M230 4th Issue Deadline extended to March 19 at 11:59pm
tap the play arrow (if on mobile device, click “Listen in browser”) on the soundcloud pod below:
CODE
M230 4th Issue Deadline extended to March 19 at 11:59pm
Regular Issue for 10 pts: Proposed guidelines/ provisions/ stipulations in a MOA (memorandum of agreement) / regulations/ etc. , as stated and assigned in class (members of the class signed up for their topic last week ).
Bonus Issue, additional 10 pts: Evaluation as presented by each class member last week in class.
Please open a separate post for each and label accordingly for ease of recording (whether “Regular” or “Bonus”, separate the post. Tnx.) Deadline for both is next week March 19 Thursday at 11:59pm.
16 thoughts on “M230 4th Issue Deadline extended to March 19 at 11:59pm”
[REGULAR]
Proposed guidelines to editors/directors/management of media organizations:
(1) Media management should hold monthly/quarterly briefings to their field journalists to orient and/or refresh their knowledge about the protocols during coverages of dangerous events. These briefings could be paired with simulations of scenarios, as part of the journalists’ trainings.
(2) In addition to protective gear, Media management should provide their field journalists an emergency response team, as well as emergency tools and supplies. They should not just rely on existing government and private medical response teams, which may take a while to accommodate them, should there be injuries from the danger zones.
Evaluation of Rambo Talabong’s TWITTER coverage of the Greenhills hostage-taking”
SUMMARY:
Overall, Rambo was very cautious in his live tweets about the hostage-taking. He was very thorough with his details and he gave his followers/viewers an explanation every time he was not yet allowed to disclose certain information. However, there were reports that seem to say that he had revealed the hostage-taker’s identity prior to the police’s approval. I was not able to see this because the tweet may have already been deleted when I checked. Nevertheless, for the rest of his tweets, he assured the public that his team was following protocols, and he even documented the police-led briefings for the media.
BREAKDOWN OF HIS LIVE TWEETS:
(1) He begins by tweeting about the developing story on the hostage-taking. He documents the lockdown and tweeted about the arrival of the police and officials.
(2) He tweeted about his live video. He showed in the video the current situation, as well as the limited areas where the media could approach.
(3) He tweets about the (then undisclosed) hostage taker’s demand to talk to fellow guards. Rambo mentions the name of these 4 guards which were former bosses and colleagues of the hostage-taker.
(4) Rambo retweeted a tweet of Ms. Grace Go about how Rappler has not posted photos or aired live shots that would endanger the hostages and authorities. This was in response to a netizen’s accusation of Rappler violating the media protocols.
(5) Rambo tweeted about the police-led briefing for the media.
(6) He tweeted about a cop video-calling the hostage-taker and showing him how the media has been set up. In the video, media were asked to confirm attendance through a talkie.
(7) Rambo tweeted about the apologies from the 4 bosses/colleagues of the hostage-taker.
(8) He tweeted about silence as they await for the hostages to be set free.
(9) He, then, tweets “It’s Over.” once the hostages were set free. However, in the tweet’s cover photo, it revealed the face of one of the hostages walking out. The article attached, though, only showed their backs.
(10) He tweets about the hostage-taker’s press conference.
In the succeeding days, Rambo Talabong documented the post-hostage taking incidents:
(11) He tweeted a video showing the hostage taker being taken to the police office.
(12) He retweeted a Rappler article announcing the full story, as well as a timeline of events. The tweet also said that the hostage taker’s name was only revealed later on.
(13) He tweets about Gen. Gamboa’s press briefing. The series of tweets about this states that, according to the police, the media did nothing wrong and broke no protocols.
(14) Rambo ends his live tweeting with tweets about the labor article, as well as about the criminal complaint against the hostage taker.
In line with the risks the reporters encountered last March 2, 2020, I have proposed guidelines to the Philippine National Police on the safety of journalists
(1) The PNP shall not allow the media to directly communicate with the hostage-taker or perpetrators even if the individual requests so; if the perpetrator insists on speaking with the media, the PNP shall provide full security along with the official negotiator and accompany them until the negotiation is done. The media must only appear for the perpetrator’s request and must not speak with the perpetrator, only the official negotiator must be allowed to do so.
(2) The PNP shall always provide and ensure all the media people (reporters, cameramen, and the likes) covering the incident are wearing bulletproof vest
(3) The PNP shall issue a certain perimeter on how close reporters and journalists can only stay where the incident is happening, and it must strictly be followed
Last March 6 2020, we discussed in class our observation with the way different media platforms and broadcasting company covered and aired the Greenhills shopping center hostage-taking incident if they comply with the article 6 of the KBP broadcast code on crimes and crisis situation. I was assigned to review ABS-CBN channel wherein I watched TV Patrol and ANC’s coverage of the incident.
Upon careful observation on the way they covered the incident by watching their report on ABS-CBN Youtube account, I believe that they strictly comply with the KBP broadcast code.
Ted Failon, TV Patrol’s host, even said that the reason why they cannot report on air or share to the public the information they got about the perpetrator and the victims is that the officials are not allowing them to do so during the time the hostage-taking is happening.
