by Red Batario
Sometime ago I came across a thought-provoking article on
the workings and attitude of the present day news media. Something
struck me in that article, a passage attributed to Ervin S.
Duggan, president of the US Public Broadcasting Service.
Said he: "The idea of journalists that the purpose of the
story is the story itself invites a terrible kind of journalistic
amorality. Trying to do the story just for itself invites
cynicism. It doesn't invite a kind of heroic approach to journalism
at all. It invites compromises and corruptions that deaden
the enterprise at its heart."
Undoubtedly, Duggan was talking about the American press.
But it struck me nonetheless because he could just as well
be talking about the Philippine media.
But what is at the heart of this journalistic cynicism? Is
it because the rules that govern the news cycle no longer
apply? Is it because uncorroborated stories are now the norm?
Is it because journalism has become so competitive that the
idea of stewardship, that we as journalists serve causes higher
than ourselves no longer have an honorific cachet? That the
story has become expedient to the demand for speed? Or is
it symptomatic of an unraveling of the social fabric that
the news media, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to?
To give this observation context, however, we must go back
a little bit to the heady days of the People Power Revolution
in 1986 when Filipinos peacefully threw out a dictator. It
was both a time of remonstrance and rejoicing as a new democratic
space suddenly opened up. The taste of freedom was a giddy
experience after years of repression. With the fall of the
Marcos regime, a decade-and-a-half-old system of media controls
collapsed in the twinkling of an eye. Scores of wannabe newspapers,
radio and television stations rushed madly into that vacuum.
It was anarchic at best, but people didn't care one bit. They
loved their news unexpurgated and unbridled. The media were
deemed trustworthy and credible.
Sadly, in many newsrooms it was to become the norm, although
it would be unfair to say that the media have not succeeded
in focusing public attention on such issues as corruption
in governance, environmental degradation, the conflict in
the south, etc. In fact, it was the press that catalyzed mass
action that eventually led to the downfall of President Joseph
Estrada.
Although freed from state controls, the media were not able
to develop their potential to play a watchdog and development
role in Philippine society. The imperatives of the market
have made the media predominantly commercial in orientation.
The sense of public service and civic responsibility that
was a mark of the anti-Marcos press gave way to crass commercialism
as media organizations used their freedoms to outdo rivals
in the race to peddle newspapers and television programs.
Intense competition has distorted the conduct of journalism,
the content of newspapers, and the programming of radio and
television. (Batario, Coronel, de Jesus; Media, Democracy
and Development Initiatives, UNDP)
Such unrelenting commercialization has made it difficult
for the media to provide citizens the information that they
need to be able to assess government policy, vote wisely and
to otherwise perform their responsibilities as citizens.
Born of expediency, commercial viability and, more alarmingly,
hubris, the practice of journalism could not go anywhere near
being heroic. The Philippine media were at a crossroads of
sorts, undecided as to which path to take, even as citizens
were beginning to demand information that would help them
make sense of what is happening around them.
A decentralization law, the Local Government Code of 1991,
was in its early stage of implementation; people were feeling
their way around the effects of devolution on their lives.
At that point citizens groups, more particularly non-government
organizations, were testing the waters of popular participation.
With scarce resources and greater responsibilities, communities
needed to understand a host of issues, they needed to see
how they could participate in local affairs, they needed to
address problems, to make difficult decisions. To do all that,
communities needed information that will help them identify,
and begin to solve, their own problems.
The challenges for the Philippine press were great. How do
journalists determine the track of the news that will lead
to a better understanding by citizens of community issues?
Do journalists need to reexamine their role in this kind of
environment? Will they remain in their comfort zone and stand
at a distance as communities slowly disconnect from public
life? Will they continue to stand at the sidelines as measures
of citizenship like voting and participating in governance
are corrupted by political expediency? Or will they catalyze
community action by offering opportunities for discussion
and debate?
These were some of the hard questions that in early 1995
prodded two journalists to reexamine journalism both as craft
and principle and how it has contributed, or not, to the determination
of democratic development in the Philippines. These are the
very same questions that underscore the need to address the
challenges faced by local communities in the Philippines as
they grapple with the complexities and demands of decentralization
and democratization.
