Uh, It's Jayvee.
-
Kabag-uhan sa Yutang Gidak-an
Ubay-ubay ang kabag-uhan akong nakit-an ug nasinati sa yutang akong gidak-an. Ang uban nagdala’g kalipay samtang ang uban makasubo, ug usahay, makapungot. Maingong galangkob kini tanan sa giingong pag-uswag sa yutang gidak-an. Apan, nanghinaut ako nga unta ang tanang mga kabag-uhan sa yutang akong gidak-an alang sa kaayuhan sa katauhan ug dili magdala ug kadaut ug kagubot
AMEN. This is so true in so many other places.
-
WHAT IS IMPUNITY?The International Day to End Impunity is a call to action to demand justice for those who have been killed for exercising their right to freedom of expression and shed light on the issue of impunity.
Every day around the world journalists, musicians, artists, politicians, and free expression advocates are being silenced, often with no investigation or consequences to their persecutors.
WHO ARE WE?The International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) is a global network of organizations working to defend and promote the right to freedom of expression.
WHY A DAY?Impunity has always been ranked as a top priority for IFEX members. So it came as no surprise that at the 2011 IFEX Strategy Conference in Beirut, Lebanon, IFEX members announced they were joining forces to launch the first ever International Day to End Impunity on 23 November, the anniversary of the single deadliest attack on journalists in recent history: the 2009 Maguindanao massacre in the Philippines.
(via ellobofilipino)
-
When too much is too much Jeers to 24 Oras and especially TV Patrol for devoting excessive airtime to Shamcey Supsup’s bid in this year’s Miss Universe beauty pageant last Sept. 13.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) did a timekeeping monitor of news programs TV Patrol, 24 Oras, and Aksyon last Sept. 13, the local date for the Miss Universe competition (held in São Paulo, Brazil). CMFR recorded the total airtime of the programs (excluding commercials) and monitored how much airtime was given to Shamcey, who was third runner-up in the contest.
Among the three programs, TV5’s Aksyon had the least airtime devoted to Shamcey—4 minutes and 29 seconds (or 15.06 percent) out of its total news airtime that night (28 minutes and 49 seconds). While the anchors started the newscast mentioning Shamcey’s bid, its three reports about her were placed at the end of the newscast. These included the account from their reporter in São Paulo who was covering the event.
…
TV Patrol topped the other networks by providing more than half of its news airtime that night (34 minutes and 18 seconds out of 65 minutes and nine seconds or 51.87 percent) to Shamcey. Worse, these reports—including an interview with Shamcey that was divided into two parts—were scattered throughout the entire newscast. Scattering entertainment reports throughout a news program has become a key element in “dumbing down” the TV network audience, and contrasts with past TV Patrol and other news program templates in which there was only one segment for entertainment news usually relegated near the end of the newscast.
Earlier that day, ABS-CBN had already broadcast the Miss Universe special. But ABS-CBN’s flagship news program milked the news dry that night. TV Patrol started its reports about Shamcey with a news teaser titled “Tagumpay ng Pinoy (Victory of Filipinos)”. The first 19 minutes of its newscast were all about Shamcey.
…
The lopsided coverage on Shamcey’s Miss Universe candidacy relegated other stories of national significance in sidelines. These included two events that also happened that day: Nagamura’s Senate testimony on his involvement in election fraud in 2004 to make sure Gloria Macapagal Arroyo won the elections, and the two bombings in Cotabato during the visit there of Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) secretary Jesse Robredo.
What’s happening guys?
SENSATIONALISM. It’s the frenzied desperation to get the public attention concretized by less coverage on important news stories and more coverage on publicly relatable stories. The sad thing is, these publicly-relatable stories are far from informative. They are dummy stories used to fill air time and accumulate ratings.
-
Great example how science becomes life saving environmental policy. This fantastically produced piece shows the history of how the Antarctic Ozone Hole was discovered by a graduate student, then reported in a few newspapers. Chemicals dumped into the environment were the cause.
The public picked up the story of the Ozone Hole and got really, really worried that corporations were putting too much pollution into the air. They formed partnerships with environmental groups, universities, and certain governments, and lobbied other world leaders to help fill in the Ozone Hole.
Eventually, leaders agreed on the Montreal Protocol - a system of cap and trade that limited the amounts of pollution companies could dump into the environment. A must watch for budding environmentalists, policies wonks, and science-types.
