Hard news and half truths

MANILA, Philippines - Some time last month, there was a report on a real estate scandal on a local news channel, which of course sparked a thousand and one opinions all at once. The actual scandal wasn’t the problem  serious allegations were made and those involved have a lot of questions to answer. The problem was that the reporter took to Twitter shortly after and openly spoke against the real estate mogul as though he had already been found guilty. What was equally disconcerting was that the reporter also focused in on the mogul’s daughter, dissecting the informal statement that the daughter had issued after being attacked in online media. Truthfully, and this is not to sow intrigue in any regard, but it almost seemed like the reporter was bearing some personal grudge due to the nature of their tweets.

Take a quick look at the Twitter feeds of people like Anderson Cooper and Christiane Amanpour. These two are known for their work in hard news, and approach their accounts somewhat differently. Cooper is much more relaxed, often replying to his haters with scathing, hilarious wit. Amanpour is a bit more reserved, but does share several tidbits from her personal life. What the two have in common is that while they are quick to share photos, upcoming stories on their respective programs, or silly anecdotes, they are very careful about stating concrete opinions. (Sometimes, there will be reactionary statements to ludicrous interviews, but they will leave it simply at “stunning comments from someone I interviewed today.”)

I’m certain that the anchor who reported on the real estate scandal would take a defense along the lines of, “This is my personal account and not the news.” This is true. But am I crazy to believe that while there is no law against journalists having personal opinions, there should be some personal restriction with which they publicize these opinions, if only to preserve the integrity of what they report?

Forgetting Journalism

I suppose the greater problem isn’t just being too personal, but perhaps something as grave as forgetting what being a journalist reporting hard news entails. It used to be that reporters were known for getting the meat behind the controversy, the context in which highly misinterpretable words were spoken. But thanks to the ease of the Internet, the art of searching for the lost story is slowly being asphyxiated. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve logged on to see a tweet from a news station saying, “We heard there was a fire in Quezon City. Can anyone confirm? Do you have photos?” (Uhm, why am I doing your job for you?) I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched or read a news report with direct quotes from some unsuspecting person’s Twitter account, or worse, random comments on a Facebook group page.

Google has already made for a lot of lazy journalism, but with the advent of social networking media, there seems to be a large dependency on user-generated content. I sometimes find that shows like Private Conversations with Boy Abunda are more well-researched than half of the other hard news programs on the air, with content that makes more sense than what one might read on the front page of certain local broadsheets.

 For instance, during the trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, a national paper printed a photo of Corona and his wife waving to their supporters. It would’ve been innocent enough, had it not been laid out side by side with a photo of former President Marcos and then First Lady Imelda Marcos in almost the exact same pose. There was no rhyme or reason, no clear connection between the two that made the photos necessary. It was thinly veiled subliminal manipulation, a disgusting attempt to further sensationalize an already heated and contentious trial, and possibly a means to state the paper’s opinion on the matter without having to use actual words.

Bloodbath

Or take the debate on the reproductive health bill. The sides are very clear, and to say that the exchange has been heated is like saying Africa’s less than chilly. It’s been a bloodbath on both sides, and the media has played its role in reporting the matter very irresponsibly. A particular publication that prides itself on being young, fresh, and stakes its claim on being the first strictly online news outlet in the country has been one of the more aggressive forces. Their entire shtick is supposedly transparency, truth, and a new era of journalism, but almost all their news pieces (especially on reproductive health) are dripping with bias.

Is it too much to ask that when a report is done on any subject that the facts simply be stated? Can we not have both sides of the argument fairly represented, so that the public, especially the less aware, can see the information for themselves and then create a well-formed opinion? Am I shooting for Utopia here? I mean, what good is news if one has to cut through the thick of someone else’s agenda to get to the bare, unadulterated facts? Furthermore, what premium can truth hold in our society if its most obvious standard bearers, the newsmen, can’t manage to state it plainly without making it appear to lean in a preferred direction?

We talk so much about the importance of education in changing the fate of our country, but what we need to understand is that it doesn’t merely happen in classrooms. The purpose of a proper news outletwhether in print, online, television, or radiois to provide wholly unbiased information. It’s stating what the facts are so a nation can form an appropriate response. It may not always be poetry, it may not always be cool, but it is always valuable. Revolutions began and were sustained by slips of newsprint, which could mean that a civilization’s demise also rests within a few bylines. And with that at stake, one can only hope for something more than forgettable words with which to line tomorrow’s trash bins.

* * *

Tweet the author @gabbietatad.