Vinegar shopper or
journalist?
By
JUAN L. MERCADO, juan_mercado77@yahoo.com
April 5, 2013
“Pinabili lang ng suka sa
kanto, pagbalik journalist na” (“Told to buy vinegar at the corner
store, he trotted back a journalist.”). That put-down reflects a key
concern of “Crimes and Unpunishment: The Killing of Filipino
Journalists.” Unesco and Asian Institute of Journalism launched the
book December.
It underpins weeding out of
bogus journalists from the Bureau of Customs beat: 408, under the
Arroyo administration, to 96 today. The “Customs press corps” then
equaled 408 provincial newspapers (32 are dailies). That was about
seven times foreign and local reporters accredited to Malacańang.
Commissioner Ruffy Biazon pledged to continue to weeding out hao-siaos
– fly-by-night journalists who doubled as fixers or P.R. agents.
“Isn’t it obvious?”,
columnist Boo Chanco snapped. “Most of those people claiming to
represent media are anything but?” Chanco counseled the then mint-new
Commissioner Biazon: Keep your nose clean. Then, confront those who
flaunt oversize “Press” credentials, even if they threaten you (Isn’t
the correct word “blackmail?)
“Most are from tabloids that
have no circulation. Past Customs officials tolerated this outsized
number of reporters because they hid dirt. Instead, confer with
publishers of major papers and network managers to help sift out those
who moonlight as fixers.“
“At the new customs port in
Sasa, Davao, “Friday boys” are known as warik-warik. They “list media
men for funding,” Jun Ledesma of Sun.Star Davao wrote. I “was also
told some can even facilitate release of shipments”.
Is a vinegar shopper a
journalist? In 1693, the dictionary logged in the word “journalist”
for the first time. This meant “a writer or editor for a news medium.”
Or “a writer who aims at a mass audience.”
Since then radio and TV came
on stream. The Internet burst into the scene in the mid-1980s. The
“[a]dvent of the new and social media has seen emergence of so-called
citizen journalists.”
But “fixer” for customs
shakedowns has been never been among a journalist's task. And it is in
the Customs and politics, that we stumble across a unique Philippine
creation – and problem aside from notorious tabloid writers: the ”
block-timers”.
Radio stations, abroad,
don’t have ”block-timers” then. Neither do Asean countries, like
Thailand or Malaysia. They claim to be journalists. In reality,
they’re “walk-in customers”. At any of 952 radio stations that the
National Telecommunications Commission oversees, with a shaky hand,
they plunk down cash for airtime.
With no questions asked,
they broadcast --- what? News and comment, they claim. Character
assassination or praise, for a price, their critics counter.
They “give us the opinion of
the uneducated that brings us in touch with the ignorance of the
community”, Oscar Wilde once wrote. The 2013 political campaign sees
blocktimer abuse scrape new depths.
Print media indicates what
is “paid ad”. This is published distinct from editorial matter.
Block-timers clam up on who picks up their program tabs. But those
praised – or shellacked – give a fair idea of who pays. Stations wash
their hands, by saying: “the program does not reflect the management’s
view”. Basta.
“Block timing is (also) a
primary fund-generator for provincial radio stations,” Melinda de
Jesus of Committee on Media Freedom and Responsibility noted earlier.
This proved to be the emerging problem for Kapisanan Ng Mga
Brodkasters as programs with little accountability proliferate in a
country that works by the revised “Golden Rule”: “He who has the gold,
rules.”
A CMFR study found lack of
training and, even more significant, ethical sense. Some 25 percent
finished high school while 13 percent “had no record of educational
attainment.” There’s little, by way of training on objectivity,
balance, fairness – and avoidance of conflict of interest, as
journalism code of ethics provide.
Most “block timers” operate
in a moral wasteland, where facts are few and comments have a price
tag. “Where the carcass is, there the vultures gather.” Electronic
gunslinging is abuse. “Power without responsibility has been the
prerogative of the harlot through the ages,” Irish statesman Stanley
Baldwin wrote.
KBP found fault with the
no-rules-hold coverage in the Luneta hostage crisis. Fines were
imposed on major networks. “A mere slap on the wrist,” fumed the
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Perhaps.
But this was a 180-degree
turn for KBP from the Chavez versus National Telecommunications case
of Feb. 2008. In that en banc decision, the Supreme Court, lashed KBP
for playing footsie, with the Macapagal-Arroyo regime’s gags on the
“Hello Garci” tapes.
KBP’s Radio Code now
prohibits open-ended contracts for “block-timers.” Identifying
sponsors of block time programs will increase transparency. But
implementation of existing measures – from certification that the
“block timer” adheres to KBP's code to monthly reports – has been
spotty.
Indeed “our membership lists
remain porous,” observed a Cebu Press Freedom Week editorial. “We’ve
still to flush out hao-shiaos who flaunt press cards or block time
microphones.”