As promised in my post last November 13 titled “Win a book by giving the best answer,” I would like to announce the three winners of our mini-contest. Each of them will get a copy of a media monitoring guidebook I recently co-authored.
Congratulations to Hecky Villanueva, Mara and Cepheus Quiñones.
Please find below the answers they gave to the hypothetical situation I presented.
Hecky Villanueva’s answer:
Romy and Judith Miranda face a decision that will affect their lives for years to come. The consequences are multidimensional as it will have implications on their professional careers and reputations, source of livelihood, and future actions.Judith Miranda should have first talked things over with her father and made the appropriate disclosures when requesting interviews at Lifeline. Her father then could have prepared for any contingency including the threat of a firing. Proper disclosure of identity and affiliation is also important in a process that necessitates an informed consent, for example in an interview.
If no physical threat is made, I would recommend that Judith Miranda continue with her expose of Lifeline. Unethical and illegal business practices must be exposed because of their pernicious impacts on society and the local economy.
That is also her duty and responsibility as a journalist.
There will be similar dilemmas in the future and she might as well get used to doing what is moral and ethical.
Her father must stand up for what is right even though it will cost him his job. It is better to be a starving, upright person than a satiated but unethical professional.
Fathers should also be moral examples not moral relativists. Thus, he should quickly disassociate himself with Lifeline, which will not be viable in the long term anyway.
Journalists are in the business of reporting the truth. If they cannot do it, then they are not practicing journalism. Hired hack, maybe?
Mara’s answer:
In contests and raffle promos, there is usually a clause in the guidelines which states that relatives of the employees of the company up to the third degree of consanguinity are disqualified from joining. The reason for this is to avoid conflict of interest. The reporter Judith may say that she was just doing her job and took advantage of the resources available but she should have also realized the repercussions it might cause especially that the issue is controversial and that it has a direct link to her family.
From the very beginning she should have consulted with her father about doing a report on the issue and planned what their strategy on how they would be able to keep their interests safe. When she went public with her reports, their family showed lack of company loyalty in the sense of the “dog-biting-the-hands-that-feed-it” scenario. The action can be seen not only as ungrateful; it was damaging to the company’s further existence, eliminating consumer trust and a possible chance of recovery. A company is like a family; you don’t go wash your dirty laundry in public. What goes on in there, stays in there.
What I have stated goes against the idea of a reporter’s social responsibility to inform the public things that are detrimental to its welfare. However, in our culture we have lived a “family first” policy compared to other Asian countries such as Japan. Stopping Judith from writing does not mean that every other reporter interested on the issue is going to be silenced too. Furthermore, I believe that if she really wanted to fulfill that responsibility yet had the delicadeza to try avoiding this situation altogether, she could have found other ways to do so, like passing the scoop to a colleague who is also interested in the issue. If her boss assigned her to that job she could respectfully decline, state the conflict of interest, and then offer to help the research provided that it does not compromise her family member’s well-being. The way I see it, “nagahaman din siya” – the temptation of having the scoop was just too much.
Now she is pushed against the wall. The dilemma reminds me of the scene in the movie Lions for Lambs with Meryll Streep having second thoughts about publishing an article on the War on Terror. If it were me, I would cut my losses and move on. Chances are, even if I stopped from writing these things, they’d still be exposed for their wrongdoings by others. If I were single and my life were threatened, I would continue head on. This issue would concern my family, particularly my parents. I owe them enough to keep them safe.
Cepheus Quiñones’ answer:
If I were Judith, I will heed my father’s “advice” to stop covering Lifeline in order not to put my father’s job and family finances at risk. I will promptly inform my editor about my decision regarding the matter. Should my editor decide to pursue the issue, I will ensure to transfer all materials on the issue in my possession to whoever will replace me. I will also assist my replacement the best I can without putting myself or my father’s job at risk.
The public’s right to know is just one of the many things that a journalist must take into account in the daily pursuit of the profession. Others equally important are potential threats, reprisals and intimidations of all kinds, personal integrity, internal and external pressures. In the scenario presented, the principle of “limitation of harm” must be applied since Romy, his family, and even the television station where Judith works (which has not been charged with libel by Lifeline) are about to become collateral damages due to the news reportage of Judith. The principle of “limitation of harm” means that journalists must recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort and some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences.
By the same token, the Journalist’s Code of Ethics must not be interpreted in an inflexible and unforgiving manner. Unlike the Ten Commandments of God whose commands are fire-etched on stone slabs, the Journalist’s Code of Ethics is a guide to assist journalists in dealing with ethical dilemmas. It provides journalists a framework for self-monitoring and self-correction as they pursue their professional assignments. It may not suffice to cover all situations and specific challenges faced by journalists in the field considering the unique but very hazardous working conditions and environment of the press. In fact, the written codes and practical standards vary from country to country and organization to organization. As a general rule however, ethical dilemmas must be avoided whenever possible.
Thus, it is in bad taste, even unethical, to cover an issue in an institution where a relative holds a high position because that relative will be put in a bad light. People will naturally think that sensitive or confidential materials will be leaked to the reporter, even if that may not be the case. Note also that Judith indirectly used her father’s position and her familiarity to the employees of the company as the daughter of a high-ranking company official, to gather news materials thus putting herself in an ethical dilemma which is avoidable in the first place.
In that light, many issues in the field are decided on one’s “judgment call.” For example, if the subject of my coverage wields a gun and firmly orders me to stop the coverage, I will oblige since a dead journalist is of no use to the public. The call is to “live and news report another day.” A journalist is after all, part-social crusader, part-employee working for a living.
Again, congratulations to the three winners. Cheers!