|
THE recent snafu of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
(Jan. 16, 2008)—of misreporting that murder convict ex-Congressman
Jose Villarosa, on hospital leave from jail, was missing, suggesting
that he escaped—only to issue a retraction the next day, spotlights
one of the two main ills of Philippine journalism, that of
sensationalism. The other is corruption.
Sensationalism infects and
corrupts not just the tabloids, but supposedly reputable
newspapers. What is worse, it pervades every aspect of the news
business.
Immediately, it presents a
dilemma to the aspiring idealistic journalist. He may, at the
outset of his prospective career, produce well-researched, fairly
portrayed and truthfully reported news articles, only to find them
ignored or relegated to the back pages.
He then notices that his
brethren, who may not possess as much concern for honesty or
research as he does, shape their stories with a sensationalistic
slant and thus manage to get them published, often in the front
pages. They establish a readership, get promoted and soon earn a
byline.
To survive, he adapts and learns
the tricks of the trade. Slowly, he sacrifices or loses his
integrity, prostitutes himself and sells his soul to the almighty
dollar. He rationalizes by insisting that his family must not go
hungry.
In opting to print sensationalistic
stories, news corporations come up with a similar
rationalization. They have financial responsibilities toward their
creditors, their stockholders, and their own employees, who have
either a standard of living to maintain or families to feed. Let’s
face it, sensationalism sells!
Take, for example, that Villa-rosa
snafu. It was the lead story of the front page, its title, “Jailed
ex-solon missing,” highlighted in bold print. How many extra newspapers
were sold as a result?
Upon realizing its mistake, the
PDI printed: “Villarosa: Am not missing, I have been in Makati Med
all this time,” again on the front page. The picture of Villarosa—lying
in the hospital bed holding the newspaper of the day before—was
prominently displayed beside the story.
Most sensationalistic stories
involve reports on human failings, such as corruption. If mistaken,
the retraction does little by way of correcting the misimpression
and the wrong created. The damage to the reputation has been done
and extra money has been made.
More disconcerting is the fact
that pecuniary gain is not sensationalism’s only reward. Sometimes,
a newspaper gets it right and publishes a truthful expose. The
public is ecstatic. It lavishes praise on the journalist and his
paper, while it conveniently forgets that these very same
aggressively negligent tactics, now successfully used to expose
an evil, has, only recently, tarnished a good name.
Encouraged by the public
response, the paper ignores even further the standard of care
required to ascertain veracity. What for? Assuming a paper gets it
right half of the time, which to some gives many of them far too
much credit, profit and praise will surely follow. Moreover, the
victim will not sue for libel, since it will only bring attention to
the defamation. Reckless imprudence pays.
Kudos and rewards do not end
there. Some of these journalists and newspapers receive multiple
awards from respected media watchdog institutions. The awards on
investigative journalism focus on stories where newspapers or
journalists happened to have gotten it right, and not on what steps
have been taken to prevent wrong.
It is curious that the
Philippines, the bastion of press freedom in Southeast Asia, suffers
from sensationalism far more than its neighbors. To the reputable
newspapers of its neighbors, profit seemingly is secondary. To them,
the main function of a newspaper is to educate and enlighten its
readers.
Consequently, they maintain a
strict dichotomy between straight news reporting and rumor making.
The latter, if it exists, is relegated to the features part, where
gossip and innuendo are expected.
Their editorials are cogently
argued and unified. In Philippine newspapers, gossip and rumor may
surface anywhere, in the front page, even the editorial page. How
many revered columnists have made a name by writing disconnected
pieces which make innuendoes against one prominent person or
another?
Perhaps, it is not that curious.
A similar phenomenon occurred in Philippine cinema. Liberals contend
that the best way to improve the quality of movies is to give
directors greater freedom; moralists insist otherwise. They
correctly contend that bomba movies, those depicting lurid sex and
needless violence, will only proliferate, pointing out that
Filipinos are satisfied with the lower forms of pleasure. Ika nga,
mababaw ang kaligayahan ng Pinoy.
Sensationalism has also been
minimized in reputable newspapers of countries with a free press,
such as those in the United States. These newspapers police
themselves and steer away from journalists engaging in careless
investigative reporting. In those countries, a sufficient number of
a discerning, critical public exist.
Therein, ultimately, lies the
problem. To reduce sensationalism, the Filipino public must convince
newspapers that sensationalism does not pay. Newspapers, motivated
too much by profit, cannot be trusted to do that on their own; while
the public, including the educated elite, relishes rumor and gossip
far too much.
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
