N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (November 16) where I write a column (Subtext).
President Noynoy Aquino reportedly criticized the Philippine media last Sunday night (November 14) for emphasizing the bad news instead of the good news. He claimed that a lot of good things are happening in the country right now.
As quoted by Inquirer.net (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view/20101115-303376/Aquino-slams-media-over-bad-news), Aquino said: “Simple lamang po ang nais nating ipaabot: Kaliwa’t kanan po ang mabubuting nangyayari sa bansa natin. Hindi natin binibigo ang mga Pilipino. Inaalagan natin ang ating mga kababayan. Kayo pa rin ang boss ko. Ito ang mga balitang dapat ninyong malaman (What we want to convey is simple: Good things are happening to our country left and right. We are not abandoning the Filipinos. We are taking care of our countrymen. You are still my boss. That is the news I want you to know).”
What’s wrong with President Aquino’s castigation? Perhaps he is not aware that in journalism, there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” news. The selection of what to publish theoretically depends on the various elements of news like prominence, proximity and significance. Nowhere in journalism textbooks (at least the reputable ones) does it state that the “goodness” or “badness” of an issue be a factor in choosing what to report.
The reason is very simple: The words “good” and “bad” are very subjective, making them hard to define. These defeat the objective nature of journalism. For example, when a leading newspaper published a news article last November 13 titled “Pnoy admits `spending some time’ with Liz Uy,” the report could be interpreted as “good” or “bad” depending on your standpoint.
Your beliefs could also be a factor in determining the “goodness” or “badness” of news articles and other journalistic outputs. Let me cite a few breaking news available online as I write this: “Bus strike inconveniences 8,000 commuters” (good for the bus strikers and their supporters, bad for the apolitical commuters), “San Miguel transforms into power firm” (good for San Miguel, bad for its competitors).
When Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was still president, a leading newspaper had this headline in 2008 when she reportedly experienced abdominal pains: ARROYO HOSPITALIZED. Let me ask you: Is this considered “good news” or “bad news”? While majority of Filipinos are wont to say the former (she was very unpopular as evidenced by various surveys), it cannot be denied that her family, friends and other supporters then felt “badly” about her hospitalization.
I’m sure other people share President Aquino’s opinion that media tend to focus on the so-called bad news. But that’s the reality in society at present: There is a lot of “bad” in our midst like social injustice. Journalists cannot be expected to look for the so-called positive angles in reporting, for example, on poverty. What’s positive about the latter anyway? Should journalists report at the onset that poor Filipinos are lucky to be still alive?
Sometimes, there are so-called good news like boxing legend Manny Pacquiao getting his unprecedented eight world title when he won a unanimous decision over Mexican Antonio Margarito (Of course, one can always argue that this is bad news as far as Mexicans are concerned). But issues like this, in order to help in the shaping of public opinion, should still be properly analyzed by the media. Doing so could remove the “positive angle” in reporting Pacquiao’s victory.
How can in-depth analysis be done? Let me cite an example. In an article I wrote last year (Pacquiao and the Philippine reality, Asian Correspondent, November 16, 2009), I stressed: “Studies have shown that boxing can be hazardous to one’s health, even if there is no strong evidence to link, for example, amateur boxing to long-term brain injury. Nevertheless, any sport that involves strong blows to the head could be very risky. According to an article about men’s health, `(t)he American Association of Neurological Surgeons say that 90 percent of boxers sustain a brain injury. Boxing may account for fewer deaths than some other sports but the…boxers suffering brain damage are believed to be much higher than recorded…(W)hen a boxer gets a direct blow to the head it is like being hit by a 12-lb padded, wooden mallet travelling at 20 mph!’”
In-depth research is therefore necessary to make sense of the reality. President Aquino is correct when he mentioned that media reports sometimes have “twisted opinions.” These are obviously caused by some journalists’ failure to deeply analyze issues and concerns. But President Aquino is wrong when he tried to relate twisted opinions to the “badness” of news reports as he persuaded Philippine media to focus more on the so-called good news.
One can understand that President Aquino only wants to project a positive image of the country, especially in the international community. But he should also understand that media’s role is to report social reality.
If all is not well in the national front (and empirical data prove that this is the case), journalists are duty-bound to report issues even if these are not favorable to those in power. And if journalists take their jobs more seriously, they would deeply analyze an issue to the point where the public would not anymore see the “goodness” and “badness” of it and appreciate instead the objective qualifications of contradictions and context.