The cost of compromise
Welcome back to Slow News Days, a hopefully weekly newsletter on journalism and journalism-adjacent topics in the Philippines. Apologies for the long hiatus, there have not been very many slow news days of late.
—
In the news this week, but not very, was a compromise agreement that the Philippine Daily Inquirer entered into in a libel case related to its series on the ‘pork barrel’ scam.
According to former PDI executive editor Joey Nolasco, who issued a statement on the decision to apologize for stories on supposed payoffs to broadcasters from the Priority Development Assistance Fund and expunge them from the paper’s archives:
Under the terms of the compromise, the PDI management agreed to run an apology to [dzBB broadcaster Melo] Del Prado on the Inquirer front page, expunge from the PDI archives 10 pork barrel stories/sidebars related to his libel complaint, and pay him damages worth P1.5 million in ad space.
There have been statements on how the move, on a libel case that could still be dismissed, sets back press freedom and “a complete departure from the Inquirer’s longstanding journalistic tradition of fearless and courageous reporting”
The Inquirer, though, can defend itself as a company. In all likelihood, top management did the math and decided that whatever fallout (and, really, there hasn’t been much) the move would bring is outweighed by what they would gain from it.
While media can and should correct stories when merited, takedowns and the expungement of content are extreme cases that we shouldn’t get in the habit of doing.
In its State of Philippine Media report on World Press Freedom Day in May, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility warned against “take downs or modifications of original. Self-censorship of the most open kind” and these, when done because of factors external to the story, hurt us in the long run.
I mean that in the sense of media credibility, but more immediately in the sense of actually causing us emotional pain. I get that that there are supposed to be no feelings in the newsroom (nor crying in baseball), but that is simply not true.
Take downs and similar actions basically say that your editorial team was wrong, or worse, malicious when they came out with a certain story. They also sends the message that they may be thrown under the bus if that is the more convenient course of action.
Alternative media network AlterMidya puts it better:
“How can enterprising reporters build the courage to dig deeper and ferret out the truth when they are uncertain if their media organization will support them? To compromise is to chip at the courage that journalists of our times need.”
But perhaps it is verbalized best by a colleague who has had to endure the pain of takedowns of legitimate stories (and the self-doubt and all other attendant emotions from them): “I don't want to experience that grief again that’s why I avoid stories that have a high likelihood of being taken down.”
Neither that story nor that feeling is unique and we have all probably felt that way at some point.
There is a cost to quick fixes and compromises. And, as is usually the case, that cost is paid by the people who literally put their names on the line for a story.
Prinz Magtulis, a former colleague, advises journalists not to hesitate to leave companies that don’t put their people first. That assumes, however, that there are places to go.
Inquirer’s compromise sends the signal to smaller newsroom (with legacies that don’t carry as much weight, possibly) that this is okay, which could mean this could be a policy that they will also adopt if they haven’t already.
An alternative, although one that also promises to be more frustrating and spirit-crushing, is to push back when and where we can for what editorial freedom we still have.
—
Metro Manila is back on Enhanced Community Quarantine, implementation of which has come with more confusion than clarity. Rappler’s Jairo Bolledo has this explainer on the PNP’s “tiny bubbles” innovation.
Meanwhile, members of the House want hearings on being blocked by Facebook for again touting Ivermectin as a COVID-19 cure, and into the qualifications of the OCTA Research think tank for, among other things, declaring a “surge” in Metro Manila even when government experts say there is only a rise in cases.
All while the president’s weekly late-night rambles contribute to a mix of panic and anxiety over vaccinations and whether the unvaccinated will be allowed to go out during ECQ. Rumors that only vaccinated people will receive financial aid have not helped either.