Excerpts from the first Genaro Ong lecture, sponsored by the Communication Foundation for Asia, and delivered by the author on July 30, 2010.  

When I started out in journalism 30 years ago as a reporter for Business Day, my publisher, Raul Locsin, embedded in our young reporters’ minds one important value: independence. We were not beholden to anyone. We were neither establishment nor opposition. We were not with the so-called “alternative press” during the benighted years under Ferdinand Marcos. 

We sat from our perch, watched government and other news subjects closely, and performed our job hewing to the highest ethical and journalistic standards. We were not to embellish facts, we were always, always to get all sides to a story. 

We took an adversarial position toward government—within the limits of Marcos’s authoritarian rule. This meant no severe criticism of the First Couple. But everyone else, including the powerful military, was fair game.  

Business Day was unusual. Its owner, Locsin, was solely into newspaper publishing. He had no other businesses. Thus, his commitment to public interest was unfettered. He did not need to promote or protect a shipping company, a fast-food chain, a property company, or a hotel. Neither was he in politics. 

The times, they were different then. Martial law was in full swing but Marcos allowed Business Day to continue to operate because we had a niche audience. He shut down newspapers with wider circulation such as the Manila Times and Manila Chronicle. 

News organizations are shaped by the times they work in, the country’s leaders and the era’s politics. When Benigno Aquino, Jr. was assassinated in August 1983, Business Day expanded its coverage and opened a political section. What used to be a purely business paper followed the country’s politics, from Left to Right.  

Rolling Stone 

In the US, the changes that have taken place in the media are reflected, to a certain extent, by Rolling Stone magazine, founded in the 60s. Then, the milieu was shaped by the Vietnam war, the hippies, a culture of protest. The magazine was described as a “chronicle of the counterculture where a generation of young people went to find political coverage that spoke to their disaffection.”  

Then it became a bit complacent during the Clinton years. Today, it produced a piece that ended the career of a US general, Stanley McChrystal, proof that it is shaking off its complacency and taking an “antagonistic stance” toward the Obama administration.

The magazine’s editor, Jann Wenner, said: “Bush put the country in pretty serious danger. And that kind of got our juices going again.” 

In a way, our juices got us going especially in the last four to five years of the Arroyo administration, marked by bad leadership and bad governance.   

Today, under a new administration led by a hugely popular President, will the press be complacent? It doesn’t seem so.  

But what remain the same, be it under an unpopular or popular leader, are the tenets of journalism and the standards of accuracy, fairness and honesty that cover our work. These never change. Without these tenets, we will lose our credibility. We will lose our reason for being. 

Advocacy? 

Some propose that journalists should be advocates. Advocacy doesn’t necessarily jibe with journalism. Reporters, those who write the news, should not engage in advocacy.  

But opinion writers, those who write editorials and columns, are free to advocate, to take positions on issues and personalities. Magazines which interpret and analyze the news also usually take positions. 

Generally, though, media have their own advocacies: free speech, freedom of information, freedom to assemble, honesty in public service, good governance, speedy justice, strong middle class, an egalitarian society.  

But when it comes to specific issues—whether to increase taxes or not, who to appoint in government positions, promote sex education in schools, adopt an open skies policy, etc.—that’s up to opinion writers and writers of editorials. It is the reporters’ duty to present all sides of these issues. 

Does advocacy mean bias?  

Some say that bias is in the eye of the viewer and the reader. To some extent, this holds true.  

But opinion and editorial writers carry their own convictions based on their life experiences, their exposure to various schools of thought. They share values with certain groups, institutions, and persons. They have like-minded friends.  

All these, however, do not excuse them from the journalistic tenets of being factual, honest, and transparent. 

Disclosure  

Part of honesty and transparency is disclosing where one is coming from. Columnists who are not staff members of newspapers, as a rule, should disclose where they’re connected with. If they write on subjects or issues that may pose a conflict of interest, they should say so and tell the readers, for example, if they themselves or members of their families derive substantial pay from government-owned corporations; or if they work with public relations firms; or if they’re partisan.  

Transparency is important to keep our media environment less toxic.  

Moreover, some public officials who cannot take well-founded criticism or critical reporting based on facts always ascribe motives to journalists. This strong feeling of denial and absence of humility to admit mistakes make it second nature for them to ask: were we paid when we wrote the story? Who put us up to it? Are we on the side of their critics and enemies? 

The unethical practices of some journalists, columnists who accept bribes, favors, junkets in Hong Kong or wherever, are also major factors that contribute to the toxic atmosphere. Without corruption, the media will be more effective in its role as watchdog.   

Courage 

Columnists and opinion writers with strong advocacies and who are clear about where they’re coming from should be ready to take the risks. And the public should engage them in robust debate on the level of facts and ideas.   

In the US, the garage doors of economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, known for his strong liberal views, were at one time, pelted with eggs. According to the New Yorker, Krugmanwrote a brave column after 9/11 arguing that 9/11 was partly self-inflicted because the government had abandoned airport security, which should be a public service, to be paid for by the airlines who did it on the cheap. After this, he received piles of hate mail.  

Krugman replied to his critics: “I won’t try for fake evenhandedness.”   

It takes courage for columnists and opinion writers to stick their necks out and stand on their convictions.  

Challenge 

In his first state-of-the-nation address, President Aquino called on the media to police our own ranks. He intoned: “May you give new meaning to the principles of your vocation: to provide clarity to pressing issues; to be fair and truthful in your reporting, and to raise the level of public discourse.” 

This challenge is long overdue. And we should all welcome it. 

For his part, he has vowed that he and his administration will be transparent.  

At the interior and local governments department, Secretary Jesse Robredo did the unprecedented. The current budget and status of funds of all its agencies have already been posted in the DILG website.  

We hope this is only the beginning and that the sun will fully shine on all the departments, on Congress, and the judiciary.  

If passed, the Freedom of Information bill, pending in Congress, will be a big boost to our hunger for transparency. For many years, the truth has been living in the dark. Let it not die in the dark.