In the case of ANC, they also followed the code carefully.
They do not provide any information to the public about the perpetrator and the victims. Additionally, the strategies of the Philippine National Police were aired delayed.
Throughout the coverage of the incident, the network carefully observed all the guidelines under the Article 6 of the KBP broadcast code on crimes and crisis.
This is my proposition for the PNP on the safety of journalists during a hostage-taking situation coverage.
We all know that visually stimulating events, crime stories, accidents and even hostage-taking crisis always attract the attention of media.
With this, the PNP shall provide a well-crafted safety protocols (to be strictly followed) by the journalists/ media organizations in handling / covering sensitive events like a hostage-taking crisis.
The PNP shall make sure / and refrain the journalists from entering restricted areas while the crisis in ongoing, just for the purpose of live coverages.
The journalists shall avoid unethical decisions that can contribute in worsening the events. Should they have to do a major action particularly in airing the situation live, they should ask permission from the authorities.
The PNP shall remind the journalists that in this kind of situation, protecting the lives and safety of everyone is the top-most priority.
Hello, ma’am. Here are my proposed guidelines and measures for the management of media organizations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: Journalists are prone to danger. The media organizations shall provide training to their journalists. Skills in first aid, search and rescue operations, have proven necessray during crime and calamities in the past.
During the situation: Must strictly abide with the KBP code, and shall practice utmost precaution.
In the interest of documenting evidence, no recordings shall be aired live to prevent the perpetrator from learning the motives and plans of the police
Since I was absent during the discussion, I also came up with guidelines for the PNP during these situations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: The PNP and media organizations shall collaborate on designing safety guidelines and measures (protocols) tailored for every type of situation: hostage taking, bombing, etc.
During the a crime and crisis situation: The police shall maintain an off limits radius for the media to ensure that no coverage that can reveal their plans to hostage takers are taken.
First aid personnel/paramedics, and ambulances shall be coordinated with and shall arrive along with the PNP
Hello, ma’am. Here are my proposed guidelines and measures for the management of media organizations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: Journalists are prone to danger. The media organizations shall provide training to their journalists. Skills in first aid, search and rescue operations, have proven necessray during crime and calamities in the past.
During the situation: Must strictly abide with the KBP code, and shall practice utmost precaution.
In the interest of documenting evidence, no recordings shall be aired live to prevent the perpetrator from learning the motives and plans of the police
Since I was absent during the discussion, I also came up with guidelines for the PNP during these situations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: The PNP and media organizations shall collaborate on designing safety guidelines and measures (protocols) tailored for every type of situation: hostage taking, bombing, etc.
During the a crime and crisis situation: The police shall maintain an off limits radius for the media to ensure that no coverage that can reveal their plans to hostage takers are taken.
First aid personnel/paramedics, and ambulances shall be coordinated with and shall arrive along with the PNP
The hostage taking situation in Greenhills last March 2, 2020 required distinctly advanced precaution because the hostage taker demanded the presence of the media. There shall be specialized protocols for this situation.There shall be a limit to the media presence, and it shall still not include live coverage. If live coverage is demanded by perpetrator, there shall be limiting procedures for this.
If anything, this situation revealed that hostage takers all have their own motives. There shall be modified SOPs for general types of motives.
I was asked to evaluate Rappler’s online coverage of the Hostage Taking Situation in Greenhills.
There were several articles being released within the 3 to 4 day period during and after the hostage taking situation. All the articles were written by Rambo Talabong with the first being “Dozens Held Hostage at Greenhills Mall, Ex-Guard with Gun” and this had 8 updates since it’s first posting at 1:07pm on March 2 until it’s final posting at 10:34am on March 3.
The article mentions the perpetrators name. Since Rappler doesn’t trace the changes to the article, I am not aware whether they mentioned his name from the first posting or if they updated it the following day (March 3) with the name of the perpetrator.
The different articles during the hostage crisis includes articles about the hostage taker’s demands [Greenhills Hostage Taker Demands to Talk to Fellow Guards, Media — March 2 2:38pm with 3 updates and final update on March 4 10:54pm], about the reaction of the bosses to the demands [Greenhills hostage taker bosses apologizes — March 2 6:39pm with 4 updates and final update on March 2 11:28pm], how the perpetrator refused Php 1M [Greenhills Hostage Taker Refused 1M pesos — March 3 6:50pm with one update on March 3 6:50pm], and others.
There was a profile of the perpetrator with a summary of the whole crisis on March 3 at 9:53pm and with an update at March 4, 8:06am.
Through the half a dozen or more articles about the incident by Rambo Talabong, only the perpetrator’s name and the bosses that he was implicating in wrongdoings were mentioned.
There were no other violations with regards to showing sympathy or any attempts to communicate with the perpetrator or the like.
[Bonus] Reposting again because I forgot to login when I sent it so it came out anonymous — SORRY!
I was asked to evaluate Rappler’s online coverage of the Hostage Taking Situation in Greenhills.