Today, the Montreal Protocol loosely serves as the model for cap-and-trade system of the Kyoto Protocol, European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, California’s AB 32, and many other systems around the world.
Today is the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. Take a deep breath.
Have a look at the UNDEP’s ozone website for more information.
-
“The initial, mistaken information will be retweeted more than any subsequent correction — I’ve started calling this the Law of Incorrect Tweets. The point is to emphasize that a piece of misinformation is often far more appealing and interesting than the subsequent correction. People are therefore more inclined to retweet or like a false news report than to pay attention to any subsequent correction.” —Craig Silverman, Eight Simple Rules for Doing Accurate Journalism
“If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out,” Silverman adds.
(via copyeditor)
(via copyeditor)
-
I Write As I Write: Rage of the Idiocracy An old-timer journalist once told me that the reason he went into journalism and education: They are the two occupations that can immediately positively influence and enlighten a people. Education is one of the most disruptive methods for breaking the cycle of poverty. It provides opportunity, it…
Yet another insightful read. I discussed this (especially about the PDBF sensationalization issue) with a friend days ago.
The very sad thing about it is that the culture of the Philippine media blowing up news stories to exponentially higher sizes than that of the story’s true nature has thoroughly seeped to the popular culture.
When I told my friend about certain media men have biases, especially in broadcast medium, and how the story about the PDBF had become unnecessarily larger than what it should be, she replied — to my utter shock — that “Ingon ana man gyud na ang buhaton sa newscaster. Unsa gud ang newscaster nimo?” (That is what newscasters do. What do you think newscasters are?)
Definitely, this is a problem. It has become popular culture for the media to become such ferocious animals for “scoops”, like hungry feral wolves looking for food.
We should not let this hunger overcome us. I remember the first time I read you and @ellobofilipino, exchanging thoughts on “Educating Radicals.” I still remember how important it is to temper the flames of our emotion in order for us to become efficient, effective, and productive radicals in the society.
Such is the same thing the media should adopt within their hearts: a tempered hunger that is bridled from the insatiability of needless competition.
I still don’t get why the media needs to be so divided and competitive when it comes to coverage. We are one and the same, in our goals and in our plans, aren’t we?
Or maybe I’m just and idealist teenager that dreams big for the fourth estate. Either way, I believe that because we are one in our ultimate function and goal, that we should forgo excessive competition. (Sure, competition is good, especially in determining the statistical references to determine service quality.) But it should not be in excess.
Competition should be compounded with proper execution, etiquette and ethics, not just a mere subordination to public fanatical mania, if they are truly at the standard of quality they present themselves to be.
But yes, I was shocked when I heard her reply. I didn’t expect that the problem had gone down so deeply already without any obvious signs of retaliation and corollary rejuvenation, especially within the practice itself.
Hopefully, thoughts like these reach the powerhouse news rooms within the country. Their conduct has been far from presentable, even to the public, whom they aim to serve.
-
Integrity in journalism
While some perspective is essential to put news stories into context and establish who is who and what was done by whom to someone. But context and perspective are very much different from editorializing a news story.
…
Like you my friend, I was actually also disturbed when former Vice President Noli de Castro and Presidential candidate (now DOTC Secretary) Mar Roxas’ wife Korina went back to being newsreaders in the country’s biggest prime time news program. My concern has been their political affiliation and identification with certain political figures and interests.
…
What sets our time different from those that have gone before is that some journalists nowadays, aside from their reportage, also go into blogging. And in their blogs, they sound different. They write more from the personal (biased) perspective. It would be curious to know though how a journalist’s blog would influence how he is perceived by the public, his co-workers, and his sources.
It has always been a struggle for journalists to remain balanced and as much as possible, lessen the bias. And the struggle goes on from one journalist to the other, from the field to the newsroom. It is inevitable that the reports would contain certain slants towards certain groups, interests, or individuals.
It is important for the public to gather the news not only from one channel, but as much as possible, several channels of varying perspectives. It would then be up to the viewing public to decide for themselves which perspective they more identify with. If well-meaning media organizations have always been trying to root out pseudo-journalism by promoting responsible journalism, then maybe it’s time the public should also do the same with responsible viewership.
