Reah Bunsoy Online

By: Jesse Dedel

What I witnessed last night on national television must have beenthe most shameful and, sadly, longest-running piece of irresponsibletelevision journalism I have ever had the sad displeasure to behold.And I pray I never have to endure such a thing ever again for as longas I shall live.

I do not know which was more shocking -the gross incompetence and unprofessionalism of the GMA news coverageor the sheer and obvious lack of protocol and coordination of theon-ground response team to the hostage situation, which was now playingout, LIVE, in the millions of living rooms, bedrooms and dens of ourcitizenry nationwide and even across the globe thanks to CNN, BBC andtheir ilk.

The GMA news team handled their reporting morelike a radio broadcast than an audio-visual newscast. And they did aterrible job of it. The news anchors, both in the studio and on thescene, were both too hysterical for comfort. One would think they wereboth actors for a soap opera rather than responsible journalists.

Inthe course of their coverage they also broke not a few standardprotocols for the responsible broadcasting of a live hostage situation,here taken from the Nelson Poynter School for Journalism Values*, to wit:

“Always assume that the hostage taker, gunman, or terrorist has access to thereporting. Avoid describing with words or showing with stillphotography and video any information that could divulge the tactics orpositions of SWAT team members.” - During the course of theirnews reporting, I overheard someone from the news team mention that thehostage taker did in fact have a TV monitor on board the bus where hewas holding his hostages. With this information clearly in theirpossession they still kept showing multiple-screen shots of theprogress of the assault team as they were preparing to ’sneak up’ onthe hostage taker! Good Heavens, how were they supposed to be able tosneak up on someone who was, in all probability, watching their everymove thanks to the live news coverage? Great job guys!

“Beforthright with viewers, listeners, or readers about why certaininformation is being withheld if security reasons are involved.”- This bit of protocol was most conspicuous in its non-observance bythe valiant news team in question! Instead, they seemed to feel it wastheir God-given right to simply snatch each bit of information theycould gather, never mind if it was mostly second-hand or, in somecases, even purely speculative, and serve it up to the viewing massesin hysterical, real-time fashion!

Such a sensationalistic approach to live news reporting is obviously intended to play to theviewing crowd’s morbid and voyeuristic sense of “need to know”,commonly known in our local parlance as being “uzi” (short for ‘usisero’,which is Tagalog for ‘nosy’). They did not even take the time to verifyeach bit of information. Rather, they simply served it all up on thefly, making up their news report as soon as they could get it fromwhatever source they could find along the way.

“Seriously weigh the benefits to the public of what information might be given outversus what potential harm that information might cause. This is especially important in live reporting of an ongoing situation.”- I had missed this bit of the news reporting myself but our son, whois a college student taking up film, witnessed how the on-site newsanchor had taken it upon himself to describe in gross detail, and thendiscuss at length with his interviewee, the literally splattered brainsof the slain hostage taker. My goodness. How was that supposed tohelp the viewers better take in and objectively process the alreadytraumatic hostage drama at hand? Nightmares, anyone?

“Challenge any gut reaction to ‘go live’ from the scene of a hostage-takingcrisis, unless there are strong journalistic reasons for a live,on-the-scene report. Things can go wrong very quickly in a live report,endangering lives or damaging negotiations. Furthermore, ask if thevalue of a live, on-the-scene report is really justifiable compared tothe harm that could occur.” - This should have been the firstconsideration right from the start. And this should have happened inthe studio, in the news bureau, even before fielding the news team toQuirino. But of course, nothing beats a scoop. But, dear God inHeaven, is a scoop worth all the sloppy TV journalism we witnessed?What kind of a ’scoop’ was that?

“Go beyond thebasic story of the hostage taking or standoff to report on the largerissues behind the story, be it the how and why of what happened,reports on the preparation and execution of the SWAT team, or theissues related to the incident.” - One doesn’t have to be agenius to realize that the news coverage was handled like a live reportbeing made from behind a glass window of a building which is across thestreet from the place where the actual event is taking place. Bits andpieces of the unfolding drama were being snatched from every imaginablesource and instantly served up breathlessly to the TV audience, withoutso much as proper verification.

Every bit of detail -from the gun shots to the approach of the surprise assault team to thesudden and unbelievable deluge of morbidly curious bystanders – wasbeing reported in a frantic manner that sounded more like it was comingfrom a panicked illegal sidewalk vendor being dispersed by the MMDAthan from a seasoned, multi-awarded news journalist.

Obviously,the news team’s collective stance had become too “in your face” ratherthan maintaining a more sober, objective stance that would have /should have included the reporting of the “bigger picture”.

Sadly,this bit of media grandstanding is the product of the sad mentality to”give the people what they want” even if what they want isirresponsible sensationalism rather that objective journalism.

I truly believe that the news should be treated with more dignity andresponsibility. Our masses are already inundated with enoughsensationalism and media-hype from the lesser members of journalism -tabloids, trash radio and trash TV. Where are the Harry Gassers,Angelo Castro Juniors and Tina Monzon Palmas when we badly need them?

Instead, we were stuck with the shrill and ridiculous voices of hypernews-people who were obviously more interested in keeping their news-junkie audiences at the edge of their seats, their eyes glued to their TV screens.

And, boy, did they play to their crowd.

—

* Source: Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values -

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=4640

_______

Pasintabi sa mga masasaktan. Ang mga nakasulat po dito ay pawang opinyon ng may-akda. Dalangin ko’y magbigay kayo ng komento kung nabasa nang buo at naintidihan ang artikulo. Marang salamat po. – Reah Bunsoy Padla