There were several articles being released within the 3 to 4 day period during and after the hostage taking situation. All the articles were written by Rambo Talabong with the first being “Dozens Held Hostage at Greenhills Mall, Ex-Guard with Gun” and this had 8 updates since it’s first posting at 1:07pm on March 2 until it’s final posting at 10:34am on March 3.
The article mentions the perpetrators name. Since Rappler doesn’t trace the changes to the article, I am not aware whether they mentioned his name from the first posting or if they updated it the following day (March 3) with the name of the perpetrator.
The different articles during the hostage crisis includes articles about the hostage taker’s demands [Greenhills Hostage Taker Demands to Talk to Fellow Guards, Media — March 2 2:38pm with 3 updates and final update on March 4 10:54pm], about the reaction of the bosses to the demands [Greenhills hostage taker bosses apologizes — March 2 6:39pm with 4 updates and final update on March 2 11:28pm], how the perpetrator refused Php 1M [Greenhills Hostage Taker Refused 1M pesos — March 3 6:50pm with one update on March 3 6:50pm], and others.
There was a profile of the perpetrator with a summary of the whole crisis on March 3 at 9:53pm and with an update at March 4, 8:06am.
Through the half a dozen or more articles about the incident by Rambo Talabong, only the perpetrator’s name and the bosses that he was implicating in wrongdoings were mentioned.
There were no other violations with regards to showing sympathy or any attempts to communicate with the perpetrator or the like.
REGULAR
Good evening ma’am, I’ve been assigned to work on guideline for posting viral videos online, and I propose a penalty towards poster
Tech companies are obliged to report any individual viral videos in social media platforms who posted during and after a crisis (i.e. hostage taking crisis) as it is deemed to compromise security, aggravate the hostage taker, and may trigger mental health towards victims, and/or family victims related who have experienced such ordeal.
Should the individual be proven guilty of such actions, they will be fine P500,000 and 5 years prison sentence.
There had been viral videos in the past that have stirred individuals’ privacy, and it would them under scrutiny including friends, family and related to the individual.
The said penalties I mentioned above would strongly safeguard individuals ‘own safety and further decrease of viewership. This way, it would also minimize propagating misinformation, fear, panic, hate speech and provoke inciting violence.
[Regular]
Assigned to working on the guidelines for editors/directors/management of media organizations on the safety of Journalists during coverage of hostage-taking situations:
1) The management should create a professional link with the PNP and hold monthly (or every two months) workshops with journalists on protocols during hostage-taking situations. This also will give journalists and PNP personnel interaction so that there is familiarity during the actual crisis event and it will facilitate better workflow.
2) Management should ensure that all journalists who are sent to cover hostage taking stories have gone to these workshops at least once and if the nearest journalist has not yet taken these workshops, they shall send a replacement immediately to ensure proper decorum and protocol is met during the crisis.
3) Management should have emergency contact numbers of Journalists working these stories at all times.
4) Management should have a clear list of the protocols (such as the KBP Broadcast Code Article 6 on “Crime and Crisis Situations”) in a text message that can easily be sent to the journalist as a reminder. This, and all other articles, should be printed and made readily available in the newsroom and work space.
These are the only ones I could think of, Ma’am.
Thank you.
BONUS
My assessment on the viral video (runtime: 7 minutes) I chose takes real place at the height of the Greenhills hostage standoff. While neitizens are not covered with penalty, there evident details on covering details from the authorities making way towards the hostage and areas of the hostage situation that may compromise police strategy and may aggravate the hostake taker.
I’m breaking down three articles from section 6 of the KBP Broadcast Code of 2011:
Sec. 1. The coverage of crimes in progress or crisis situations, such as hostage-taking or kidnapping, shall consider the safety and security of human lives above the right of the public to information. If it is necessary in avoiding injury or loss of life, the station should consider delaying its airing.
The first 43 seconds and time code 2:42 to 2:58 shows ACE Hardware store from closing its store, and outside are mall goers escaping. Details like these would give information to the hostage taker where to pursue his/or her target.
Sec. 3 While the incident is going on, the station shall desist from showing or reporting the strategies, Broadcast Code of the Philippines 2007 14 plans, and tactics employed by the authorities to resolve the situation—including the positioning of forces, deployment of machine and equipment, or any other information that might jeopardize their operations or put lives in danger.
From 5:15 to 5:26 of the video, evacuated mallgoers have successfully left V Mall’s premises, and security detail is seen reporting the situation on that area, this in turn would compromise the authorities’ plan to contain the conflict.
Sec. 11. A coverage should avoid inflicting undue shock or [and] pain to families and loved ones of victims of crimes, crisis situations, or of disasters, accidents, and other tragedies. (S)
The video was uploaded by ‘Magkaibigan Tayo’ at around 8:37 P.M. For survivors, the families and friends connected may trigger mental health and having videos existing on social media platform put them in situations that worsen not only their mental health and well being. I’d also like to point out that as long as these videos are around the internet, there are chances of individuals that encourage to incite violence; hence, the concern here is not only safety but as mental health gaining wider attention and access for individuals suffering from it, the government and tech companies must make effort to regulate posting videos such as these.
To conclude my findings, the congress and senate must take a legislative action to penalize individuals and groups who post these kinds of content.
