Exam Question #1: This morning’s broadsheet print edition of the Manila Standard Today frontpaged the story “Senate calls him (PNoy) responsible; ratings plunge to lowest” with the following banner headline for it: (see image below, rightclicked from Manila Standard Today, used here non-commercially for educational purposes).
The banner headline reads: “Bad hair day for President”. Exam Question #1: This is a case of false reporting because of the use of the following word/words in the banner head: (A) Hair (false reporting) (B) Day (incomplete reporting) (C) President (improper emphasis) Explain your answer and take full responsibility for it without heaping all blame on the department assistant and staff.
On the GMA news network headline: “CBCP readies for RH battle before SC, Villegas vows fight for church beliefs”
At gmanetwork.com/news/nation/cbcp-readies-for-rh-battle-before-sc-villegas-vows-fight-for-church-beliefs
“Today, July 9, major online news portals headline the RH “showdown” that will be finally held in the Supreme Court, deciding if ever the long overdue passing of the long-time shelfed bill will finally turn into one of this country’s laws. I have read two other news articles which also report said RH showdown (Inquirer.net’s and Rappler’s). What struck me most is the differences in the way each headline was written. Inquirer has “Showdown on RH law” while Rappler has “RH law showdown moves to SC”. Evidently so, GMA News’s report, with just its chosen title, already puts a bias on its news story, only pertaining to the implications of the CBCP regarding today’s RH fuss.
“That in the Journalist’s Code of Ethics, aptly first in the list of eleven main guidelines is it mentioned that the journalist “shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential face or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis”. In Inquirer’s and Rappler’s report, they each present other parties involved in said RH showdown, while GMA News only puts importance on what the CBCP comments on the presentation of the RH bill to the SC. This becomes of disservice to the reader such that other important details about the RH showdown, the pro- and anti-RH parties that will also voice out their own arguments, are being left out just to, I suppose, create some CBCP-related controversy once again.” Posted by Awarewolf.
