N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (March 1, 6:00 p.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).

Is it ethical for a journalist to run for public office?

Legally, nothing prevents journalists from getting a seat in government as long as they meet the required citizenship, age and residency requirements.

Ethically, however, journalists should be reminded of what’s written in the Filipino Journalist’s Code of Ethics: “I shall accept only such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of my profession, invoking the ‘conscience clause’ when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience.” (emphasis mine)

A journalist who becomes a candidate for whatever position will have a difficult time performing his or her task of reporting the news. For example, how could media audiences believe his or her election analyses if they know that the journalist has a vested interest to win? A candidate-journalist is therefore put in a difficult situation where he or she cannot be seen as objective and fair, no matter how well he or she adheres to the highest professional standards of the profession.

Reading the list of 79 candidates for national positions (President, Vice President and Senator), one realizes that a handful of them used to be professional journalists. Two of them are running for Vice President (Loren Legarda and Jay Sonza) and four of them for Senator (Kata Inocencio, Rey Langit, Gilbert Remulla and Alex Tinsay).

Of course, these numbers may be considered inconsequential if one were to look at the total number of candidates for national office. There are 10 people running for President, 8 for Vice President and 61 for Senator. But just like journalists, most of those running for national positions have been in the public eye for some time either as celebrities or high-ranking government officials.

Even before the official start of the election campaign last February 9, most of them have been constantly seen on television. And even if they can hardly be called professional journalists, some politicians have actually acted as hosts or guest news anchors of selected television news and public affairs programs. There are also those who agreed to write newspaper columns to make themselves visible.

Some media organizations have a lot of explaining to do for allowing politicians (especially the inarticulate and incoherent ones) to help shape public opinion by actively taking part in the delivery of news. Theoretically, after all, politicians should be mere sources of information who are interviewed periodically by the media, given their lack of training in news gathering, writing and production.

But with this kind of arrangement where media audiences are introduced to “politician-journalists,” there are questions that need to be asked: Instead of media organizations paying politicians professional fees for their services, were the former the ones who got paid instead? Why did media organizations agree to such an arrangement even if there are journalists who are obviously more qualified to handle tasks like hosting a talk show and anchoring a news program?

The existence of “politician-journalists” is no different from “candidate-journalists” where media audiences fail to know for sure where their interests and loyalties lie.

At least for those running for national positions, there is no such creature as “candidate-journalists” as they have, rightfully so, taken a leave of absence hosting public affairs programs or reporting the news. However, the same cannot be said yet for journalists aspiring for local positions as the official campaign at the local level starts only on March 26.

Just as entertainment personalities are decisive in the shaping of Filipino values, journalists have a serious responsibility of shaping public opinion by providing meaningful information. Should journalists decide to embark on a different kind of public service, they should be willing to give up their professions, either temporarily or permanently.

Actively campaigning while doing journalistic work does not help any in the shaping of public opinion. In the final analysis, “candidate-journalists” would do more harm than good in building up the credibility of the journalism profession in the eyes of media audiences, most especially the electorate. And with credibility put into question, it would be hard for the other well-meaning journalists to perform their watchdog function.