Regular:
For the Proposed guidelines on the Hostage Taking incidents, I recited in class the need for strict protocols within a certain radius or perimeter of such incidents. Similar to NDRRMC earthquake and weather alarms in the PH, as well as USA’s “Amber alert” (where phone users in towns and areas near a kidnapping incident will be notified), I suggested we shall also apply same measures for hostage taking incidents as well as acts of terror. Protocols and reminders such as guidelines for Media as well as bystanders shall be broadcast to all mobile phones within a radius from the incident.
I was given the task of monitoring TV5’s live coverage and I was only able to see a total of five posts from both twitter and Facebook. The name of the Hostage taker was not mentioned and it seems like that TV5 has learned a lot from the deadly 2010 Quirino Grandstand where the network was directly involved thru Tulfo.
During the hostage drama, TV5’s correspondent Pat Mangure was on the beat for News Aksyon 5. She has followed to code and KBP guidelines carefully. TV5 however posted the name of the hostage taker at 9PM, after the incident was over.
Provisions for a media organization and PNP Memorandum of Agreement
1) Regular joint seminar/training on crisis and high risk situations will be conducted by the PNP Public Information Office together with media organizations focusing on safety and ethics.
2) Media organizations shall have a team of personnel undergo advanced training with the PNP to handle crisis and high risk situations. Registered members that have undergone training shall have priority when responding to said situations.
3) The 2012 Police Community Relations Manual is to be revised together with media experts to reflect standards and help facilitate cross-organizational protocol
Bonus
The inquirer used multiple platforms to cover the event, aside from the broadsheet, there was also Radyo Inquirer, and Inquirer TV. Further more Daphne Galvez, the main reporter covering it, used twitter to document the events live and wrote articles in inquirer.net.
For the most part, Inquirer followerd the ethical standards of as laid out in the KBP. However some oversights were made:
1) The Breaking news was delayed by two hours, and information on the movement of the authorities were included in the article, including the type of police forces in opperation. Although there was a police inspector interviewed, it was unclear if he authorized the information divulged or if he was the officer-in-charge.
2) Information such as the suspect’s name was divulged and not editorialized. Although this was done by quoting the mayor, who was the one who cited the name directly, it seems a loop-hole regarding the standards and goes against its spirit.
3) Articles, including the “breaking news” article, all had comments enabled and allowed speculation on an ongoing crisis situation, not to mention it allowed slanted framing of the news.
{Regular}
I’m assigned to the suggesting the appropriate guidelines in covering FB live in a hostage-taking incident. This list of three guidelines below is based on the Facebook Community Standards and the general guidelines of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. Both organizations denounce the use of live streaming through traditional or digital media in such occassions, avoiding the channels to become an outlet for the perpetrator to be heard and become an unedited propaganda platform (“What To Do in a Hostage Situation, 2007; “Facebook Community Standards”, 2020). In a nutshell, live broadcasting of harm against people are prohibited due to the untoward effects to the people involved and should be referred to the law enforcement.
Report to the Law Enforcement. The media organization or individual should report the incident to the law enforcement authorities such as the police. On Facebook live posts, users can report the live airing of a hostage incident while being reminded that they should report the incident to the law enforcement.
According to Facebook Community Standards on Violence and Criminal Behavior:
“We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information like a person’s public visibility and the risks to their physical safety” (“Facebook Community Standards”, 2020, 1).
Do not live broadcast a Hostage-taking incident.Neither media organizations, non-media organizations, nor individuals are prohibited to broadcast a hostage-taking incident.
According to Facebook Community Standards on Dangerous Individuals or Organizations:
In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence to have a presence on Facebook. This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following:
Terrorist activity
Organized hate
Mass murder (including attempts) or multiple murder
Human trafficking
Organized violence or criminal activity (“2. Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”, 2020, 2)
Whether you intend to make a live or a tapped broadcast, avoid pointing your recording material to the perpetrator and victim. Pointing a phone or camera to the hostage-taker may intimidate or aggravate the situation. Also, the live airing may become an outlet for the perpetrator’s propaganda.
According to Facebook Community Standards on Coordinating Harm and Publicizing Crime:
Statements of intent, calls to action, or advocating for harm against people that depicts, admits to, or promotes the following acts committed by you or your associates:
Acts of physical harm against humans, including acts of domestic violence, except when shared in a context of redemption or defense of self or another person.
Swatting
Encouraging participation in a high-risk viral challenge
According to Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility on covering hostage events:
“During a crisis, broadcast reporters need to tone down their delivery, so as not to contribute to public anxiety. Updates and warnings serve their purpose better when issued in a calm and restrained voice. Crisis coverage must be devoid of posturing, hero-playing, and other kinds of grandstanding on the part of the media. Journalists should also guard against the use of media time or space by those pushing for their individual and personal interests, among them politicians eager to get into the limelight. Such gimmickry can get on the nerves and add to the stress felt by victims. They can also lead to the misuse of the media in the self-serving efforts of unscrupulous individuals who are trying to take advantage of human suffering to advance their political and other interests” (“What To Do in a Hostage Situation, 2007, 3)
marichulambino.com 
[REGULAR]
Proposed guidelines to editors/directors/management of media organizations:
(1) Media management should hold monthly/quarterly briefings to their field journalists to orient and/or refresh their knowledge about the protocols during coverages of dangerous events. These briefings could be paired with simulations of scenarios, as part of the journalists’ trainings.
