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
” ‘You wouldn’t like it when I’m angry…’ ” written by Mumster
“ I think Rappler’s report on the peace talks deadlock between the Philippine government and the Moro International Liberation Front (www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/peacetalks/31452-ph-milf-peace-talks-) covered both sides fairly. It made sure that both parties had their say in every issue that it raised about the delay on the peace pact.
“Although when I first saw the title of the article (MILF on stalled talks: ‘Frustrated, angry’) I expected another “demonization” of our Muslim brothers and sisters, I was quite relieved when I found this wasn’t so. I know coming up with an attention-grabbing title for a news article is tricky. But I was glad Rappler clearly stated the context of the MILF leadership’s frustration and anger on the progress (or should I say lack of it?) of the peace talks.
“Fair airing of the government and MILF’s accounts regarding the draft annexes for wealth and power-sharing and other related issues is a welcome change. For once, it didn’t seem like I was a reading a script of a telenovela where the government is the good guy and the rebels are the bad guys.”Posted by Mumster
