Guns vs. Good Journalism
Communication is the starting
gear towards an informed public.
Thousands
of years ago, an umalahukan shifted
from place to place in order to reveal the information to be disseminated.
American Indians of foreign lands inflicted fire on high mountains and once a
smoke was seen above the horizon, a signal had been cast.
These
may be cited as examples for Harold Laswell’s one-way communication model. But as
time changes, communication evolves to cope with the demands of modern society.
Umalahukans are slashed out from the
picture and the idea of smoke signals becomes obscure and even considered a folly
if still practiced today. People start to acquire the sense of curiosity to the
occurrences far beyond what their physical senses could deliver. Hence, the transmission
of information from one far place to another in real time becomes a necessity.
This
is where the role of mass media comes in. To notify the public with substantive
information and unbiased news are a journalist’s first obligation. This is the
other way of saying “the public has the right to know”. But this is not where
the responsibilities of media end. The act alone of transmitting messages draws
a two-way bridge especially from the citizens to the leaders in a developing
society. From the simple communication model of Laswell, it has been replaced
by the complex illustration of Schramm. The dogma of such theory provides an
interaction, effective and profound, among the people despite of their social status.
Thus, public service has been established. Truth, then, becomes the primary
concern of both the public and the media. A journalist’s job is to scrutinize
the facts and it is up to the individual to discern on his personal, rational
interpretations. However, many people especially those who are in the
Philippine governance often do not care if what is publish is true. If
journalists write about opposition, they are viewed as promoter of the aims of
other political parties and when the watchdog role of media is pursued, truth
is characterized as disloyalty if it falls into the category of criticism.
Independent journalists are then, often times, branded as unpatriotic and
anti-government.
Media have been the sore eyes in the view from
the people who bear such prejudices. Media practitioners have been a felon of
their own responsibilities. The messengers have been blamed. Threats, indeed,
become inevitable. The danger towards the safety of media advocates turn from
subtle to evident. Is George Benaojan’s death the effect of a mere accident? Is
the life taken from Allan Dizon a result of his own lack of judgment? Directly
speaking, there are no laws which adhere to the safety and security of media
practitioners from such threats, may it be tacit or obvious. Hence, media
practitioners resort to the only law for intimidation purposes; the carrying of
firearms. Yet again, we cannot neglect the simple act of inquiring ourselves,
will everyone be benefited for the common good or will it only worsen the
situation? Does it lessen the threats or does it only cause more risks to the
media personnel and even to others as well?
However,
the surfacing of such issue cannot only be traced back to the threats hurled to
the media industry. The root may lie on the possibility of unethical action
committed by media practitioners themselves which may led to the audacity of anonymous
threats. The method must be objective, not the journalist. Journalists are held
accountable for the stories that they write. Perhaps, firearms are not the only
solution at all.
