A press card is not an all-access pass

It all started with lawyer Trixie Cruz Angeles, the choice of President-elect Bongbong Marcos for press secretary. I am not sure if Atty. Angeles meant it as a promise or just an idea she floated. But what has raised the hackles of many in mainstream media is that under the administration of BBM, bloggers and vloggers might get accreditation to cover Malacañang press briefings.

In 1992, I, along with 16 other mid-level editors from as many different countries (I was the Philippine representative) participated in a month-long program called "Print Journalism in the USA," a Fulbright-funded project administered by the United States Information Agency under its International Visitor Program. In the Washington D.C. leg of the program we were made to observe State Department and Pentagon pressers.

Observe. That was the operative word. We were asked to wear our respective press IDs to identify us as visiting foreign journalists as well as our accreditation passes that got us into the building and the press room. But that was as far as we got. The great United States of America, the bastion of freedom and democracy, would not let us join and ask questions.

At the time, bloggers and vloggers have not yet been invented as words. There was as yet no social media even. In effect, we were all mainstream journalists inside those rooms. But while we had press cards and accreditation passes to let us be physically present, we did not have the accreditation to articulate our presence. In other words, everything is in the hands of the host, or whoever gives out accreditation.

What I am trying to say is, even if it had been a Rappler representative who had been in those press rooms in the great United States, or an ANC anchor, or Inquirer editor, no amount of press card waving would have allowed them to ask one lousy question if their accreditation says, no questions, just watch and learn. For it is all up to whoever gives the accreditation. If Malacañang says it will, who is anyone to say don't or why?

Many in mainstream media resist the idea because they consider bloggers and vloggers as not real journalists. But who is to truly define who is and who isn't. As a "mainstream" media person of 40 years’ experience, one industry joke sticks as a self-deprecating reminder of why we should not be snotty about ourselves: "Pinapabili lang ng suka, pagbalik reporter na." Not very flattering versus a lawyer on socmed, I think.

I have sidelined for Reuters for 17 years and was the only card-bearing stringer in Cebu among many working for foreign news organizations. On the back of my Reuters press card was written: "This ID is issued to assist the bearer in the performance of his/her duties as representative of the press. Any courtesy accorded him/her is truly appreciated." No self-righteous claim or self-important entitlement there.

A bit of history trivia about Reuters. This great, well-respected news organization was founded in 1850 by Paul Reuter as a homing pigeon news service. If, to a certain extent, pigeons once served as, well "journalists" of sorts, then I guess this should help us all understand why we are who we are and what drives us to be so passionate about what we do.

As for me, journalism is best defined by the times in which it operates or practiced. Many in mainstream media define themselves in terms of how things were ages back, in definitions that never imagined mediums would be on the fingertips or palms of everyone. So I have no issue about the Malacañang plan. Except, of course, on who and how many to accredit. Unless they move the pressers from Malacañang to MOA.