I had an argument with Darwin earlier over a column by ANC COO Glenda Gloria and I realized I was too petty. I mean, only freaks fight in cyberspace. Ugh. Anyway, I’ve been in the newsroom for almost a month and I’ve been balancing too many things (people, actually) for the last two weeks. I guess I was a little frustrated after reading CMFR’s statement against ABS-CBN’s “lapse” in airing the fraudulent psychiatric documents of Sen. Noynoy.
I honestly don’t want to comment on whether airing it was wrong or right because I’m not an ABS spokesperson nor am I an academician or an ethics guru. The part that surprised me was when CMFR asked ABS to name the source of the document. According to the official statement, the said source breached the contract by providing false papers and therefore, should be identified, not from the party where he came from, but by his name.
My immediate thought was: Para namang walang naging journalist sa CMFR.
How can they ask such a thing? They know there’s a sacred unbroken line between anonymous sources and journalists. They know how seasoned journalists get the inside news through these sources and how one tries to protect her sources in any way she can. They know about black ops groups and spin doctors. They know that in every election, each camp has their own “special operations” team. And they want us to give names?
I mean, huh?
Are we on glue or did we not identify the source as someone from Nacionalista?
It’s probably the reason why I understood Ms Glenda’s article and am trying to understand why it was not clear for Darwin. I remember sitting in my Introduction to Print Journalism four years ago and my professor mentioned the importance of keeping anonymous sources’ identities. I took that lesson seriously and have been trying very hard to earn the trust of my sources. (One of my secret dreams is to get at least one really really really good source in my lifetime as a journalist.)
I experienced exactly what Ms Glenda wrote—sitting enthralled by a source who sounds right and just and clean. I’ve had my share of sources who tell tall tales and who are so convincing the immediate impulse for any newbie would be to write down the piece and please him. But I learned that not all sources tell you the truth. I’ve encountered sources who talk nonsense with the most innocent look and sources who are boring but surprisingly speaks sense.
A personal red flag is when a source tells me after the interview: Tulungan mo naman kami na sabihin ang totoo…
I remember being envious of Criselda’s sources but when she told me to cover the securities and she’ll give me her sources, my immediate impulse was to say No. She was being nice and I was being stiff. She never mentioned it again and I’m thankful.
My colleague KD, another very much affected entity, told me earlier that the email was not only sent to ABS-CBN newsdesk. It was circulated to all media outfit at the same time. If I remember correctly, the issue had been carried out by other groups as well. We just had to break it.
This left me thinking, why ask ABS to name sources and not demand from the others? Is it because we first aired it? Is it because Nacionalista challenged us to give names? Is it because ABS is allegedly pro-Noynoy? Is it because we released an anti-Villar special report earlier?
It doesn’t make sense and I’m probably as befuddled as Darwin. If media outfits can be labeled as biased, can institutions be biased as well?
My point, as I’ve come to realize, is that I feel guilty for blowing up earlier. I usually feel so after such episodes, especially since I’ve been flying off the handle too easily lately. I’m really sorry for being such a mean brat, Darwin. But I’m too bitchy to tell you in person so I’ll just write it here.
Peace tayo! ^_^
No comments:
Post a Comment