An Analytical Report

SUPPRESSING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?

Photo from: media.worldbulletin.net

The media has a very significant role in relaying information to the public. Newsmen or other correspondents should write an article that is based on proof or evidence, not on simply a presumption or a guess. In terms of radio or television broadcast, the network should at least make an unbiased judgment on a sensitive news item. If the news speaks about two disinterested individuals, the media should at least get both sides of the story for the purpose of impartiality.

It is sad to say that sometimes, this is not really the case. The freedom of the press is sometimes hindered by political influence, including but not limited to the exercise of reserved powers by the President of the country. A sensitive news item like a group massacre or a murder of a prominent social figure can be hidden from the eyes and ears of the public through a news blackout.

So, what does a news blackout mean? By careful analysis, it happens when a partial report has been aired already and has gained a lot of negative reactions from the people. To avoid civil disobedience or social turmoil from happening, a follow-up news item is restrained from being reported live on television or printed on newspapers and tabloids in order not to aggravate the current situation.

In another perspective, a news blackout could also take place given the following situations. If the person involved in a mass killing is known to be an elected official, a governor, for example, the government has the right to stop the news from spreading because it might affect the image of the current national government. People will start making inquiries on why such a thing happened, despite the fact that there are specific agencies assigned to look after the welfare of the people involved. A concrete example is the Maguindanao Massacre. A lot of newsmen, including innocent civilians, were ambushed, double killed and buried alive together with their vehicles in the province of Maguindanao, located in the island of Mindanao in the Republic of the Philippines. A lot of sympathies had been extended to the grieving families who had lost a husband, a wife and a lot of kids in that very mournful morning of November 23, 2009.

It is, in fact, the cruelest and the most violent and bloody event, allegedly involving the Ampatuan family, a prominent Muslim political clan of the said province. Up to this time, the alleged perpetrators of the massacre have not yet been sentenced to the crime they have committed. Prior to being inquested in court, the mayor of the said province, who is one of those closely involved, has very little to say about the incident. There was no regret or remorse at all because you could see him smiling on television, despite the fact that it’s really very obvious that he was directly involved because the heavy equipment used in the digging of the mass graves bear the name Municipality of Ampatuan, Province of Maguindanao.

It is very clear that if a prominent political figure or a rich individual is involved with such a heinous crime, justice is not served immediately, to the frustration and disappointment of the bereaved families. Suffice it to say that because justice was not yet served, there might be some whitewash or manipulations going on. Living in a democratic country has a lot of things to offer. Aside from the bereaved families crying for justice, those that were directly involved could just pay or bribe other individuals to make a confession to the crime, leaving those directly involved smiling with their hearts out.

The love of money is indeed the root cause of all evil. Other media personalities, especially those bearing a low profile can be used and manipulated by influential families to write and publish news that is in one way or the other, favorable to these silent but deadly criminals. In this case, those that are sincerely working to search for the truth, in order to give a balanced and fearless information suffer from a tarnished image, making them generally media practitioners with questionable characters and irreputable individuals.

These foregoing situations tell us that the freedom of the press is abused and misused by other mediamen. On the other hand, freedom of speech and choice is but an obsolete option because there are existing barriers and hindrances to keep the truth from coming out directly to the eyes and ears of the general population. We could say that the relationship of the media and the people are blocked by the walls of fear or doubt because, in the event that a witness comes out in the open, he will be directly placed under a witness protection program. In this case, the government tries to protect the person because he is carrying some vital information relative to the solving of a case.