It is a postulate in journalism that news reports must be factual, and accurate. Towards this end, reporters go through an exacting process of verifying the source of information, and then ascertaining if the information itself is true. Only when these twin requirements are complied with is the information deemed news which may be disseminated to the public.
News dissemination is imbued with public interest. In a functioning democracy, citizens need to know what is taking place in their government and in society. This way, citizens provide themselves with information they need in deciding who should be voted to or voted out of elective public office. That information—news disseminated by the media—also empowers the people to muster enough public opinion to influence the course of public policies. Without that information, popular sovereignty is reduced to a teasing illusion.
Whatever conclusions the public will arrive at about the news they are exposed to is essentially their exclusive concern. Whether the conclusions they make are correct or erroneous is immaterial because at the end of the day the voter decides, correctly or incorrectly, who ought to lead the nation. After all, the Constitution states that all government authority emanates from the people.
That is why it is imperative that the news must be delivered to the public as is, without commentaries or embellishments—so that the public can decide for themselves.
Many people, however, are not contented with just getting the news. They also want to learn about the views of those in media who have the expertise to provide people with a well-considered perspective of the news. This is where the opinion makers step in. Column writers in the print media and commentators in the broadcast media fill that need. This is where facts and opinion can co-exist.
Of course, the cardinal rule in journalism is that opinionated material must never be passed off as news or facts. That is why in newspapers, the news pages are separated from the opinion section. This is also the reason why ethical media practitioners frown on propaganda masquerading as legitimate news.
If unverified or inaccurate information does not qualify as news, with greater reason should fake news be considered unacceptable in the profession. By its nature, fake news isn’t news because it is obviously designed to mislead or deceive the public. The dissemination of information that misleads or deceives the public is not a function of the legitimate news media.
Before the onslaught of social media on cyberspace, not everybody can qualify as a news reporter. To repeat, the news reporter must verify the source of the news, and the authenticity of the news story itself. Anything short of those standards is unacceptable.
In addition, the news story is subject to intense scrutiny by editors, not only for the purpose of verification, authenticity, or even style, but also to see to it that, as much as possible, the story will not breach the ethical standards of the profession, which includes a prohibition against violating the laws on libel, obscenity, privacy, intellectual property, and national security. All that scrutiny may require time, industry, and dedication, but that is what news reporting is all about.
The arrival of social media in the mainstream of Philippine life has altered the media scene in terms of ethical considerations. Suddenly, anybody with a computer, or with access to one, can now disseminate information just by pressing a key on the computer.
Early on, the dissemination of information through cyberspace was confined to private, social chatting about personal and mundane matters. Soon enough, bloggers entered the picture and shared their opinions about anything and everything under the sun to whosoever may care to visit their site. Later on, through networks like Facebook, almost everybody had his own site for disseminating his opinion, valid or otherwise. It didn’t take long before many social media users utilized cyberspace for character assassination. Improvements in mobile phone technology, particularly instant photography, added fuel to the fire.
Almost overnight, social media was awash with unfair and unfounded commentaries which breach every known precept of media ethics which govern the traditional news media. Because the social media can be used through an anonymous name, character assassins and paid hacks found social media an ideal vehicle for destroying people and reputations. Through the social media, users are enticed to say anything they want, and condemn anybody for that matter, even without first ascertaining if their remarks are fair and justified, or not.
An example is provided by the numerous trolls who, before and during the election campaign in 2016, bullied anybody who made a comment on the social media which was not to their liking.
Making secret, unjustifed ill remarks against anybody smacks of treachery and underhandedness, and the sad fact is that the cloak of anonymity provided by social media has encouraged treachery and underhandedness. Certainly, this is not the ideal way of disseminating and exchanging information.
The latest concern in the social media is the proliferation of fake news.
Under ideal circumstances, a person who gets his news from the traditional news media like newspapers, radio, and television will not be easily duped by fake news in the social media, primarily because in a case of conflicting news stories, the traditional news media enjoy the benefit of credibility because of the exacting and demanding requirements imposed on them in the realm of media ethics. Under this arrangement, fake news will have minimal detrimental effect.
Unfortunately, those who obtain their news solely from the social media will be prejudiced immensely by fake news. Because they have no access to the traditional news media, those who are dependent on social media for their news can be easily misled.
The mainstream print and broadcast media recently reported that the National Bureau of Investigation will arrest and prosecute purveyors of fake news. That is good news, indeed, because, for one thing, it did not come from the social media.
