative article for those on the lookout for new places to eat out in along Katipunan, the article fails to mention whether it is sponsored or not. It gives a very positive view, almost as if it were advertising the place. However, it is unclear whether the article is indeed an advertisement or not, making it a violation of the following SPJ Code of Ethics provision: “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On September 4, 2019, Rappler published the news article “Duterte tells released heinous crime convicts to surrender.” It is basically about President Rodrigo Duterte wanting almost 2,000 heinous crime convicts released due to the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law to surrender to the government for a “recomputation” of their benefits under the measure.
In the article, Rappler mentioned that the President set a bounty for the capture of any freed heinous crime convict who’d choose to disobey his order. In the original version of the article, Rappler said that the bounty was P10-million. On September 5, 2019, Rappler corrected this information and changed it to P1-million. At the very bottom of the article, Rappler even placed a note saying that they’ve erroneously reported about it and mentioned that they have made the necessary corrections.
Rappler owning up to their mistake and correcting the wrong information that they had put in their article as quickly as they can are acts that are in accordance with the SPJ Code of Ethics, particularly the provision “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
Source: https://www.rappler.com/nation/239356-duterte-tells-released-heinous-crime-convicts-surrender
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
In October 30, 2019, Philippine Daily Inquirer published an article titled “5 things every girl with low self-esteem needs to hear”. They explained how a person’s self esteem is affected by internal and external factors. They further emphasized that there are days that people are not on their best and how others can help by saying “it’s not a competition”, “it’s okay to be critical”, “it’s okay to talk about it”, “you are valid and enough”, and “you should be your own advocate”.
At first glance, readers would think that Inquirer is advocating for mental health and well-being until they read the sign saying that the article was sponsored by Dove.
By stating that it was a sponsored content, the article followed the 2014 SPJ code of ethics provision to “distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.”
Reference: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/349507/5-things-every-girl-with-low-self-esteem-needs-to-hear/
LikeLike
8th Regular Media Monitor (the News Media 2): Parts 3 and 4 of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics
On August 17, 2019, an article was published on ABS-CBN’s ANC X entitled, “How to deal with gifts when they’re actually bribes (a guide with blind items)”. The writer listed encounters, some of which were experienced by his peers, where gift-giving may take place.
Some of the offers consisted of a blank envelope filled with “a generous wad of bills” being passed through a handshake. The journalist refused but due to the presidential candidate’s insistence, he relented. He went straight to the church and with the camera rolling, he dropped the enveloped into the donation box. Later, the candidate watched the show, and protested that the envelope was not a bribe but a “love offering”.
Another incident was about airport officials who offered P2,500 a week to reporters to keep away from the customs area. This however was turned down by the superiors of the news corporation.
“Gifts” not only come in the form of money, but also in food. A friend of the writer showed good practice by refusing to partake in the “libreng pakain” during the lunch press conference while her peers indulged in it.
This article is an example of good practice of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics provision, “ 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.” The writer, through an account of past encounters with bribery, gave an insight as to how people of power use “offerings”in different forms. It also serves as a guide for all media practitioners, especially young journalists, to be wary of these schemes.
Reference:
https://news.abs-cbn.com/ancx/culture/spotlight/08/17/19/practical-advice-when-are-gifts-bribes-and-how-do-you-turn-them-down
LikeLike
8th REGULAR Media Monitor (The News Media 2)
On October 27, 2019, ABS-CBN News published an article on its online platform about Starbucks’ 2020 planner and travel organizer.
The article proceeded by describing both planners and travel organizer – from its design, where they are made, the materials used in making them. The article also introduced the limited edition beverages the big coffee shop is offering for the Christmas season. The article ended by discussing the mechanics to avail the planner and the travel organizer.
Along the course of the article, there is no explicit indication that the content is a paid advertisement. This goes against the provision of the SPJ Code of Ethics to “Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two” and to “prominently label sponsored content.”
Source: https://news.abs-cbn.com/life/10/27/19/apart-from-the-planner-theres-a-new-must-have-item-from-starbucks-a-travel-organizer
LikeLike