Those who defend President Aquino’s scolding of Noli de Castro right at the celebration of TV Patrol’s 25 anniversary say de Castro deserve the tongue-lashing for injecting comments in what otherwise was a straight news program.
The injection of comments into an otherwise straight news program is correct. What must not be lost from the argument, however, is the fact that de Castro could not have done what the president accused him of doing had he not been given implied consent by ABS-CBN owners.
Remember that the Lopezes threw the might of its media empire behind Aquino and would not have hesitated to fire de Castro if it found his actuations to be in conflict with its interests. If it was proper at all for Aquino to bark, he barked up the wrong tree.
But let us go back to the injection of comments into an otherwise straight news story. In journalism, keeping a news story straight is called objectivity. Inject comment into it and it is called editorializing. At its worst, it is called bias.
But the practice is still largely observed only in one sector of the media — print. On radio and television, reporting has evolved much faster toward a blurring of the lines between what used to be called “objective” reporting and what is now “analytical” coverage.
This kind of reporting cannot be helped, both because of the very nature of broadcast, and the availability of technology that allows instant and live interaction between a news anchor in the studio and a news reporter or correspondent on the ground.
What happens in broadcast now, whether on radio or television, is that a news reporter or correspondent is first allowed to deliver the report he has gathered. But in the course of his reporting, the anchor is free to interject questions and ask for clarifications.
As a result, reporters and correspondents are driven to provide analysis, based on their own personal observations. In other words, they are pushed into the realm of comment. That is how the state of the media, particularly broadcast, is today.
As president of the country, Aquino ought to know what the standards and expectations are of his people. Had he been an observant leader, he would have been the first to know that times have changed, even in the media front.
Aquino recently had himself interviewed by CNN. What that suggests is that Aquino holds CNN in very high regard, otherwise he could very well have easily declined. But did Aquino even know that CNN was among the very first to practice this new kind of broadcast journalism.
If he was blissfully unaware of this fact, all Aquino has to do is tune in to CNN so he can see for himself that its live reporting almost always includes analysis and comment by the reporter or correspondent.
There are simply new realities in media that Aquino needs to contend with. And if in the course of these realities unfolding he finds himself short shrifted by any one particular story or commentary, he can always seek refuge behind his built-in three-headed media machinery.
Or he can take comfort in the fact that not everyone on his favorite network is like de Castro. Indeed, de Castro, and to a certain extent Anthony Taberna, are the exceptions. Most of the rest are amarillo.
All things considered, the injection of comments and analysis into broadcast reporting helps provide greater depth and context. And since not everyone may agree with the comments and analysis, a clash of perspectives is provoked, making for a healthy democracy.
In effect, it is good for the president of Asia’s showcase of democracy to encourage debate instead of trying to stifle it. To be sure, not all criticisms are fair and rooted in fact. But that is par for the course when you are the biggest dog in the yard.