On the article: ph.news.yahoo.com/dolphin-dies-china-tourist-abuse
“The article is about a photo of Chinese tourists posing with a dying dolphin. It caused the outrage of China’s Twitter-like social media service, Sina Weibo.
“Under the Journalist’s Code of Ethics, a journalist “shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.” The article focuses on the outrage of the Sina Weibo users over the aforesaid photo. It appears that the adverse reactions of the users were intentionally emphasized to influence the judgment of the readers. The picture does not really show much about the condition of the dolphin during the time when it was photographed; if nobody knew the story published by Shanghai Daily, nobody would even suspect that the dolphin was dying and no online outrage would occur.
“Furthermore, he/she “shall recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.” The author should have exerted more effort in ascertaining the truth behind the story. Essential facts should not be suppressed; accordingly, any journalist should avoid suppressing facts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, because it would tend to favor one side. The intention of the writer to raise the issue of non-endangered animal rights is clear at the last part of the article. It is written that, “China, which has a growing animal rights movement, does not currently have any laws to protect non-endangered animals.” The intention of the writer was good, but he failed to exercise fairness. No matter how good one’s intention is, he/she is never exempted to comply with legal and ethical standards. It would be much better if he was able to get the side of those who appeared in the picture. Just like the dolphin, they also have rights which should be protected.” Posted by Andrea Lou H. Magnaye
“A recent article stated that 5 universities located in the Philippine ranked in Asia’s top 300 universities according to a study conducted by education network Quacquarelli Symmonds or QS. The University of the Philippines,Diliman ranked 67th, Ateneo De Manila University ranked 109th and the University of Santo Tomas ranked 150th. Meanwhile De La Salle University ranked 151st to 160th and University of Southeastern Philippines ranked 251st to 300th.
“Albeit it being seemingly good news as UP Diliman is the highest ranked among the local universities, the said survey seems to be questionable, since they also released a former study (Inquirer article linked above) regarding the rankings of institutions by subjects. Apparently the Asian Institute of Management topped the rankings amongst local higher institutions of learning in the field of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing engineering, wherein in reality, the said institute does not offer such a course. The same can be said with University of Santo Tomas because they ranked among other institutions in the field of Agriculture and Forestry, a field in which they do not offer in their university. Sad to say, this particular article could be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as QS isn’t really that accurate regarding the fields offered in certain institutions. Although they did adhere to the code of professional and ethical conduct of the Philippine press institute, in which they presented the criteria for such rankings, the other details could really bring up questions regarding the credibility of the source they referred to.”
