Media Monitor

Monday, December 16, 2013

#NoFilter (Media Monitor 4: 12/17/13)

Monitored:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/544139/18-second-video-clip-shows-roxas-warning

An 18 second video clip of Mar Roxas scolding Tacloban Mayor Romualdez went viral.

Reaction:

My view on this issue is about citizen journalism. There is no written code of ethics for citizen journalism, but i believe the same ethics in press and broadcast should apply.[1]

In this incident, Jose Marie Gonzales was said to have cut parts of the video. It was already when there was commotion about it, and Mar Roxas was able to give a reaction that it was misleading, did Cito Beltran uploaded a longer version of the video.

Mar Roxas said the first video was edited and truth was ommitted purposely. Sometimes that happens to lead the public to a bias. It should never be done in any news, interview or video. The context should always be clear so as to be fair to the subjects of the news.

Cito Beltran, the one who uploaded the second video is a columnist. Maybe he felt a duty to upload a full length one (longer than 40 minutes).

I think most of the time matters that go around social media tend to highten issues. That is a reason why citizen journalists should be aware of such ethics.

[1] I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly. Philippine Press Institute Journalism Code of Ethics

Monday, December 9, 2013

#IfYouKnowWhatIMean (Media Monitor 3: 12/10/13)

Monitored:

http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/mtrcb-to-meet--bubble-gang--stars-on--sexually-sensitive--segment-055830805.html

Reaction:

I find that the quality of comedy we have in media is always offensive in order to be funny.

When I watched the video, I could not identify a specific punchline that would make the audience laugh. Whatever was to be laughed at was only implied. Yet if I was able to understand the gag correctly, the joke does circulate around the portrayal of a woman, and that her boobs is what lands her to a job. For me, that pretty much sounds like objectifying her. And fails the KBP code of ethics regarding discrimination against gender. [1]

It is a common practice to use sex as a laughing matter. Going back to the segment of Bubble Gang, I cannot point out which were specifically "suggestive". But judging from the looks of the male characters in the segment while "Susie's" breasts were shaking, I feel that the segment was made for men.

Also, the main character's name "Susie" is wordplay on the Tagalog word "Susu" which means breast. Double entendres are not allowed according to the KBP code. [2]

In the same way that GMA Network became sensitive to Vice Ganda's jokes about rape, I wish they will be sensitive with their work as well.

[1] Article 22. DISCRIMINATION
A person’s race, religion, color, ethnicity, gender, and physical or mental disability shall not be used in a way that would embarrass, denigrate, or ridicule him.

[2] Article 25. SEX, OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY
Sec.5 . Offensive, obscene blasphemous, profane, and vulgar double meaning words and phrases are prohibited, even if understood only by a segment of the audience.

KBP Code Of Ethics

Sunday, December 1, 2013

#MedyoGoodBoy (Media Monitor 2: 12/2/13)

Monitored:

http://www.philstar.com/supreme/2013/11/30/1262400/atom-araullo-tvs-unexpected-leading-man

This is an article from Philippine Star feauring Atom Araullo, who recently shot to fame after covering Typhoon Yolanda.

There is a part of this article that reminded me of the early discussions we had in Comm 110. Atom was asked with reference to an ethical code where you must keep distance from a story.

Reaction:

I remember a similar question arising in class, when a classmate shared what he saw on tv: a reporter who took a footage of an injured man, and bandaged him, only to leave him behind to cover other happenings during the storm. Is it really enough to explain that it is not the journalist's job to save the person[1]? Is it fair to say there are much other things to cover? To be fair, my classmate wasn't really clear about the whole story.

And so the class agreed that the journalist faced an ethical dilemma.

Coming across Atom's answer, I think he gave a wonderful insight to share to my class.

Let's go back to Classmate's example. The injured guy wasn't the only one injured. The journalist wasn't Superman. And saving that guy meant needing to save other people as well. But if no other person could've done so, the jousnalist shouldn't be fired for helping out. At the end of the day, Atom's right. The job of a journalist is still to pass help to the people. And we do that by telling their stories.

[1] I shall not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties; nor shall I accept or offer any present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my professional integrity. Philippine Press Institute Journalism Code of Ethics

Monday, November 25, 2013

#TBH (Media Monitor 1: 11/26/13)

Monitored:

This picture first went viral on Facebook, but is now unavailable. I found it again on blogs like stef dela cruz's, red tani's and adrian pantonial's. Basically, it's "CNN's statement about the Filipinos being resilient etc" which apparently turns out to be fake. It never came from CNN, but from a commenter on their site. And I have the same experience and sentiments as the bloggers linked.

Reaction:

Y U No Attend Comm110

It makes people who reposted it look stupid. (Of course I didn't) Let's forgive each other for partly believing. Surely, you doubted it all along now right?

I could write on the angle that netizen's seem to have lacked critical thinking, or another that blames misattribution (because, you know, ...CNN). But I'd rather save us time and be parallel to my ethics class.

With this incident, the very first and I believe to be the most important ethical code has been violated.[1] The lesson to learn is to always validate your sources, just as any journalist should. We should all be responsible users who share information abiding by the principle of truth. This is most tricky on the internet though. Just make sure whatever you're reposting comes from a reliable someone/something, otherwise, please enlighten your audience.

And really, don't make a picture of someone's comment and put some other's logo on it, and share publicly for the whole world to also share publicly. To whoever did that: no need to come clean, doesn't matter if you mean well. I'd like the attention back to helping victims of Super Typhoon Yolanda.