(2) In addition to protective gear, Media management should provide their field journalists an emergency response team, as well as emergency tools and supplies. They should not just rely on existing government and private medical response teams, which may take a while to accommodate them, should there be injuries from the danger zones.
LikeLike
[BONUS]
Evaluation of Rambo Talabong’s TWITTER coverage of the Greenhills hostage-taking”
SUMMARY:
Overall, Rambo was very cautious in his live tweets about the hostage-taking. He was very thorough with his details and he gave his followers/viewers an explanation every time he was not yet allowed to disclose certain information. However, there were reports that seem to say that he had revealed the hostage-taker’s identity prior to the police’s approval. I was not able to see this because the tweet may have already been deleted when I checked. Nevertheless, for the rest of his tweets, he assured the public that his team was following protocols, and he even documented the police-led briefings for the media.
BREAKDOWN OF HIS LIVE TWEETS:
(1) He begins by tweeting about the developing story on the hostage-taking. He documents the lockdown and tweeted about the arrival of the police and officials.
(2) He tweeted about his live video. He showed in the video the current situation, as well as the limited areas where the media could approach.
(3) He tweets about the (then undisclosed) hostage taker’s demand to talk to fellow guards. Rambo mentions the name of these 4 guards which were former bosses and colleagues of the hostage-taker.
(4) Rambo retweeted a tweet of Ms. Grace Go about how Rappler has not posted photos or aired live shots that would endanger the hostages and authorities. This was in response to a netizen’s accusation of Rappler violating the media protocols.
(5) Rambo tweeted about the police-led briefing for the media.
(6) He tweeted about a cop video-calling the hostage-taker and showing him how the media has been set up. In the video, media were asked to confirm attendance through a talkie.
(7) Rambo tweeted about the apologies from the 4 bosses/colleagues of the hostage-taker.
(8) He tweeted about silence as they await for the hostages to be set free.
(9) He, then, tweets “It’s Over.” once the hostages were set free. However, in the tweet’s cover photo, it revealed the face of one of the hostages walking out. The article attached, though, only showed their backs.
(10) He tweets about the hostage-taker’s press conference.
In the succeeding days, Rambo Talabong documented the post-hostage taking incidents:
(11) He tweeted a video showing the hostage taker being taken to the police office.
(12) He retweeted a Rappler article announcing the full story, as well as a timeline of events. The tweet also said that the hostage taker’s name was only revealed later on.
(13) He tweets about Gen. Gamboa’s press briefing. The series of tweets about this states that, according to the police, the media did nothing wrong and broke no protocols.
(14) Rambo ends his live tweeting with tweets about the labor article, as well as about the criminal complaint against the hostage taker.
LikeLike
(REGULAR)
In line with the risks the reporters encountered last March 2, 2020, I have proposed guidelines to the Philippine National Police on the safety of journalists
(1) The PNP shall not allow the media to directly communicate with the hostage-taker or perpetrators even if the individual requests so; if the perpetrator insists on speaking with the media, the PNP shall provide full security along with the official negotiator and accompany them until the negotiation is done. The media must only appear for the perpetrator’s request and must not speak with the perpetrator, only the official negotiator must be allowed to do so.
(2) The PNP shall always provide and ensure all the media people (reporters, cameramen, and the likes) covering the incident are wearing bulletproof vest
(3) The PNP shall issue a certain perimeter on how close reporters and journalists can only stay where the incident is happening, and it must strictly be followed
LikeLike
(BONUS)
Last March 6 2020, we discussed in class our observation with the way different media platforms and broadcasting company covered and aired the Greenhills shopping center hostage-taking incident if they comply with the article 6 of the KBP broadcast code on crimes and crisis situation. I was assigned to review ABS-CBN channel wherein I watched TV Patrol and ANC’s coverage of the incident.
Upon careful observation on the way they covered the incident by watching their report on ABS-CBN Youtube account, I believe that they strictly comply with the KBP broadcast code.
Ted Failon, TV Patrol’s host, even said that the reason why they cannot report on air or share to the public the information they got about the perpetrator and the victims is that the officials are not allowing them to do so during the time the hostage-taking is happening.
In the case of ANC, they also followed the code carefully.
They do not provide any information to the public about the perpetrator and the victims. Additionally, the strategies of the Philippine National Police were aired delayed.
Throughout the coverage of the incident, the network carefully observed all the guidelines under the Article 6 of the KBP broadcast code on crimes and crisis.
LikeLike
[ REGULAR ]
This is my proposition for the PNP on the safety of journalists during a hostage-taking situation coverage.
We all know that visually stimulating events, crime stories, accidents and even hostage-taking crisis always attract the attention of media.
With this, the PNP shall provide a well-crafted safety protocols (to be strictly followed) by the journalists/ media organizations in handling / covering sensitive events like a hostage-taking crisis.
