N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (July 26, 10:08 p.m.) where I write a column (Philippine Fantasy).

A student from the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman emailed some questions about election coverage in the new media. Allow me to share with you my short answers.

What are the major challenges in doing online coverage of the elections?

Online journalism is said to have the “permanence of print and the immediacy of broadcast.” Convergence, however, is not just limited to relative permanence or immediacy. It also has to do with combining various kinds of media texts and hypertexts (i.e., words, hyperlinks, images, streaming audio and video).

Just like the coverage of other issues, election coverage through the new media requires the immediate uploading of media texts without compromising the highest professional and ethical standards of journalism.

At the same time, the online publication should maximize social media to promote its contents. The uploading of media texts, after all, does not guarantee the immediate sharing of information.

How is it different from the coverage of traditional media (i.e. print and broadcast media)?

Unlike in the so-called traditional media, online publications do not have deadlines in the strictest sense of the word. Articles and other forms of media texts (e.g., photographs, video files) are uploaded as soon as they are ready. It is therefore possible for an online publication to have various “banner headlines” in one day. In the same way, an article could be updated several times especially in the case of breaking stories where new developments happen, say, every hour.

In the new media, feedback from audiences is made more expedient. Despite the moderation of comments in many online publications, the feedback is still relatively faster in terms of its publication.

What ethical issues are usually encountered in election coverage?

Given the nature of the new media, the temptation to immediately upload unverified information remains. Those who don’t have a firm grasp of journalism ethics argue that this practice is acceptable since the initially wrong information could be corrected anyway. This is obviously wrong because online visitors would be led to think that the unverified information is true.

Notwithstanding the nature of the new media, the professional and ethical standards should remain the same, and should remain high. It is unthinkable and unacceptable for anybody to adjust (read: lower) the high standards of journalism to justify the immediate uploading of information, even if unverified.

The convenience of taking photographs or footage could also make an online journalist forget the need to strike a balance between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy, especially in the cases of rape victims and juvenile delinquents.

Though the two cases rarely crop up during elections, photographs and footage of election-related violence should be treated with utmost care to ensure that the dead are properly given respect and what is presetned to the public is in “good taste.” This is the reason some crime scenes are pixelized (or rendered in black and white) to ensure that the sensibilities of audiences are not affected, especially the children who are watching.

How are these issues connected to the nature of the medium?

Technology makes it easy for people to publish online. A content management system (CMS) like WordPress, for example, makes it easy for anybody to put up an online publication or a personal blog. Notwithstanding the high cost of gadgets, there are many user-friendly, high-resolution digital cameras that can take quality photographs and footage which could be shared online even without the use of an Internet-connected computer. One can even argue that a high-technology cellphone which has a built-in video camera is more than enough for a blogger or journalist to take pictures or footage.

Are there any landmark ethical issues that occurred during this year’s elections, particularly in online media?

It’s hard to define “landmark,” but a blogger-supporter of a presidential candidate was removed from a newly-established Asian news website after the latter got complaints due to his irresponsible articles. This blogger became notorious not only for ungrammatical writing but also for engaging in character assassination. Incidentally, his favorite target during the election campaign was the leading presidential candidate. He took a leave of absence for a while but he is now back blogging in his old, irresponsible style. I’m sorry if I refuse to identify him as I might end up giving him the popularity he doesn’t deserve.

Were they resolved? If yes, how? If no, what would be the best course of action?

His being removed from an Asian news website did not prevent him from setting up not just one but several blogs. He still engages in maligning his pet peeves, though I noticed that he has gone soft lately on President Noynoy Aquino. For me, the best course of action is to ignore him publicly and to use his blog entries as case studies in media ethics, particularly on how NOT to blog.

Why do you think they occur?

The answer is simple: There are a few bloggers who don’t know the responsibility that goes with sharing information in the public domain, which is what cyberspace is (whether we like it or not).

What should online media practitioners work on to overcome such ethical issues?

They should be more conscious of the consequences of their actions, particularly the harm they would do to audiences if they give wrong or unverified information. I think a good start is to read and understand A Bloggers’ Code of Ethics.