N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (August 23, 6:50 p.m.) where I write a column (Philippine Fantasy).
A student from De La Salle University (DLSU)-Manila interviewed me via email about the concept of news blackout. This is a very timely topic considering the ongoing hostage-taking not yet been resolved as I write this today (August 23, 6:45 p.m.). Breaking news like hostage-taking highlights the uselessness of a news blackout as the people deserve to know the latest developments. Fortunately for the public in this case, the police did not impose a news blackout.
The interviewer’s questions and my answers were all in Filipino, so please find below the translation in English.
As a journalist, what is your definition of a news blackout?
A news blackout is the concerned authorities’ direct withholding of information which journalists need for their reports. The decision of the authorities could be in the context of protecting their own interests or of upholding the general welfare of society. Because of this, it is necessary for those in power to explain well the reasons for imposing a news blackout. They should also clearly state up to when it will last, if ever.
In your opinion, aside from invoking national security and upholding the interest of the majority, are there other reasons for imposing a news blackout?
It is very hard to define “national security” or “public interest” in imposing a news blackout. This explains why having a news blackout may not necessarily be for the good of the people. During the time of Martial Law (1972-1986), for example, state repression was evident (e.g., in the form of human rights violations and enactment of anti-people laws) but the Marcos administration opted to prohibit the reportage of sensitive issues (i.e., those that put the government in a bad light). While it’s true that the government has the right to protect the country, media have an obligation to bring to the public’s attention important issues (even if these are against the government like human rights violations, corruption and abuse of power). It is so easy for some officials to invoke the public interest in imposing a news blackout. But there are times when the statements they give are just empty rhetoric. In reality, they are only thinking of their own interests.
What are the circumstances that could make a news blackout acceptable?
In general, the government should avoid having a news blackout. It should trust journalists enough that they would be responsible in their reportage (even if it’s true that there are some journalists who have shortcomings in the performance of their jobs). If the government is transparent and accountable to the people and does not withhold any information from them, it follows that those in power should not prevent media from reporting on issues that may be negative to them.
Is there justice in a situation where a news blackout is imposed?
There’s no justice in this case because it results in the deprivation of vital information. Actually, a journalist does not usually report ALL information he or she gets. There is still a need to verify all information before including them in his or her report. The journalist carefully selects the information that, in his or her own judgment call using the prescribed professional and ethical standards, should be made known to the public. He or she consequently decides not to include information deemed not important. It must be stressed that there are ethical standards in reporting so the government should not worry about irresponsibility of the media. Even if there are a few irresponsible and corrupt journalists, the government (or even the ordinary citizens) can condemn and expose them by, among others, not patronizing the media organizations they work for.