The PNP shall make sure / and refrain the journalists from entering restricted areas while the crisis in ongoing, just for the purpose of live coverages.
The journalists shall avoid unethical decisions that can contribute in worsening the events. Should they have to do a major action particularly in airing the situation live, they should ask permission from the authorities.
The PNP shall remind the journalists that in this kind of situation, protecting the lives and safety of everyone is the top-most priority.
LikeLike
REGULAR
Hello, ma’am. Here are my proposed guidelines and measures for the management of media organizations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: Journalists are prone to danger. The media organizations shall provide training to their journalists. Skills in first aid, search and rescue operations, have proven necessray during crime and calamities in the past.
During the situation: Must strictly abide with the KBP code, and shall practice utmost precaution.
In the interest of documenting evidence, no recordings shall be aired live to prevent the perpetrator from learning the motives and plans of the police
Since I was absent during the discussion, I also came up with guidelines for the PNP during these situations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: The PNP and media organizations shall collaborate on designing safety guidelines and measures (protocols) tailored for every type of situation: hostage taking, bombing, etc.
During the a crime and crisis situation: The police shall maintain an off limits radius for the media to ensure that no coverage that can reveal their plans to hostage takers are taken.
First aid personnel/paramedics, and ambulances shall be coordinated with and shall arrive along with the PNP
LikeLike
REGULAR (EDITED with additional insight)
Hello, ma’am. Here are my proposed guidelines and measures for the management of media organizations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: Journalists are prone to danger. The media organizations shall provide training to their journalists. Skills in first aid, search and rescue operations, have proven necessray during crime and calamities in the past.
During the situation: Must strictly abide with the KBP code, and shall practice utmost precaution.
In the interest of documenting evidence, no recordings shall be aired live to prevent the perpetrator from learning the motives and plans of the police
Since I was absent during the discussion, I also came up with guidelines for the PNP during these situations:
Before the crime and crisis situation: The PNP and media organizations shall collaborate on designing safety guidelines and measures (protocols) tailored for every type of situation: hostage taking, bombing, etc.
During the a crime and crisis situation: The police shall maintain an off limits radius for the media to ensure that no coverage that can reveal their plans to hostage takers are taken.
First aid personnel/paramedics, and ambulances shall be coordinated with and shall arrive along with the PNP
The hostage taking situation in Greenhills last March 2, 2020 required distinctly advanced precaution because the hostage taker demanded the presence of the media. There shall be specialized protocols for this situation.There shall be a limit to the media presence, and it shall still not include live coverage. If live coverage is demanded by perpetrator, there shall be limiting procedures for this.
If anything, this situation revealed that hostage takers all have their own motives. There shall be modified SOPs for general types of motives.
LikeLike
For Bonus:
I was asked to evaluate Rappler’s online coverage of the Hostage Taking Situation in Greenhills.
There were several articles being released within the 3 to 4 day period during and after the hostage taking situation. All the articles were written by Rambo Talabong with the first being “Dozens Held Hostage at Greenhills Mall, Ex-Guard with Gun” and this had 8 updates since it’s first posting at 1:07pm on March 2 until it’s final posting at 10:34am on March 3.
The article mentions the perpetrators name. Since Rappler doesn’t trace the changes to the article, I am not aware whether they mentioned his name from the first posting or if they updated it the following day (March 3) with the name of the perpetrator.
The different articles during the hostage crisis includes articles about the hostage taker’s demands [Greenhills Hostage Taker Demands to Talk to Fellow Guards, Media — March 2 2:38pm with 3 updates and final update on March 4 10:54pm], about the reaction of the bosses to the demands [Greenhills hostage taker bosses apologizes — March 2 6:39pm with 4 updates and final update on March 2 11:28pm], how the perpetrator refused Php 1M [Greenhills Hostage Taker Refused 1M pesos — March 3 6:50pm with one update on March 3 6:50pm], and others.
There was a profile of the perpetrator with a summary of the whole crisis on March 3 at 9:53pm and with an update at March 4, 8:06am.
Through the half a dozen or more articles about the incident by Rambo Talabong, only the perpetrator’s name and the bosses that he was implicating in wrongdoings were mentioned.
There were no other violations with regards to showing sympathy or any attempts to communicate with the perpetrator or the like.
LikeLike
[Bonus] Reposting again because I forgot to login when I sent it so it came out anonymous — SORRY!
I was asked to evaluate Rappler’s online coverage of the Hostage Taking Situation in Greenhills.
There were several articles being released within the 3 to 4 day period during and after the hostage taking situation. All the articles were written by Rambo Talabong with the first being “Dozens Held Hostage at Greenhills Mall, Ex-Guard with Gun” and this had 8 updates since it’s first posting at 1:07pm on March 2 until it’s final posting at 10:34am on March 3.
The article mentions the perpetrators name. Since Rappler doesn’t trace the changes to the article, I am not aware whether they mentioned his name from the first posting or if they updated it the following day (March 3) with the name of the perpetrator.