Absolutely. Being an informed citizen does not mean just reading one newspaper or watching one TV channel. It involves some level of research and studying various sources. And in the age of connectivity it really isn’t that to do; especially with the proliferation of news sources. I think that’s truly the only way to have your own voice, your own opinion: you cannot just parrot what you heard on TV or read in the broadsheets. Else any opinion you have becomes unsustainable.
With regards to Korina and Noli, that is rife with complications. Like you say, what happens if (when?) charges are filed against Noli? Amidst all the other disclosures, we have kind of forgotten the whole Global Asiatique mess; a ‘scandal’ that touches on areas under the then-VPs purview.
Now, you raise an interesting consideration with regards to journalist-bloggers; especially when they reveal personal opinions. In the old days, veteran journalists would turn into columnists; graduating from uncovering the news to commenting on the news. Today? The internet allows for almost instantaneous expression of personal and private opinions. There was a small bit of controversy a few weeks ago when one well known journalist expressed her support for RH.
Could it be that we are in the midst of an evolution in journalism? Has the rapidity with which news can be spread forcing that change? In a way, you could argue that evolution is what created a monster of propaganda like Fox News.
I doubt it. Journalism is far more than means and methods of information dissemination. At its heart journalism is much the same as history writing. It’s investigation, studious balance, and a presentation of as much of the picture as possible. That, I don’t think at all, will ever change. Too often we think of journalism as only reporting the facts. It really is not. And that type of misunderstanding is what allows yellow journalism to flourish.
The side-effect of journalists becoming more vocal in other avenues with their opinions is their job becomes a little bit more difficult. They have to be more studious in their work to ensure a separation (as much as possible) between the story and the person.
As always, it is incumbent upon the journalist (as in any endeavor) to uphold the integrity of their profession.
Apologies on the delayed reply my friend. I was not able to easily view your reply to our exchange regarding the exercise of journalism in the country. Do extend me your consideration.
I must say, you always see what I cannot in terms of looking at the profession I have found myself in. I guess my experience and personal thoughts cloud my view from time to time. Thank you!
I agree! We are in the midst of an evolution in journalism. When before news articles are formed by calling sources on the phone and have them comment on an issue, now journalists need only to monitor that source’s Twitter or Facebook account and quote directly from that.
Of course, the accounts need to be verified and the tweet or post clarified before it is quoted. But the evolution of social media networks, as well as how they are harnessed by different people for different purposes, have allowed ease as well as expediency to flourish in a profession which thrives on breaking news.
The underlying principles in journalism though must remain: timely publication of accurate and factual reports. And values necessary in the profession, such as integrity, honesty, and commitment, should endure. But these will be augmented with the use of new tools which will have impacts on the news stories.
The impact of blogs and social media networks will vary from one journalist to the other. For the opinionated, it will be a burden; for the inquisitive, a comfort. It all depends on how they will use these new tools in relation to the profession.
Yes, journalism in the years to come will have to go beyond the conventional news gathering methods. And the profession will have to move into one which incorporates the use of social media networks and other innovations which would allow the journalist to have better and more concise news presentations.
This discussion has become so good that I have to reblog it. THIS HAS TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. These ethics are the fundamental foundations to journalism. They are what constructed and upheld journalism as a credible profession, and differentiated it from the slander and bias that is eminent in mere gossip-mongering.
I think that although it should be noted that aside from asking the current mature breed of journalists we have in the country to adopt this unbiased and pure journalistic approach, this integrity that many of us expect from veterans should also seep into the grassroots of journalism, if we are to expect a generation that is different from the sensationalist edifices built by propagandists.
I really cannot forget the first time I have read from these two persons. They were talking about a similar topic to this one, which focused on making a radical thinking youth. I could always remember that part which said that we should not let our passions cloud our judgment, and that this passion should be tempered by proper information.
These things should be taught in schools, whether for journalistic or non-journalistic fields of study. These are ethics that are not only applicable to one particular field of study, but to life itself. I think that we should be responsible about what we say, regardless of it being published in writing or being said by mouth. It is this social responsibility coupled with carefully researched and examined gathering of information should propel our journalists into greater heights, that is, quality-wise. It will not only improve our current crop of journalists but also culture our youth to imbibe the ethics, attitudes, and processes that are the characteristics of great journalism.
