Rappler journalistic ethics: modern or just plain bad? Posted by The Society of Honor on August 3, 2014 · 83 Comments

I will be doing several articles about Philippine media. Philippine media play a huge role in shaping the Philippines. I believe their output too often works against the well-being of the nation. So I figure it is time to push back against the press for contributing to strife and instability.

The Rappler story I will dissect in this blog offended my sense of what is proper in journalism ethics. It is just one article of many that I believe distort the Philippines negatively.

My sense of journalistic ethics was developed during studies to obtain a Masters Degree in Radio and Television Arts at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, including a stint with the Broadcast Standards Department at CBS Television which formed the foundation for my thesis on audience response to television content.

But it could be true, it could be true . . . that I am simply outdated in what I believe to be proper ethical reporting. Maybe today’s reporting has adjusted to the ease and speed of electronic communication and so new standards have come into play. If I have it wrong, please let me know how the new ethics work for the well-being of democracy and the people living under democratic rules.

Journalism ethics around the world

Democracies around the world have crafted a set of ethical principles for their media to follow in reporting the news. Here are two of the most basic principles, in my words:

News reports are to be factually accurate. Opinion is to be relegated to a separate and clearly identified section of the publication or program. Media reporters are to report the news, not insert themselves into the story or influence its outcome.

You can read more about journalism ethics at Wiki [link to Wiki report on journalistic ethics], but I will mainly focus on these two principles.

A Rappler case study

Rappler is a prominent online news publication in the Philippines. It has wide ranging resources including staff reporters, news feeds from around the world, and experts from the field of education, business, law, entertainment, technology, and other topical areas. The publication is timely, topical, broad-ranging and welcomes commentary about the articles in its discussion threads.

The article I will be discussing ran under the News header on July 27, 2014, the day before President Aquino was scheduled to deliver his 2014 State of the Nation Address. The reporter, Ayee Macaraig is a Rappler staff reporter. The article headline read:

“What next for Aquino and Congress”

I would suggest that you read this article before I comment so that you have an independent view about it. [Link to “What next for Aquino and Congress’]

Sources for the report

The following people were cited as sources or quoted within the article:

Benjamin Tolosa Jr, PhD, an associate professor of political science at the Ateneo de Manila University

Gladstone Cuarteros, assistant professor at the De La Salle University political science department

Senate finance committee chairman Francis Escudero and Senator Bam Aquino

Senator Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara

Department of Budget Management Secretary “Butch” Abad

MILF Chief Negotiator Mohagher Iqbal

Senate President Franklin Drilon

Furthermore, 18 other Rappler articles were referenced as the authoritative source of many of the findings reported in this article. Whether they are authoritative sources or opinion pieces is beyond the scope of this blog. I did not link over because it is my guess that readers would generally take the cited information in the subject article as authoritatively correct, and only click on a link if it seemed to be of interest. They would not go through all 18 links.

The main part of the article represents direct quotes from professors Tolosa and Cuarteros as well-read and observant academic authorities on Philippine arrairs, and their quotes are interwoven with references to what the cited government people have said.

The news reporter frames the article with her own comments.

Reporter Macaraig’s framing of the story

The following are a few of the reporter’s comments in the story, along with [my occasionally acerbic response italicized in squared brackets]:

It’s been a year since the pork barrel corruption scandal and one Janet Lim Napoles tarnished Congress with plunder. Next came the furor over the legality of the administration’s spending program, this time putting the presidency under fire. [More accurately, the president is under fire from the corrupt, leftists, political opponents and those who are uninformed by the press as to the benefits DAP gave the Philippines. It is sensationalist to characterize the presidency as broadly under fire when most people support their president. The simple qualifier “by some” or “by critics” is sufficient. Also, to be ethically correct, “alleged” should be inserted in referring to Janet Napoles’ plunder.]

How should a leader claiming to be a reformist president push for his legislative agenda after people’s disgust over patronage politics? [“People’s disgust” is a pejorative conclusion drawn from a separate article; the framing suggests disgust with Mr. Aquino and that is just plain factually wrong. This is common in Filipino news reporting, to leverage emotions with false statements. Again, the simple qualifier “some” or “critics’ disgust” would have made the statement true.]

Post-PDAF and DAP, Rappler takes a look at the challenges for the presidency and Congress in the year ahead, and the lessons from the failure of politics as usual. [The Philippines is a political success story; why does the writer insert an editorial opinion that the Philippines is failing? This is representative of the way the Philippine press persistently goes negative, thereby, in union, undermining the stability of the nation for the sake of jazzing up readership circulation. It is an ethical violation, a form of intellectual corruption.]

