HOME    geronimo@ tax Articles    Today Articles     Lectures & Presentations    News & Views     Law and Jurisprudence

Admistrative Issuance    Trust Products and Practice    About the Guru     Links    Email Feedback

Media’s handling of coup talk
Oct 30, 2001
 

Reports of presidential temper flaring when the topic of coup rumors were brought up during a press conference last week highlight the tension, ever-present in a free society, between the mass media and the government. On the one hand, it is the duty of media men to bring legitimate and accurate news to the people. On the other, the government, already beset as it is with life-threatening problems brought about by external and internal factors, most of them beyond its control, has an equal right to be free of destabilizing distractions generated by controversy-obsessed and sensationalizing press. This tension is exacerbated in a crisis situation, which many, including myself, believe is an accurate description of where we are now.

For guidelines on how to deal with this tension, it is instructive to refer to Davide Commission’s Final Report made more than 10 years ago. Just to recall, the Davide Commission was formed, initially in December 1989 by presidential Administrative Order No. 146 and about a month later, by R.A. Act No. 6832, to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of the failed coup d’etat of December 1989 and recommend measures to prevent the occurrence of similar attempts in the future. The December 1989 coup attempt, which was the eighth in a series of military interventions in civil affairs, was as crisis-laden as any situation can be and the wisdom articulated in the Final Report sheds light on how the media and government ought to behave in the context of our current difficulties.

The Davide Commission, made up of Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) with Carolina G. Hernandez, Ricardo J. Romulo, Delfin L. Lazaro, and Christain S. Monson as members, starts its commentary on the role of media in crisis situations with the observation that we have, in our Third World country, a well-developed media sector, operating along the lines of the First World. "The result", says the Final Report, "is a continuous dilemma within media itself and tension between government regulatory agencies and media which are all heightened in times of crisis…"

Obviously, the dilemma must be resolved, with both government and media doing its part. Drawing from the testimonies of Tina Monzon Palma, who testified on July 9, 1990 and of Florangel R. Braid given two days later, the Davide Commission suggests that it is the responsibility of government "to provide fast and accurate information during crisis, to use, if necessary, the government’s own media resources to advance its interests and…even place embargoes on certain information or close down media establishments in situations of extreme danger." At the same time, the Davide Commission, agreeing with Melinda Quintos De Jesus who was present at the Commission on July 9, 1990, recognizes that media has the right "to protest and question such moves at the earliest opportunity and thereby enable society, through judicial or administrative rulings, to build up the jurisprudence and traditions that it considers appropriate".

The key to a healthy resolution of the conflict of media rights and government responsibilities, according to the Davide Commission, is to rely on the self-discipline of the profession and err on the side of accommodation than to engage in repression. The martial law era demonstrates that repression does not necessarily lead to improved professionalism and ethical standards, and, perhaps, brings about the opposite.

Since self-discipline is the preferred option, the Final Report exhorts media to proceed with its initiatives in formalizing its own ethical standards, strictly enforce them and inform the public of its efforts. Media was called upon to accept the responsibility to discipline erring members, provide training and guidance to its apprentices, and establish linkages with responsible counterparts abroad to broaden their experience and perspective.

Philippine media practitioners cannot shirk from that responsibility of self-discipline and, if it needs a current model, might just as well look again at their western counterparts and learn from the way they covered the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Their reports exuded accuracy without the gory details; there was patriotism without propaganda. They were one with their nation and the world in mourning a tragedy but were as dispassionate as their nation’s leaders in seeking to justice for its perpetrators.

We who readily imbibed the robust independence of First World media, to the chagrin of our struggling leaders, should be just as amenable to following their example in times of national crisis.

HOME    geronimo@ tax Articles    Today Articles     Lectures & Presentations    News & Views     Law and Jurisprudence

Admistrative Issuance    Trust Products and Practice    About the Guru     Links    Email Feedback