-
News as Entertainment Sharing some excerpts from the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility’s study on how the Philippine news industry has somehow worn the dazzling cloak of showbiz…
President Aquino’s love life, Pope John Paul II’s beatification, and the British royal wedding were among the major stories in the Philippine media last April. These landed on the front pages or were leading stories in the major broadsheets and TV news programs. Although one could speculate that the coverage of Pope John Paul II’s beatification was driven by the belief that it would be of interest to Filipinos out of piety, what these stories seem to have had in common was entertainment value.
The same value is evident even in reporting events that could be characterized as serious. In many cases they are reported with an eye on their lighter or “human interest” angles in an effort to gain and hold public attention. These are in addition to the usual treatment of “soft news” from the show business and lifestyles beats.
…
Broadcast media
Broadcast media have focused on the entertainment aspects or values of events as part of their effort to sustain high ratings. The “hook-and-hold” approach is evident as the practice of placing entertainment news between hard news.
The delivery of the news, however, has become more problematic as anchors now report hard news in the same way they report human interest news. Most anchors exaggerate their delivery, reporting events in rapid fire and high decibel fashion. TV news anchors Mike Enriquez, Erwin Tulfo, and Noli de Castro, who dominate the flagship news programs of the major networks, report the news in exactly the same exaggerated, high decibel manner.
On the other hand, this kind of delivery was not the issue in the networks’ reporting of the British royal wedding. What was at issue was what they chose to focus on, which were the venue of the wedding, the invited guests, what clothes the bride and her family wore, the food that was served, among others.
The beatification of Pope John Paul II could have been reported in a straightforward, no frills manner. Instead, the Philippine broadcast media opted to focus on such details as the supposedly life-changing experiences of Filipinos with the Pope. Papal relics and people named after Pope John Paul II were also featured as part of the beatification coverage.
…
Effects of trivialization
The emphasis on the entertainment value of events tends to mislead readers and viewers on the significance of those events by pandering to their impulse towards being entertained, thus undermining the basic media responsibility of providing the public both the details as well as the meaning of events.
…
The rating-game
The indicators of media failure are everywhere in the “industry.” Many news organizations are losing money, indicating a loss of viewers/readers/listeners, among other reasons because the media organizations still cling to the old belief that it is entertainment rather than information that the public wants.
Back in the mid-2000s, the broadcast company I worked for was in a neck to neck fight over ratings with its biggest competitor. And with that our news managers and chiefs were breathing down on our necks, forcing us news desk editors and reporters to come up with better stories and more exclusives.
But back then the emphasis was still on coming up with news stories which exposed corruption, illegal activities, and the glossed-over reports of supposed good governance and economic progress. We were not asked to shift the emphasis on showbiz news nor package hard news as entertainment features.
What I find detestable in how news reports are packaged nowadays is the tendency to exaggerate the trivial aspects of a story instead of getting direct to the point and making a deeper analysis. I often find this in news items on poverty and rapid urbanization.
Instead of the reporter focusing on the causes of poverty and citing statistics and the weaknesses of government programs, he anchors his whole story on the life of one subject, delivering his lines slowly and emphatically, so as to complete the usual two-minute length of a TV news package. But does he make sense? Does he show why the public should be alarmed about the rising cases of poverty? No.
The same is true with stories on rapid urbanization. In stories about demolitions and relocation. More often than not, the reporter tends to focus on the emotions of the informal settler rather than how that settler came upon the land and settled. The reporter would highlight the tears, the anger, and fury of the demolition, with complete disregard on the legal underpinnings which caused the whole situation.
While the emotions and the “feel” of the situation are important in a news story, a brief background on the phenomenon covered, with data and legal aspects if need be, would not hurt. In fact, the addition of these elements to the parts which deal only with the emotions of the subject (or subjects) would make the story more credible.
Then again, this is just me and I am an old wolf. Maybe, the kind of stories I grew up to and was trained in are already passé. Maybe the kind of journalism I know is no longer the one yearned for by today’s viewers. Maybe, nowadays viewers want to watch the news not to understand the events which are happening around them, but merely to be entertained.
Certainly not sir. There are still many people who hunger for true investigative journalism and not the pathetic sensationalism that is being presented by modern media. The problem, though, is how the culture of sensationalizing trivial details in order to gain readership or viewership has already rooted itself deep in the social psyche. Entertainment value is always held in higher regard over the veracity, the fairness and the quality of information of news and journalism. Journalism, from a humble and pure social service is commodified into a variety skit.
