|
NOW is the time for all media to look back at the
past year for the top news stories. And one of the top stories of
the last few weeks are the media. While the media try to keep out of
the way as they make their reports, media cannot help but be in the
limelight as they go about their tasks. After all one of these is to
safeguard the fundamental right of freedom of information.
The image that keeps recurring,
and which the media are certainly not reluctant to gloss over is the
image of journalists raising their hands with plastic restrainers on
them. These were referred to as handcuffs. But the “real”
handcuffs were probably the ones Sen. Antonio Trillanes wore after
his arrest.
The plastic restrainers were
probably the same as those used to restrain prisoners during the
Iraq war. Although the media men were anything but restrained by the
plastic strips, (they were certainly free enough to contact their
home bases via cell phones), these were demeaning enough. It has
become an icon because a communication company used this image in
its television advertisement—revenue for the station, a plug for
the cellular phone company and glory for a hero in the struggle for
freedom of information. A coup for any copywriter or advertising or
PR creative department.
The media brouhaha that followed
all but eclipsed the story of the attempted coup. But it has to be
that way. In a dispute over rights, it is a standard strategy for
those involved to push for as much space as they can get. This is
sometimes called “critical engagement.” And the media certainly
must be careful about any memorandum of understanding or terms of
engagement or the like. For a long time journalists have shied away
from any definition of journalism because once a term is defined it
is limited. And journalists refuse to be “limited” in doing
their job, in the same way that the military, the police or other
agents of the law refuse to be obstructed in doing theirs—except
by law, of course.
The Center for Media Freedom and
Responsibility has called the latest encounter a “confrontation on
basic issues.” A CFMR director suggested that “the military
should strategize around us and we should strategize around them. .
. If you show any sign of compromise or willingness to compromise,
tapos ka na (you’re dead).
In the latest confrontation, the
head of the police laying siege to the Peninsula Hotel had asked the
media men to leave. The media offices were called to ask their
personnel to leave the hotel. One organization complied and asked
its people to leave, another allowed its people to decide whether to
stay or not. Who was right?
One of the historic landmarks in
television news coverage was that of the US Democratic Party
nomination convention in Chicago in 1968, eight years after Sen.
John F. Kennedy upset veteran Vice President Richard M. Nixon. One
of the key factors in Kennedy’s victory was his expert handling of
television as a campaign tool. Nixon, after suffering another
crushing defeat in the California gubernatorial elections bounced
back to win the presidency over Hubert H. Humphrey and a key factor
in the Republican Party victory was the TV coverage of the Chicago
police brutality against demonstrators. The brunt of the accusation
was laid on the doorstep of Chicago’s political boss, Mayor
Richard Daley.
Among the victims of police
brutality were famous print and TV journalists. A book on media
history, The Press and America, by Edwin Emery and Michael Emery
reports that news media suffered some 70 injuries at the hands of
the police, equally divided between print and electronic media.
Nevertheless, there was a
negative reaction against media. Anchors who showed emotion while
reporting the beatings of journalists were humbled. The Emerys said
Walter Cronkite of CBS later found himself meekly interviewing Mayor
Daley, “on whom primary responsibility for using ‘law and
order’ to create disorder rested. NBC anchor Sandor Vanocur never
recovered professionally from the public disfavor he incurred while
covering the convention and retired from the NBC in 1971.”
The reaction was a deluge of
anti-media letters mainly for paying too much attention to the
demonstrators and for reporting too much violence. In the face of
these complaints, the government ordered an investigation and the
networks cooperated reluctantly. The investigation found the
networks had been fair. Eric Sevareid, another anchor, explains the
dilemma:
“The explanation seems obvious.
Over the years the pressure of public resentment against screaming
militants, foul-mouthed demonstrators, arsonists, and looters had
built up in the national boiler. With Chicago, it exploded. The
feelings that millions of people released were formed long before
Chicago. Enough was enough: the police must be right. Therefore, the
reporting must be wrong.”
The fact that it is no longer
easy to muster enough warm bodies for a demonstration here or that
despite strident attacks against the administration over the last
three years, the public continued to be hopeful about the 2007
Christmas, must say something about the effect of the negative
stories that the media report.
|
