Media’s sense of responsibility
Posted by unang apluma on Friday, September 3, 2010
BY ISMAEL AMIGO
1ST-APLUMA NATIONAL PRESIDENT
THE hostage crisis that left 10 people dead, including the perpetrator Capt. Rolando Mendoza, has served as eye-opener for many sectors, especially media people whose press freedom bestowed upon them and guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution are now put under a microscope by many sectors.
Many sectors believe that the crisis should have been resolved earlier, had not for the media’s blow-by-blow coverage of the crisis, where every movement of policemen who were ordered to resolve the situation were put on television, thus prompting the hostage-taker on his next move.
Did the media abuse its press freedom during the crisis, resulting to one of the bloodiest hostage-taking in the country’s history that put the Philippines in extremely bad light, especially in the eyes of the Chinese?
For me, during situations where lives are at stake, media people should put their job at the backburner and think of a better way to deal with the situation responsibly where loss of life will be out of the picture
We journalists have a sworn responsibility to inform the public about what’s happening but it should not be used as reason to put other lives in danger, especially during what happened that fateful Monday night where nine lives of Chinese tourists ended tragically.
Media entities should police their own ranks and implement responsible and sensible news coverage during times of crisis, especially those that will give the country a serious black-eye.
-000-
Our group, 1ST-APLUMA welcomes Malacanang’s reaching out to media organizations to discuss policy in live media coverage.
Malacanang said it will call for an immediate dialogue particularly on the television and radio groups regarding live coverage.
Also, the Palace said it would not impose media blackout or prior media restraint on coverage but they wanted to have a common stand on how the live coverage like what happened in the Quirino Grandstand hostage-taking incident must be carried out.
The purpose of the dialogue, probably a small group, is to have an agreement among the media practitioners on the protocol and limitations on carrying out media live coverage so as not to hamper or affect the ongoing police negotiations with the hostage-taker.
That’s the way to handle things.
1ST-APLUMA NATIONAL PRESIDENT
THE hostage crisis that left 10 people dead, including the perpetrator Capt. Rolando Mendoza, has served as eye-opener for many sectors, especially media people whose press freedom bestowed upon them and guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution are now put under a microscope by many sectors.
Many sectors believe that the crisis should have been resolved earlier, had not for the media’s blow-by-blow coverage of the crisis, where every movement of policemen who were ordered to resolve the situation were put on television, thus prompting the hostage-taker on his next move.
Did the media abuse its press freedom during the crisis, resulting to one of the bloodiest hostage-taking in the country’s history that put the Philippines in extremely bad light, especially in the eyes of the Chinese?
For me, during situations where lives are at stake, media people should put their job at the backburner and think of a better way to deal with the situation responsibly where loss of life will be out of the picture
We journalists have a sworn responsibility to inform the public about what’s happening but it should not be used as reason to put other lives in danger, especially during what happened that fateful Monday night where nine lives of Chinese tourists ended tragically.
Media entities should police their own ranks and implement responsible and sensible news coverage during times of crisis, especially those that will give the country a serious black-eye.
-000-
Our group, 1ST-APLUMA welcomes Malacanang’s reaching out to media organizations to discuss policy in live media coverage.
Malacanang said it will call for an immediate dialogue particularly on the television and radio groups regarding live coverage.
Also, the Palace said it would not impose media blackout or prior media restraint on coverage but they wanted to have a common stand on how the live coverage like what happened in the Quirino Grandstand hostage-taking incident must be carried out.
The purpose of the dialogue, probably a small group, is to have an agreement among the media practitioners on the protocol and limitations on carrying out media live coverage so as not to hamper or affect the ongoing police negotiations with the hostage-taker.
That’s the way to handle things.