N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (September 13, 4:40 p.m.) where I wrote a column (Philippine Fantasy) from October 2009 to September 2010. This is my last column article for AC.

GMA Network, one of the two leading broadcast stations in the Philippines, released last September 9 an “improved set of ethical and safety guidelines for future crisis coverage.” This is a product of what the network describes as “a thorough review of its coverage of the hostage crisis last August 23.”

The guidelines, summarized in 14 points, are consistent with the generally accepted protocol as regards crisis reporting.

1. “Exercise extra care in airing live interviews and live coverage during hostage and other situations that involve law enforcement operations that are risky to our field personnel, to those involved in the incident (e.g., hostages and hostage taker), and to the public. Always be aware that lives may be at stake.
2. “In the event of live coverage, avoid revealing in video and audio the plans, positions, movements, weapons, and preparations of law enforcers.
3. “Avoid interviewing or otherwise talking to hostage takers, potential suicides, and other subjects of imminent law enforcement operations. Decline police requests to negotiate or otherwise mediate with the above except for extraordinary reasons cleared with top management.
4. “Never portray as acceptable the actions of hostage takers, potential suicides, and other subjects of law enforcement operations.
5. “Assume that hostage takers and other subjects of police and military action are monitoring the coverage through television, radio, computer, or cell phone (via sms, web connection, or calls from others who are monitoring the coverage on other media).
6. “Assume that regardless of demeanor of hostage taker or gunman, he is unstable and dangerous, and may have intent to kill.
7. “Assume that police may not be able to handle media or a crowd. Thus we must know when and how to restrain ourselves.
8. “Assume that children will be watching so we must make an effort to avoid graphic speech and video that could be disturbing to the viewing public.
9. “Explain to viewers why certain information is being withheld.
10. “Avoid airing announcements of fatalities until verified by authorities on the record and/or notification of next of kin.
11. “In the coverage of any crisis involving law enforcement and rescue operations, coverage teams must use the appropriate protective equipment – including bullet-proof vests, helmets, gas masks, life vests, etc.
12. “Assign professionals in our organization to focus only on the ethical, safety, and non-technical aspects of our coverage during crisis situations and give immediate feedback to decision-makers when the coverage threatens to violate our standards for safety and conduct. Safety officers and news managers can be deployed to check on the safety preparations of field personnel.
13. “When possible, coordinate with the authorities when a crisis situation occurs, thus creating an opportunity for the authorities to relay information vital to our safety.
14. “Avoid unnecessary risks. The safety of personnel, the public, and those directly involved in the incident is paramount. No story is worth sacrificing lives for.”

Based on a matrix prepared by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), one can safely assume that the GMA Network reviewed not only its internal guidelines but also the professional and ethical standards of journalism worldwide.

There are, however, a few issues that the 14-point guidelines failed to address.

1. What is the GMA Network’s stand as regards a media blackout if, in the future, the authorities were to request one? (We operate on the assumption that, just as a Journalism 101 student is aware of the distinction, the network knows the difference between a media blackout and delayed/limited coverage.)
2. Will the GMA Network continue to interview family members and friends of a hostage-taker? (Again, we assume that the network knows the consequences of doing so, hence the need to avoid it.)
3. Will the news anchors engage in contextual reporting/commentary while the field reporter provides current observations, taking into account the need to provide context to ongoing developments that can be provided mainly by strengthening the research capability of the network?
4. Will the anchors and field reporters refrain from engaging in useless banter during “lull” moments, mindful of the fact that this might result in speculation and innuendo which are counter-productive to the shaping of public opinion?
5. Will the network be open to stopping live coverage if public interest and the safety of civilians warrant it? If the answer is yes, what are the factors that it would consider?

One may also argue that the guidelines, no matter how specific, comprehensive and well-written, would be useless if they were not strictly followed. While there are obviously no guarantees about future coverage, an indication of sincerity is self-criticism. The latter is expected from the network now that it has its improved guidelines.

The fact that the guidelines were improved, after all, means that there were lapses in the GMA Network’s coverage of the hostage crisis last August 23. Media audiences may have an idea of what these are, but it would still be best for the network to acknowledge them and apologize to its viewers.

The first challenge for GMA Network at this point is to identify these ethical violations. Allow me to identify two of them.

1. There is obviously something wrong when the network’s camera was positioned right behind the sniper’s vantage point, as shown in this video, as it affects the ongoing police operation. What proves to be worse is the periodic interview done by a GMA field reporter with the sniper as regards what he was doing.
2. Another GMA field reporter was reported to have contaminated the crime scene as he went inside the bus after the hostage-taker was killed. He commented on air that he stepped on parts of an internal organ of the hostage-taker (that I prefer not to specify to protect the sensibility of audiences). Aside from contaminating the crime scene, the on-air commentary is too graphic considering that children could be watching and there could be families having dinner during the time when the live report was happening.

There are many other ethical violations and errors in judgment. The objective of self-criticism is not to single out a particular network but to stress the next, logical step to coming out with new guidelines.

If GMA Network deems it necessary to make its new guidelines public, then there should be nothing wrong with making public also its self-criticism, as well its public apology.