N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (November 23) where I write a column (Subtext).

Many times we hear the argument for cold neutrality. For a journalist to be effective, he or she should not take sides. A journalist allegedly commits a “mortal sin” if he or she were to take a stand on an issue.

There are times, however, when media organizations get away with taking sides but only when it comes to so-called non-issues. A leading broadcast network, for example, currently has a slogan claiming its being biased for the truth and for nation-building (Panig sa Katotohanan, Panig sa Pagbangon ng Bayan). Obviously, no one can argue with that.

Aside from non-issues, media organizations are wont to organize activities that may be considered “harmless advocacies” like tree-planting to save the environment and raising funds for cancer awareness. They are harmless in the sense that there is no public opposition to such causes and they do not confront specific individuals and organizations (especially potential advertisers) for any perceived wrongdoing.

When it comes to issues concerning the media, however, the lines get blurred as journalists get directly affected. When their colleagues get killed in the line of duty, for example, journalists are obviously duty-bound to report the issue. At the same time, however, they are expected to take steps to ensure that this would not happen again.

Their reasons could be personal, political or both – personal in the sense that journalists instinctively (and quite understandably) want to protect their own lives; political in the sense that they want to take a more active role in various campaigns to denounce media killings in particular or uphold press freedom in general. Their reasons, of course, would define their courses of action and the depth of their involvement.

On November 23, 2009, many journalists were faced with the personal-political dichotomy as the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao left a carnage of 58 killed, including two lawyers and 32 journalists and media workers. As words fail to describe the very brutal act of torture and murder in the highest degree, journalists are very much willing to lend their voices in collectively denouncing the crime committed with impunity. They are also taking part in various forms of protests.

The journalists’ demands are clear. They want justice for the victims of the Ampatuan massacre. They demand a stop to the killings. They call for an end to the culture of impunity.

Journalists are now maximizing various arenas of struggle to effect change. Many of them signed the petition for live coverage of the Ampatuan massacre trial which was submitted to the Supreme Court last November 19. Many of them have joined various mass actions in recent days.

Today (November 23) is considered a Global Day of Action as the Philippines commemorates the first year of the Ampatuan massacre. As I write this, the case against the 197 suspects led by the members of the Ampatuan clan proceeds at a snail’s pace as the actual trial is yet to start. Only a handful of the suspects are in police custody and the rest are still at large. There are already witnesses against the suspects who were killed, and there are those who recanted their statements for fear of their lives (although some reports claim that some of them had been bribed).

Journalists, at this point, cannot be blamed if their bias for the victims of the Ampatuan massacre becomes obvious as they join in various forms of protests. Media killings are apparently not “non-issues” and denouncing these acts of violence is hardly a “harmless advocacy.”

But there comes a time when journalists have to confront their enemies as their lives in particular and press freedom in general are threatened by those who want to permanently silence the media.