The limits of press freedom

The problem has never been with the motherhood statements. Palace spinmeisters say, for example, that press freedom is not absolute. But no one has ever claimed that that freedom is a license to peddle untruths or wantonly ransack reputations and careers.

The problem starts when the broad and, in the circumstances, somewhat self- serving generalities begin to spew like lava from an angry volcano. Pontifications such as the following seem unassailable: "the principle of necessity and survival guides the actions of the state"; or, "we have drawn the line between responsible reportage and the media being used as a propaganda tool of groups out to overthrow the democratic system"; and, the all-purpose "freedom of the press, as well as all human freedoms…are circumscribed by the general welfare and the rule of law."

The fact that they are uttered by my law classmate, Press Secretary Toting Bunye, does not make them any more disputable, even if his critics in the political opposition may argue violently with this. However, the indisputability of the pronouncements is only apparent. The devil, once again, is in the details.

The contrary view typically runs along these lines: A state can indeed plead necessity and survival. But specific administrations or governments which claim a right to run the state must first establish their legitimacy, then earn and maintain the faith and confidence of the greater number of the people they seek to govern.

A government’s claims to general welfare and the rule of law cannot be taken at face value. The real question is where the general welfare lies. Further, the rule of law applies to an incumbent government too. When media relentlessly seek the truth, no matter how inconvenient that quest may seem to incumbents, and when they fulfill their traditional role and responsibility of keeping a healthy skepticism about official government pronouncements, does that promote the general welfare?

Specifically, when media refuse to accept the official line about Venable, Garci, and Joc-Joc and stubbornly pursue the truth, which to any impartial observer has simply not come to light, which serves the general welfare, transparency or cover-up?

And speaking of the rule of law, does one system of law apply to those not at the seat of power while another applies to those in power? Obviously not. Of course, one can always find battalions of smart lawyers who will give brilliant legal analyses of why the letter of the law should be read this way rather than that.

But you can’t help it if people continue to suspect that the spirit of the law has been ravaged for personal benefit and gain. Asserting the "rule of law," in sum, can be a dangerous thing if one is unprepared to be bothered with facts and simple logic.

Journalists that allow themselves to be "used as a propaganda tool of groups out to overthrow the democratic system" have no place in a democratic system. Let’s admit that "envelopmental journalism" is a huge problem in the profession. But, by the same token, truly professional journalists, which I daresay are in the majority, are not, nor have ever been, "propaganda tools" of anyone daring to destroy our democracy.

Were those protesters who publicly disagreed with the President’s declaration of a "national emergency" bent on destroying our democratic system? Put another way, were all those who seemed intent on protecting democracy by lambasting media for doing their job in the best way they knew how themselves free from all personal or family interest or pecuniary motive? On all these propositions, you will get strenuous argument.

When the government accuses media of being tools of propaganda, they turn the word on its head. Propaganda is normally the work of government publicists, not private media. The government spin machine is not subject to commercial competition, and can continue churning out its output without regard to whether advertisers accept the product or not. Government stations and captive newspapers do not have to bother with such mundane matters as surviving. Media, on the other hand, depend on their credibility and reputation for truth and accuracy for their survival.

When the Press Office, for instance, produced a video program detailing its argument of a plot to overthrow GMA, it had the luxury of prime time exposure, plus unlimited replays, on the government television station and two sequestered TV stations.

I’m not saying that any of that was irregular. The government had the right to control programming on the broadcast station it owned, as well as forego the revenue sequestered stations had earned by preempting valuable air time to air the video.

But government does not have exclusive use of the playing field. The public does not have to swallow the government line without question, in the same way it does not have to accept any contrary information or opinion purveyed by private media. In the democratic marketplace of information and ideas, everything stands on its own merits and on the credibility of those who provide the information or propound the idea.

This argument cannot stay on the plane of generalities, if government intends to get its message, whatever it is, across. It has to point out specific instances of when it thinks media might have acted irresponsibly or in excess of allowable limits of their constitutionally-guaranteed freedom.

Media do not consider themselves above legitimate criticism. On the contrary, they have never refused to explain how, in particular instances such as the coverage of the Fort Bonifacio standoff at the Philippine Marines headquarters, the need of the public for information outweighed the pleas of government to keep the incident hush-hush.

It’s also about time the government realizes that most people, no matter how humble their circumstances, can tell the difference between propaganda and unembellished facts. As Ole’ Abe warned, you can’t fool all the people all of the time.

The venerable news anchor of the American news network CBS, Walter Cronkite, said, apropos of all this: "Our job is only to hold up the mirror–to tell and show the public what has happened, and then it is the job of the people to decide whether they have faith in their leaders or government. We are faithful to our profession in telling the truth. That’s the only faith to which journalists need to adhere."

His contemporary, the late NBC news anchor Chet Huntley, insisted: "Journalists were never intended to be the cheerleaders of society, the conductors of applause, the sycophants. That is their assigned role in authoritarian societies."

For so long as government fails to understand that media can never be enlisted in its propaganda machine, there will be problems. This unending debate will not be illuminated by futile calls to remember one’s responsibilities. At the very least, that call is just as well addressed to government.