I think it is with great urgency that we try to inculcate once again the importance of research and reading and investigation in cultivating the non-passive and resilient characteristics we have made known to corruption most popularly during the People Power revolutions, when ousters were made to corrupt leaders. It was during then, I believe, that the true power of journalism and investigation was really at its zenith. It was when many different radical and resilient ideas were formed. Furthermore, it was when the true premises of journalism were trodden on by the early media.
Today is the time that we should resurrect that frame of mind: the frame of mind resilient from corruption, the frame of mind resilient from sensationalism, the frame of mind that independently fosters the value of research.
It is a challenge to our present and upcoming media to try to strengthen their investigative foundations and start reforming the Philippine media into one where the truth is neither entertaining nor boring, but true.
-
“Journalism, at its finest, can be one of the pillars of a free society. It acts as the safety valve, the conscience of a society. Media should inform and enlighten. It stands to reason that it should inform and enlighten its readership on questions that matter. And if it is a truly great press, then it can be one of the beacons that guide a nation to greatness.” — Alejandro Roces (via ellobofilipino) -
“The decline of traditional media and the rise of viral emails and partisan Web and cable TV platforms has meant the near-collapse of common facts, believed across the political spectrum.” —From Politico, “A new era of accusation and innuendo” by Jonathan Martin and John Harris
See also, “Factchecking Obama: Birther controversy was 4% of newshole, not ‘dominant’ story”
(via poynterinstitute)
(via futurejournalismproject)
-
Improvement for Improvement
While strolling through the deep recesses of my mind, I couldn’t help but question the true necessity of writing styles, stylebooks, and the like — whom I consider restrictions to the true evolutionary capability of language and of man who wields and who uses it.
Writing paradigms such as the inverted pyramid in news writing and number of word restrictions are nothing but shackles to the explosion-of-a-growth writing. Although brevity might and word choice are the writer’s and the language’s prerogatives, they are not given to them thereby destroying the comfort, the aptitude, and the true sense of expression that they are entitled to.
I have been asked to write without colloquial terms, and such terms whom I consider create a very particular connection with the reading population, especially in the locality, while for the uneducated about the term, allows them to expand their vocabulary and information, therefore improving themselves.
Editors could argue that it’s for the valiant sake of readership and reader comfort, but readership should rest on the intelligence, skill and talent in both the reader and the writer. A newspaper or a news website should allow its readers to grow, both in intellect and in freedom to do so. They should also be given room to do so. Readers, on the other hand, should read — expand their vocabulary and increase their theoretical background.
Readers should be adept with the language in order to keep up with the evolution of the language in its explosive and exponential aptitude to do so. Readers should become more strongly backed in theories and concepts that can help reading comprehension.
In the end, it’s all a matter of quid pro quo. I just feel that in current times writers are too strained, while readers get mechanical, robotic and redundant material. Both should be given room to grow. The mutual relationship between the two is directly proportional, and should therefore reach heights of magnificence were they allowed to explore and enhance their capabilities.
-
“If you want to employ a proper journalist rather than a cheap web monkey, the SEO stuff really is secondary.” —Now, I know talk about the divide between print and online/digital journalists has been discussed over and over again since … well … since the internet came about. So it’s been quite a few years. Yet comments like the above are still held in newsrooms today.
Kevin Anderson (who I was very fortunate to meet at Digital Directions this year) has written on this particular issue in his latest blog post — and he has one piece of advice for digital journalists subject to such treatment in the newsroom:
If you’re in a poisonous work environment like this, constantly having to defend your work, just leave. It’s a judgement call, and every place has its politics, but if you’re sidelined, marginalised and disrespected, you owe it yourself and to journalism to take your skills where they’ll be put to good use.
As Riyaad Minty, Al Jazeera’s head of social media, said at Digital Directions, there is no old or new media, just media. He was, of course, talking about Al Jazeera’s coverage of the ongoing protests in the Middle East and North Africa, and how the photos, videos and informations shared by protesters in these countries played a central role in helping to tell the story about what was happening on the ground.
You can read Anderson’s blog posts on the “cheap web monkey” comment here and here.
As a side note, I’m not sure why some journalists are so exclusionary about their industry, as Adam Tinworth (whom Anderson cites) notes, but I would argue that they should be more inclusive instead. In the past week, the media has been scrambling to understand how a nuclear power plant works, and then explain the risks of a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi facility. Such coverage would have been severely handicapped without the fantastic graphics/interactives/multimedia put together for online, print and broadcast illustrating the design of the reactors.
