Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Case of Can v Should

Last week, the senate blue ribbon committee held members of the media at mic-point to deliver answers to the public regarding the August 23 hostage taking. Hardly anything but a Pacquiao fight would ever get as much mileage in the public light, and three weeks later, the fatal errors of that night are still only barely fading in the public’s eye.

Tantamount to the success of the parallel investigations by the IIRC and the Senate committee is finding the culprit or liable parties in the incident, which explains their casting a wide a net and questioning all involved.

The latest in the crosshairs of the senators were broadcasters from RMN, GMA, and ABS-CBN, who all vehemently defended their conduct and responsibility to report the news. Without guidance or censorship from the authorities at the time, the media were left to their own devices—namely, camera, lights, action.

As the incident broke down into chaos and folly, the world saw the incompetence of a nation in securing the people in its custody. Telecast live, suspended policeman Rolando Mendoza murdered 8 Hong Kong residents in a rain of gunfire before he was killed by assaulting policemen.


Somewhere in Florida, a pastor of a 50-weak congregation denounced Islam and planned an inconceivably deluded “International Burn a Koran Day.” From his decrepit place of worship, which doubles as a storehouse for his business of selling used furniture, Terry Jones called Islam "of the devil."

His actions sparked condemnation from national and world leaders, and as far as Indonesia and Pakistan, flags of the USA were burned and trampled. Even in his church, Dove World Outreach Center, attendance dwindled to a dozen of his family, who started carrying guns in a show of startling sense, and acknowledgement of the dangers of offending one of the oldest religions in the world.


After Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Mr Jones and explained that he was putting US lives abroad at risk, the pastor relented. His son, sidearm holstered, stood quietly and proudly as his father read his statement to the press circus on his lawn. The son was composed until after the end, when he enigmatically shouted, “It’s history man. This is history!”


Maybe it’s the pressure that the 24 hour news cycle bears upon producers; maybe it’s the indefatigable curiosity that sets journalists on the hunt for the four Ws and the one H; maybe writing about celebrities is a way to celebrity itself, but whatever happened to “no news is good news?”

Don’t get me wrong. We need a free and independent press. Their role in society is irrefutable. Maybe more so than a police force. And most importantly, the a professional press—one that questions vague, motherhood statements of their on-air interviews; that challenges their sources to provide evidence on claims before publishing; that can practice self-restraint, even for the sake of self-restraint—is one of the stoutest legs of a true democracy.

But that night, our press were just like the police, confused, excited, weak in the knees. And just like the police, they should be held accountable for participating in a crime scene, and unwittingly playing the mouthpiece, and the eyes and ears of a cop gone rogue.

"The people do have a right to know," which is why I protest the role of the media in the August 23 hijacking, and the plans by Terry Jones to burn the Muslims' holy book.

Because while the press is so adamant and well-versed in their right to deliver the news without fear nor favor, I now wonder whether it ever crosses their minds whether they should.