The different articles during the hostage crisis includes articles about the hostage taker’s demands [Greenhills Hostage Taker Demands to Talk to Fellow Guards, Media — March 2 2:38pm with 3 updates and final update on March 4 10:54pm], about the reaction of the bosses to the demands [Greenhills hostage taker bosses apologizes — March 2 6:39pm with 4 updates and final update on March 2 11:28pm], how the perpetrator refused Php 1M [Greenhills Hostage Taker Refused 1M pesos — March 3 6:50pm with one update on March 3 6:50pm], and others.
There was a profile of the perpetrator with a summary of the whole crisis on March 3 at 9:53pm and with an update at March 4, 8:06am.
Through the half a dozen or more articles about the incident by Rambo Talabong, only the perpetrator’s name and the bosses that he was implicating in wrongdoings were mentioned.
There were no other violations with regards to showing sympathy or any attempts to communicate with the perpetrator or the like.
LikeLike
REGULAR
Good evening ma’am, I’ve been assigned to work on guideline for posting viral videos online, and I propose a penalty towards poster
Tech companies are obliged to report any individual viral videos in social media platforms who posted during and after a crisis (i.e. hostage taking crisis) as it is deemed to compromise security, aggravate the hostage taker, and may trigger mental health towards victims, and/or family victims related who have experienced such ordeal.
Should the individual be proven guilty of such actions, they will be fine P500,000 and 5 years prison sentence.
There had been viral videos in the past that have stirred individuals’ privacy, and it would them under scrutiny including friends, family and related to the individual.
The said penalties I mentioned above would strongly safeguard individuals ‘own safety and further decrease of viewership. This way, it would also minimize propagating misinformation, fear, panic, hate speech and provoke inciting violence.
LikeLike
[Regular]
Assigned to working on the guidelines for editors/directors/management of media organizations on the safety of Journalists during coverage of hostage-taking situations:
1) The management should create a professional link with the PNP and hold monthly (or every two months) workshops with journalists on protocols during hostage-taking situations. This also will give journalists and PNP personnel interaction so that there is familiarity during the actual crisis event and it will facilitate better workflow.
2) Management should ensure that all journalists who are sent to cover hostage taking stories have gone to these workshops at least once and if the nearest journalist has not yet taken these workshops, they shall send a replacement immediately to ensure proper decorum and protocol is met during the crisis.
3) Management should have emergency contact numbers of Journalists working these stories at all times.
4) Management should have a clear list of the protocols (such as the KBP Broadcast Code Article 6 on “Crime and Crisis Situations”) in a text message that can easily be sent to the journalist as a reminder. This, and all other articles, should be printed and made readily available in the newsroom and work space.
These are the only ones I could think of, Ma’am.
Thank you.
LikeLike
BONUS
My assessment on the viral video (runtime: 7 minutes) I chose takes real place at the height of the Greenhills hostage standoff. While neitizens are not covered with penalty, there evident details on covering details from the authorities making way towards the hostage and areas of the hostage situation that may compromise police strategy and may aggravate the hostake taker.
I’m breaking down three articles from section 6 of the KBP Broadcast Code of 2011:
Sec. 1. The coverage of crimes in progress or crisis situations, such as hostage-taking or kidnapping, shall consider the safety and security of human lives above the right of the public to information. If it is necessary in avoiding injury or loss of life, the station should consider delaying its airing.
The first 43 seconds and time code 2:42 to 2:58 shows ACE Hardware store from closing its store, and outside are mall goers escaping. Details like these would give information to the hostage taker where to pursue his/or her target.
Sec. 3 While the incident is going on, the station shall desist from showing or reporting the strategies, Broadcast Code of the Philippines 2007 14 plans, and tactics employed by the authorities to resolve the situation—including the positioning of forces, deployment of machine and equipment, or any other information that might jeopardize their operations or put lives in danger.
From 5:15 to 5:26 of the video, evacuated mallgoers have successfully left V Mall’s premises, and security detail is seen reporting the situation on that area, this in turn would compromise the authorities’ plan to contain the conflict.
Sec. 11. A coverage should avoid inflicting undue shock or [and] pain to families and loved ones of victims of crimes, crisis situations, or of disasters, accidents, and other tragedies. (S)
The video was uploaded by ‘Magkaibigan Tayo’ at around 8:37 P.M. For survivors, the families and friends connected may trigger mental health and having videos existing on social media platform put them in situations that worsen not only their mental health and well being. I’d also like to point out that as long as these videos are around the internet, there are chances of individuals that encourage to incite violence; hence, the concern here is not only safety but as mental health gaining wider attention and access for individuals suffering from it, the government and tech companies must make effort to regulate posting videos such as these.
To conclude my findings, the congress and senate must take a legislative action to penalize individuals and groups who post these kinds of content.
LikeLike
Regular:
For the Proposed guidelines on the Hostage Taking incidents, I recited in class the need for strict protocols within a certain radius or perimeter of such incidents. Similar to NDRRMC earthquake and weather alarms in the PH, as well as USA’s “Amber alert” (where phone users in towns and areas near a kidnapping incident will be notified), I suggested we shall also apply same measures for hostage taking incidents as well as acts of terror. Protocols and reminders such as guidelines for Media as well as bystanders shall be broadcast to all mobile phones within a radius from the incident.
