Virtually anyone with a camera, a pen and a paper and access to even the smallest mechanism of publication can go right into the thick of things, risk his/her life and equipment, and swarm about the unfolding news event without heed for authorities. At the same instance that something does happen to these people who purport themselves the bastion of media and public interest, cry foul and allege multifarious human rights violation, the usual press freedom rhetoric, against the government, who after all, is just doing its job of serving and upholding the rule of law.
I find it disturbing that the so-called journalists, presumably operating at the highest standards of fair-play and objectivity, can scurry about the battlezone and for heaven’s sake, expect that the natural operations of police enforcement should fold before them in their favor. As if we were likely to believe that their stupid cameras, phones or whatever contraption of theirs given to vile abuse, grant them the special and absolute permission to do whatever they please for the sake of earning the buck for news.
I’ve been editor of our school’s newspaper for four years, and I know how it’s like to scramble for newsworthy items and the serious risks involved; concomitant to their delivery for the public to read and understand. However, indeed quite in contrast to the media we have now, those four years I’ve devoted to gathering the material and information to publish in paper were years of discovering creative and efficient ways to get the news without having to resort to ambush interviews, overstepping the legal limits and even being so desperate as to fake allegiance and support to an erring group of protesters just so the inside scoop can be had.
The real mark of a great journalist is his ability to position himself in the best vantage point, preferrably out of harm’s way, where he can snipe the important information and sift through the the useless and impertinent issues for a more substantial reportage. Where’s the panache and fluidity of style if the reporter himself, who after finding himself in the crossfire, can only tell things at close range, blinded by the smoke and gunfire and nothing more.
Take for example the recent radio coverage of November 29’s rebellion in Makati. If memory serves, here’s a snippet of the poor reporter who got himself in a mess while covering the siege:
Reporter: O nandito na ako sa harap ng hotel. May naririnig na akong putukan, ayun, pinasok na nga ang entrance ng hotel. May mga military men na naka gas-mask. May mga putukan pa, sunod-sunod. Halos twenty rounds na ang binitawan ng mga pulis. … bakit mo ako tinutulak? wag mo akong itulak nasa ere ako. Tumabi kayo dyan. Teka, may paparaan na kotse (honking of car), teka teka.
Oh come on! Since when were basketball commentators allowed to cover something as grave and serious? Why inundate the public with bullshit and nonsense, I would say! And would you please shut up.
I guess that the fly on the wall metaphor doesn’t attach well in the embarassment they call the exercise of press freedom. I am inclined to think that their propensity to sensationalize makes them nothing more than mosquitoes–carriers of disposable and pernicious diseases. I bet if they were subjected to a rigorous competence exam, most of them, if not all, would be swatted down for having IQs registering at the range below sea-level.