The President is bullheaded in his belief that he did no wrong with DAP, a stimulus measure his lieutenants call “innovative governance.” He continues to challenge a Supreme Court ruling declaring key acts under the program unconstitutional. [Ahahahaha. It is factually reported that the President is bull-headed. I presume the author consulted a psychiatrist to garner this fact and merely failed to cite her source. I would add that I personally agree the President is bull-headed, and that is a strength that keeps him from buckling under the pressure of the considerable negativity thrown at him. My synonym to bull-headed is “determined”. Rather like his bull-headed father.]

With Aquino’s unprecedented popularity taking a hit, his second to the last year in office will be grueling, especially in getting Congress’ support with not as much pork to dangle to its members. [“Taking a hit”? “pork to dangle?” Why not just report how much his popularity declined? “Taking a hit” is a loaded expression that suggests the decline was severe, yet the President remains one of the most popular leaders of all time. The idea that the President can’t “dangle pork” is tantamount to suggesting the President can’t get work done unless he bribes people. What a horridly nasty implication.]

Each individual ethical lapse listed here is minor in its own right. But what the sum of the lapses does is shape the article to suggest that this is a presidency in crisis, another case of failed politics caused by a pigheaded leader who dares to confront the Supreme Court (a routine, legally permissible step when there are disagreements), resulting in a collapse of his popularity. And he will struggle because he can’t bribe people.

As written, the article deserves to be moved to the opinion section, for, as news, it “reports” as if the nation were in crisis. It is not. The Philippines is financially, socially, and politically stronger than it has ever been. This can be factually checked by looking at Philippine performance on various global ratings.

The Philippines has a sterling president who is getting opportunistic criticism from specific sectors with axes to grind: political opponents, crooks, leftists AND a sensationalizing press. The President is strong, self-assured, well-motivated, and a capable chief executive.

The professors who provided the context for the report were balanced and circumspect as educators are inclined to be. Their main focus was patronage politics. Rappler became a party to the making of the news by making the President the main subject, distorting the facts and framing them with negative judgments.

Rappler’s “Mood Meter”

Rappler lets readers indicate their “mood” in reaction to all stories. This is done to gain reader engagement with stories and to make the stories more meaningful to all. Unfortunately, it is an “emotional poll” which has no valid statistical foundation for we have no idea if those indicating a mood are representative of readers or the general population. I never indicate a mood, so the mood of readers of my ilk are completely ignored.

The Mood Meter may have influence beyond curiosity as Facebook recently proved with a study about “emotional contagion”. In response to the “mood” of ads, positive or negative, the audience mood also shifts in that direction, positive or negative. How much more so for the content of news reports?

This news report made 31 percent of its readers angry.

Any idea why?

Is Rappler working for truth in presentation or drama?

When readers see a story that makes others angry, we can bet that their own anger will be raised a notch in righteous justification. I think the Mood Meter is actually a mood amplifier, and to the extent that anger or dissatisfaction is the slant on most stories, it actually contributes to the general negative and critical tenor we saw reflected in the article itself.

Perhaps my next study of Rappler will be to understand the mood output better in overall context. But, for sure, disciplined journalists would shriek with horror that editors are using biased reader views as content or output for what should have been a factual report.

And they are in fact making Rappler a part of the news by employing a tool that magnifies emotional engagement.

Back to ethics

We know there has been a gross breakdown in the ethic that news is factual and not opinion both in the US and Philippines. Media outlets such as Fox News start with a political slant (pro-Republican) and many news programs bring in opinionated “experts” to add depth (and emotion?) to the regular dry factual reports. They often pack a bias.

Have we given up on facts and objectivity? Is the new ethic that analysis is itself news?

Electronic media allow quick easy reporting, cheap fact checking, and active discussion. There is sometimes a balance through a variety of different views, and sometimes one view is pronounced.

Have we given up on objectivity in reporting in the belief that reactive opinions eventually form a factual balance on its own?

It seems so . . .

But I think a lot of reporting is simply lazy, unprofessional or pursues agenda rather than high-ethics reporting.

For now I will merely conclude that I think Philippine media are too often a part of the news in the Philippines. Rather like they inserted themselves in the Hong Kong bus massacre to bad ends, they insert themselves daily in a constant grinding down of the Philippines. It is hard to form positive views of the nation and its leaders when so much negativity is mainstreamed in the press.

When ethics erode, we would be advised to be wary and watchful, not get unduly angry, and not form conclusions too quickly.

And we ought to be critical of media when they are not doing their work ethically. They like negative? Here, have some . . .