LikeLike
Bonus:
I was given the task of monitoring TV5’s live coverage and I was only able to see a total of five posts from both twitter and Facebook. The name of the Hostage taker was not mentioned and it seems like that TV5 has learned a lot from the deadly 2010 Quirino Grandstand where the network was directly involved thru Tulfo.
During the hostage drama, TV5’s correspondent Pat Mangure was on the beat for News Aksyon 5. She has followed to code and KBP guidelines carefully. TV5 however posted the name of the hostage taker at 9PM, after the incident was over.
LikeLike
Regular
Provisions for a media organization and PNP Memorandum of Agreement
1) Regular joint seminar/training on crisis and high risk situations will be conducted by the PNP Public Information Office together with media organizations focusing on safety and ethics.
2) Media organizations shall have a team of personnel undergo advanced training with the PNP to handle crisis and high risk situations. Registered members that have undergone training shall have priority when responding to said situations.
3) The 2012 Police Community Relations Manual is to be revised together with media experts to reflect standards and help facilitate cross-organizational protocol
Bonus
The inquirer used multiple platforms to cover the event, aside from the broadsheet, there was also Radyo Inquirer, and Inquirer TV. Further more Daphne Galvez, the main reporter covering it, used twitter to document the events live and wrote articles in inquirer.net.
For the most part, Inquirer followerd the ethical standards of as laid out in the KBP. However some oversights were made:
1) The Breaking news was delayed by two hours, and information on the movement of the authorities were included in the article, including the type of police forces in opperation. Although there was a police inspector interviewed, it was unclear if he authorized the information divulged or if he was the officer-in-charge.
2) Information such as the suspect’s name was divulged and not editorialized. Although this was done by quoting the mayor, who was the one who cited the name directly, it seems a loop-hole regarding the standards and goes against its spirit.
3) Articles, including the “breaking news” article, all had comments enabled and allowed speculation on an ongoing crisis situation, not to mention it allowed slanted framing of the news.
LikeLike
{Regular}
I’m assigned to the suggesting the appropriate guidelines in covering FB live in a hostage-taking incident. This list of three guidelines below is based on the Facebook Community Standards and the general guidelines of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. Both organizations denounce the use of live streaming through traditional or digital media in such occassions, avoiding the channels to become an outlet for the perpetrator to be heard and become an unedited propaganda platform (“What To Do in a Hostage Situation, 2007; “Facebook Community Standards”, 2020). In a nutshell, live broadcasting of harm against people are prohibited due to the untoward effects to the people involved and should be referred to the law enforcement.
Report to the Law Enforcement. The media organization or individual should report the incident to the law enforcement authorities such as the police. On Facebook live posts, users can report the live airing of a hostage incident while being reminded that they should report the incident to the law enforcement.
According to Facebook Community Standards on Violence and Criminal Behavior:
“We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information like a person’s public visibility and the risks to their physical safety” (“Facebook Community Standards”, 2020, 1).
Do not live broadcast a Hostage-taking incident.Neither media organizations, non-media organizations, nor individuals are prohibited to broadcast a hostage-taking incident.
According to Facebook Community Standards on Dangerous Individuals or Organizations:
In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence to have a presence on Facebook. This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following:
Terrorist activity
Organized hate
Mass murder (including attempts) or multiple murder
Human trafficking
Organized violence or criminal activity (“2. Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”, 2020, 2)
Whether you intend to make a live or a tapped broadcast, avoid pointing your recording material to the perpetrator and victim. Pointing a phone or camera to the hostage-taker may intimidate or aggravate the situation. Also, the live airing may become an outlet for the perpetrator’s propaganda.
According to Facebook Community Standards on Coordinating Harm and Publicizing Crime:
Statements of intent, calls to action, or advocating for harm against people that depicts, admits to, or promotes the following acts committed by you or your associates:
Acts of physical harm against humans, including acts of domestic violence, except when shared in a context of redemption or defense of self or another person.
Swatting
Encouraging participation in a high-risk viral challenge
According to Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility on covering hostage events:
“During a crisis, broadcast reporters need to tone down their delivery, so as not to contribute to public anxiety. Updates and warnings serve their purpose better when issued in a calm and restrained voice. Crisis coverage must be devoid of posturing, hero-playing, and other kinds of grandstanding on the part of the media. Journalists should also guard against the use of media time or space by those pushing for their individual and personal interests, among them politicians eager to get into the limelight. Such gimmickry can get on the nerves and add to the stress felt by victims. They can also lead to the misuse of the media in the self-serving efforts of unscrupulous individuals who are trying to take advantage of human suffering to advance their political and other interests” (“What To Do in a Hostage Situation, 2007, 3)
Source:
Community Standards | Facebook. (2020). Facebook.com. Retrieved 4 April 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/additional_information
What To Do in a Hostage Situation | CMFR. (2020). Cmfr-phil.org. Retrieved 4 April 2020, from https://cmfr-phil.org/media-ethics-responsibility/ethics/what-to-do-in-a-hostage-situation/
– Pat J.
LikeLike