N.B. – A law student from the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman interviewed me via email regarding the fundamentals of journalism, blogging, press freedom and the law. For brevity of this post, I deleted the follow-up questions and highlighted only the 10 major questions. The lengthy answers I emailed to the student are posted as is.
In the Philippines, how do journalists define the term “journalist”? Is it different from how the term is defined by the international community?
Various local and international books (e.g., Teodoro, McQuail) already provide definitions of journalism and who is a journalist. What they have in common is that a journalist is essentially a person who covers issues either as a member of a news media organization or a freelancer. Yes, the United Nations and other international organizations (e.g., Committee to Protect Journaists) also have their own definition of journalist but these are not substantially different from the generally accepted view that he or she engages in reportage and is involved in the production of news.
How does one become a “journalist” in the Philippines?
Unlike other professions, a journalist does not require licensure examination or even a college degree though accreditation is sometimes required for coverage at a certain beat or at a specific event (of course, there is also a debate whether or not journalism is a profession, but we digress). In the process, any person can become a journalist and this is expected given that this is an intrinsic part of press freedom. As regards citizen journalism, it should be differentiated from “crowdsourcing” which the dominant media are wont to mistakenly identify as an example of citizen journalism. The latter entails proper training of ordinary citizens in the necessary skills and knowledge in journalism, including the principles and standards especially when it comes to ethics (which is often violated even by some of the more seasoned journalists). While there are no legal impediments to branding a person as a journalist or citizen journalist, adherence to the standards of journalism (especially ethics) is most important. In the final analysis, it is not the legal court but the court of public opinion that will assign “credibility” to the journalist who fulfills the mission of shaping public opinion by providing relevant information. Then again, the assignment of “credibility” may only be possible if the audiences are media literate. In other words, a clear understanding of the nuances of journalism should be achieved not only by those involved in it but also by the audiences it serves.
When can a person rightfully say that s/he is a journalist by profession?
From the standpoint of media ethics, a person is considered a journalist if he or she adheres to the highest standards of the chosen profession. Of course, a generic or pragmatic view would be to include as journalist even the unscrupulous ones like entertainment journalists who also work as talent managers and political reporters who moonlight as public relations consultants of certain politicians. Such undesirable ones are either unaware of the conflict of interest in what they are doing or willing participants in nefarious activities. In the process, ALL of those involved in the delivery of information (including bloggers, columnist-doctors and other opinion writers) are technically considered journalists, whether we like it or not. This is the catch when it comes to press freedom. However, self-regulation could work well in separating the chaff from the grain, so to speak, but only if society has a critical mass for an audience.
In the Philippines, what are the actions done to maintain journalistic standards? Is everything self-regulated?
The running joke in the Philippine mass media is that there is freedom of speech but freedom after speech is another matter. Yes, there exists the constitutional guarantee of press freedom and there are self-regulatory mechanisms like KBP and CMFR. However, journalists and media workers have to deal with the prevailing culture of impunity that results in various forms of harassment and intimidation, including the unabated killings. Impunity clearly tramples upon press freedom as it leaves a chilling effect to journalists, especially those who take their jobs seriously. At present, journalists can be sued for libel by aggrieved parties. However, the libel law has been used and abused by the powers-that-be to harass journalists in a way that would discourage them from producing critical journalistic outputs. This is the reason why self-regulation (or even the most basic of exercising one’s profession) remains ineffective. In other words, the current status quo is not a conducive environment for the practice of journalism.
In your view, is there a need to make a distinction between bloggers/citizen journalists and journalists working for a news company for the purpose of determining whether they are protected by laws which are specifically intended for that profession?
Just like freedom of expression, freedom of the press should be inclusive and not exclusive. The Constitutional guarantee of press freedom applies to all, and there should be no distinction between responsible and irresponsible journalism as far as the law is concerned. The reason is simple: Irresponsibility in journalism is best assessed not by legislation which is mandatory but by code of ethics which is voluntary. Journalistic works that do not pass the highest standards of professionalism should be subject to public criticism, and the authors of such works should consequently end up losing their credibility in the process. Clearly, self-regulation could be used to publicly ostracize those irresponsible and highly regard those responsible. This is the reason why certain moves to legislate professionalism in journalism are being opposed because they weaken instead of strengthen self-regulation in media.
If we are to create a legal standard before a person could invoke the protection of the law accorded to journalists what would that be?
My very short answer to this question is that the definition of journalism (and, in the process, who is a journalist) should not be legislated. Even books about journalism (read Weaver and Willnat, for example) recognize that definitions could change over time and the focus could vary depending on societal circumstances. Again, ALL of those involved in media work should be protected by law although the unethical ones should be exposed in the court of public opinion. Self-regulation should be upheld and there should be no restrictive legislation, or even oppressive laws like the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and the Human Security Act of 2007 which compromise press freedom.
If you think that only the employed journalists should be called journalists because they have editors who check on their work, who checks the editors?
The gatekeeping process in journalism essentially points to the editors (sometimes also the publisher, depending on the workings of the news media organization) as the ones who decide which issues should be highlighted and how they should be framed. As regards who checks the editors, the short answer here would be the public (although effective “check and balance” would entail that the latter be media literate, hence the importance of media education for the audiences).
What is the importance of “citizen bloggers” in the Philippines? Is their role similar to the role of citizen bloggers in the US?
Unlike the US which is highly consumerized and economically developed (though I am using the word “developed” here loosely and may therefore be debatable), Philippine society is plagued by a plethora of social problems (which some political groups collectively describe as a chronic crisis). Given this, bloggers are faced with the Herculean task of helping shape public opinion. Related to the question on who should check the gatekeepers/editors, bloggers could engage in media criticism so that they would have a special role of keeping media in check. As stated, this would entail familiarity with the workings of the profession which media literacy should be able to provide.
In the US, the Supreme Court in the case of Obsidian v Cox ruled that bloggers are journalists only with respect to the First amendment. There was no ruling however whether the bloggers could be regarded as journalists with respect to the shield law. Is the media landscape in the US similar to the media landscape here in the Philippines such that we should also adopt such view? If the media landscape in the US and the Philippines are different, what is the distinction? Are journalists in the Philippines playing the same role as the journalists in the US?
The media terrain in the Philippine is somewhat different in the sense that we have antiquated laws like the Shield Law (aka Sotto Law) which only protects print journalists and still, ironically, excludes broadcast journalists (TV and radio) and online journalists. In my professional opinion, there may be a need to include bloggers although they could already fall under the category of “online journalists.” As stated, not all bloggers can be classified as journalists but this is only when it comes to applying ethical and professional standards. Our laws should be inclusive if we want to fully apply the constitutional guarantee of press freedom.
Right now, our shield law has the qualifying phrase “without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws”. Do you think that there is still a need to differentiate bloggers/citizen journalists from employed journalist when such law could not afford him protection from persecution anyway?
As stated, the weakness of the Shield Law is the fact that it fails to explicitly provide protection to those outside print media. It needs to be inclusive, not exclusive. If bloggers in the process would end up invoking the Shield Law, then so be it. For details, please read my position paper on the Shield Law (https://risingsun.dannyarao.com/2007/12/03/position-paper-on-senate-bills-amending-the-shield-law/).