N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (July 5, 8:00 p.m.) where I write a column (Philippine Fantasy).
A student from the Ateneo de Manila University asked me 10 questions on media coverage in war-torn areas. Please find below my answers.
What is the importance of media coverage in war-torn areas?
Aside from providing the necessary information to the public, media could serve as a deterrent to abuses that are wont to be committed by groups that are at war. Theoretically, non-combatants are assured of their safety and prisoners of war (POWs) are treated more humanely if the parties concerned are made aware of media’s presence.
What are the roles fulfilled by war journalists?
At a time of war, journalists should still practice accuracy, objectivity and fairness in their reportage. They should, at the same time, exercise extreme caution in going about their work. In particular, they should know when to pull out if ever the situation becomes too volatile or the group they are covering suddenly becomes extremely hostile to their presence. They should remember the age-old saying in journalism that “no story is worth dying for.”
Do you think media coverage in such areas should be restricted? Why?
Restrictions in media coverage are acceptable only if the authorities and journalists agree that media presence could jeopardize an operation and unnecessarily endanger the lives of combatants and non-combatants. Despite their duty to cover the war, journalists cannot allow themselves to be part of the news, as in the case of ending up, albeit unwittingly, as “human shields” or, most likely willingly, as “negotiators” during a standoff, for instance.
Do you think censorship conceals the truth? How come?
Censorship is unacceptable even if media organizations should maintain the highest professional and ethical standards. The truth should be reported, keeping in mind that journalists must remain critical of the official statements they get. They must always compare what they get from sources with what they observe on the ground.
Is it the public’s right to be able to view the reallity of the war through media? Why?
The public has the right to be informed, especially during a time of war. It is understandable for media organizations to sometimes fail in the delivery of news due to circumstances beyond their control. But they should try their best to get their message across, even if delayed.
How is society affected by the media coverage of war?
Media play a pivotal role in the public’s perception of the war, which is why they should be able to explain the context in a manner that is comprehensive and understandable. They cannot afford to give a “sports-like” coverage of the war where people become preoccupied with “who’s winning” and the “latest score” of casualties and injuries.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of media coverage in war-torn areas?
I cannot think of any disadvantages of media coverage in war-torn areas given media’s role in the shaping of public opinion. Media, in this context, should be allowed to fulfill their obligation to the people.
How can the release of graphic images in war be an eye-opener to society?
Images and footage of war provide evidence of what is being claimed and may also be used to expose the lies of so-called spin doctors who have their own agenda in projecting the war to suit certain interests.
What do journalists get from covering the news in times of conflict?
Journalists get the opportunity to fulfill their obligation in providing timely and relevant information. They put their lives on the line just to ensure that the people know what they need to know.
How can journalists become unbiased and professional toward the issue they are reporting?
Journalists need to have a firm grasp of the professional and ethical standards. They could get it through extensive training, meticulous reading and intensive practice.