Must media ‘help’ government?

GMA used to be much nicer about it. But then again, those were, gauged by the intensity of today’s many political crises, much simpler times. When she made her request, Garci, Venable and Joc-Joc were not even remotely in anyone’s mind. Her impeachment ordeal lay several months in the future.

The Oakwood Mutiny had happened and the Magdalo mutineers were in the military stockade. The Feliciano Commission had issued its report. General Carlos F. Garcia was being tried by a military court under the Articles of War.

That alleged conspiracy among the CPP-NPA, military adventurists and certain personalities in the political opposition – the principal reason claimed for triggering last month’s national emergency – had not yet been conceived, at least as far as we know.

Yet, the President was already taking steps to respond to what she felt were problems with media.

Speaking before the National Press Club in October 2004, GMA appealed for "a modicum of fairness, a nudge in the angle of the news, an ounce of objectivity in the run of opinion – to reflect the larger truth – that of a nation, despite its failings, winning the battle of crisis and poverty, that of a people valiantly fighting for change and beating the odds." She asked media to be "a harbinger of hope, rather than a purveyor of despair."

Several days later, Labor and Employment Secretary Pat Sto. Tomas told an anti-corruption conference that media was part of the corruption problem in the sense that media didn’t give hard-working and honest government officials enough credit. She complained: "You like dragging us all into the mud…If we do our job, it is not appreciated. If we don’t, we are pilloried in the press".

Upon his retirement later in the same week, outgoing Armed Forces Chief of Staff (now chairman of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority) Narciso Abaya claimed that "media has been fueling the crises instead of helping the AFP resolve the raging corruption," Moreover, he said, "Coup attempts, like corruption scandals, have a way of catching fire, destroying reputations and devastating institutions, especially with the sensationalism that has come to characterize the media."

There is no evidence that these criticisms, although aired at about the same time, were part of a pre-planned, concerted attack. But it wasn’t the first time that government officials, including the chief executive, had berated media for allegedly being the incorrigible bearers of bad news, of ignoring positive developments in governance, and destabilizing institutions through sensationalized reporting.

Nor was it the first time media was asked to be more helpful to government. GMA’s plea that media be "a harbinger of hope, rather than a purveyor of despair" was just another variation of a familiar theme, its origins dating back to the Marcos years, of urging media to practice "developmental journalism," a somewhat discredited term today.

Of late, GMA has been reiterating her call for media to be more helpful to government, except that the context of her call is a national emergency allegedly caused by overt threats to our democratic system, as opposed to her own political survival. She doesn’t mind criticism from media, she insists, she only requests that the exercise of press freedom be "responsible."

But if you recall our quotes of media icons Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley in our last column, it is not media’s job to promote a positive attitude or confidence in the government, its policies or actions. That is the job of the government’s spin doctors and propaganda machine. Nor is it media’s task to slant stories or tailor opinions to promote hope and avoid causing despair on the part of the people.

Fairness, balance and accuracy remain the journalist’s fundamental obligations. The people decide whether the facts should give rise to hope or despair. There can be no shying away, for example, from reality checks on the reasons cited for the declaration of a national emergency, as well as the context in which the steps actually taken by government to respond to that claimed emergency are taken.

As I’m sure government knows by now, the people at large cannot be stampeded into falling in line behind government initiatives if the factual background is unclear. If government craves a consensus to support the actions it takes, it will have to ensure that the greater number of people fully understand the rationale for those actions and are generally convinced about their necessity and reasonableness.

We’re not talking here about unanimity. In a democracy, even in the best of times, that is probably impossible. But if we accept the premise that people are in general pretty perceptive and knowledgeable about such things, any leader will have to trust in the collective wisdom of the majority.

Government may not know it, or knowing it may refuse to accept it, but this is where media can help. This is where media can, in fact, promote our democracy if that democracy also accepts a diversity of opinion and acknowledges that dissent and debate are an essential part of the democratic process. To be sure, the time eventually comes for resolute action on the part of an elected government. But no one ever said that a democracy also requires a people to act like robots, accepting at face value whatever a government says and does.

Media have a stake in ensuring the survival of a democratic system. As we all experienced during our martial law experiment, authoritarian government is inhospitable to free speech and a free press. In "telling it like it is," media actually promote the goals of good governance and economic development. By towing the government line and, as a result, arguably becoming part of institutionalized deception and misinformation, media are complicit in frustrating the attainment of those goals and, worse, signaling the demise of our democracy.

In turn, good governance and economic progress allow a true democracy to flourish in an environment that allows responsible journalists to do their job as best they know how. It is a mistake for a leader to look upon media as the enemy. Despite what is often referred to as an inherently adversarial relationship, government and media are actually working toward the same goals, albeit probably in different ways.