So is it fair to say that journalists = only reporters? Photographers, editors, sub-editors, copy editors, layout subs, designers, producers etc — they all work in, and for, the newsroom. Their work helps a news organisation tell a story well. So why exclude them?
(via glendakwek)
-
Washington Post suspends reporter for plagiarizing stories on Tucson shooting | Washington Post The Washington Post suspended one of its most seasoned reporters Wednesday after editors determined that “substantial” parts of two recent news articles were taken without attribution from another newspaper.
Sari Horwitz, a longtime Post investigative reporter, was suspended for three months for plagiarizing sections of stories that first appeared in the Arizona Republic. [read more]
This —— this is irresponsible journalism.
(via shortformblog)
-
Balanced Journalism Will Drive You Nuts I took journalism courses at Kent State as part of my degree program. One of the best teachers I ever had taught my Media Writing course, and he said as much. To give an example, he told us this story:
“This is why you will hate objective writing: Say you go to the gas station one night for smokes. As you’re standing in line waiting to pay, a man with a gun walks in, points the weapon at the cashier, and demands all the money in the register. He then shoots the man in the face. The police later apprehend him, and your newspaper assigns the write-up to you for the morning paper. Being objective, you would have to write: ‘A man is being held by police in connection to an armed robbery at a local gas station. Police allege he attacked the store clerk with a firearm.’”
“Nuts” might not be a proper diagnostic term but a recent study by Ohio State Assistant Professor of Communications Raymond J. Pingree explores how subjects respond to news stories that merely report each side without getting to the actual truth of the matter.
“There are consequences to journalism that just reports what each side says with no fact checking,” Pingree told Ohio State’s research staff. “It makes readers feel like they can’t figure out what the truth is.”
The result: news consumers get depressed when they reach the end of a story with no clear idea about what they’re to believe; become ambivalent and dismissive to politics generally; and become more prone to believing factually incorrect statements by politicians and other authorities.
As Pingree writes in his study:
[T]the crucial test of journalism is when sources make contradictory factual claims; in these moments, passive journalists stop at reporting the opposing claims when they should, as Jamieson and Waldman (2003) put it, “adjudicate factual disputes.” This adjudication is not a radical or novel proposal foreign to reporters’ habits; it comes down to the extent to which they “do their homework” by checking facts, looking for additional sources, and doing their own analysis. There is no limit to the amount of such homework that can be done on any given story, and there is no guarantee that it will resolve important factual disputes between sources. Ideally, journalists would decide how much adjudication a dispute merits based on a careful and open-minded assessment of its importance and resolvability. However, there are of course limits to journalists’ time to work on any given story. Particularly in forms of journalism in which time is very limited such as 24-hour cable news and also in general as a consequence of modern journalism’s understaffed newsrooms and fast news cycles…
Media critics have taken news organizations to task for falling into “balanced” truthiness whereby demonstrably false propositions are reported as just another side of the story. So here’s another bit of civic, and psychological, ammunition to their arguments.
The study, published in the Journal of Communication, can be read here.
(via copyeditor)
-
Hypocrisy and Justifications
We often say that the ideal government is a government of the people and for the people. What we often forget is that an ideal government is a government by the people. This impliedly tells us that we are partially to blame for any incompetence that happens during a leader-slash-public-servant’s term. We voted for them; we chose what we are currently facing. This partially duct tapes the lips of adversarial journalism and essentially distorts the freedoms of speech and of expression.
Since journalism, especially in corruption-torn countries such as our own Philippines, is heavily grounded on adversarialism, it is heavily reliant on exposés that depict the malpractice inside the government. Furthermore, with the renewed knowledge of human rights, acquisition of these rights are considered to be “imminent” and “absolute.”
We can then say that journalists have abused their rights, often venturing into the premises of libel and slander, sometimes even corrupting themselves. Journalists need to grasp a certain knowledge of social responsibility, and must commit themselves to the social and journalistic ethics set by their forefathers. These codes of conduct will pave the way towards a less biased “fourth branch of the government,” comprised of the media and the press.
Now, when the media obviously commit mistakes, they play the rights cards that they have, utilizing these to evade flak from the public for their obvious mistakes —- mistakes that are undeniable and inescapable.
They say that their actions are justified. Where is the justification in hypocrisy?
