On Journalism and Advocacy, D. Arao*

Ito na siguro ang pinaka-matino at may saysay kong magagawa bilang non-practicing journalism major graduate. Naalala ko pa, graduating class na ang binibigyang talakay nito, pero di pa rin nila mapag-iba ang odjecticity sa fairness. malaking diin sa grammatical at technical eklachuchu, pero pagdating sa pilosopikal, etikal at pragmatik na aspeto ng peryodismo, kulang na kulang. Di ba, Barros? Anu ulit yung sabi mo tungkol sa commercialization? Magandang gumaganda ang buildings at facilities natin?
If a journalist decides to be an active participant in the fight against media repression, can he or she still be considered a “disinterested” or “impartial” observer? Can he or she still claim that his or her “fairness” and “balance” are not compromised by being an active participant? Why or why not?

In peculiar cases where the journalist becomes a major player, he or she unwittingly becomes part of the news. He or she is not anymore a disinterested party. Fairness and balance, however, can still be observed by providing adequate space in his or her coverage to all possible sides of an issue, highlighting the major arguments of all protagonists. It would also help to disclose the nature of the participation of the journalist or the media organization he or she belongs to with regard to the issue being reported.

When journalists take certain advocacies, can they still be considered “neutral”? Why or why not?

They are obviously not neutral, and this is expected of them. Journalists are also “social animals” who have beliefs and convictions. The challenge for them is not to be subjective in their analysis of issues and concerns.

It must be kept in mind that neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. The first is a myth and the second is a necessity in the practice of the journalism profession. Neutrality works on the assumption that journalistic outputs are value-free, but it is clear that they are not. Even mere factual presentation in straight news articles have slants, intended or not, based on the selection of the facts that are highlighted and the order in which they were presented.

Journalists are only advised to use neutral words in reporting (e.g., “said” instead of “claimed”) to avoid any misinterpretation in the presentation of the “literal truth.” In content analysis of journalistic outputs, the so-called “neutral” articles are actually objective since they are mainly assessed in terms of how exhaustive the report is in getting all possible sides and angles.

Do you think that the Philippine press, in the context of its response to press freedom attacks and threats, has become especially antagonistic towards the government, at the expense of public interest? Why or why not?

The Macapagal-Arroyo administration has proven to be hostile to press freedom, based on its policies and programs, not to mention its inability to bring to justice those responsible for the murder of journalists. The concerned journalists’ antagonism is expected. They take legal and extra-legal actions against the government to assuage the “chilling effect” created by the repression that is happening.

For the record, such actions are not being done at the expense of public interest. Public opinion is actually shaped by making them aware of the situation of basic freedoms of which press freedom is a vital part.

For the full interview, click.

*Danny Arao is an assistant professor of Journalism and director of the Office of Research and Publication in UP Diliman. He edits for Bulatlat and Philippine Journalism Review. You could find his column, Konteksto in PW (which sadly, is now “limited” to the online edition). For more solar power, click.

image taken from http://www.geocities.com/dannyarao/it5h.gif