Reaction from the panel

Mr. Rey Hulog, KBP executive director, said that the media sector has been examining its social role and what it could do after September 11, 2001. New questions had been raised on media's role and it is time for practitioners to examine what they are doing and clarify their understanding of what terrorism is and how they report it. Insights shared and gathered will be used to enrich the training programs that KBP will soon sponsor for the practitioners. Mr. Hulog asked the panelists to react to six key questions, after which the other participants can react.

On the definition of terrorism

Dr. Clarita R. Carlos, UP political science professor and former president of the National Defense College of the Philippines, said that there is no definition of terrorism. There are a lot of definitions as there are interpreting bookwriters. Terrorism is defined by whoever has the power to define, and the powerless are defined by the powerful. Palestinian rebels are defined as "terrorists" acting against the security of Israel. In defining terrorism, you may be following the agenda of whomever whose interests are being advanced is using that term.

How does definition of terrorism affect the way media reports?

Dr. Carlos said that paying attention to history is not everything, but it is important. Dr. Carlos noted that the Philippine media has not paid attention to the dynamics of Saddam Hussein, and Iraq's linkages to the Philippines. Philippine media has not even mentioned that Iraq once upheld Philippine sovereignty in refusing to recognize the bid of the Moro National Liberation Front to be granted a seat at the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Do media distinguish certain events or acts as "terrorism" or "terrorist"?

Ms. Luchie Cruz Valdez, vice-president for news of ABS-CBN, said that media practitioners have to bring the issue down to the protagonists involved. If the victims are innocent civilians and if perpetrators are armed groups, media practitioners usually view that as a "terrorist" act, but we never label the act as "terrorist"- it is the establishment that does that. This practice also protects the practitioner from being charged with editorializing.

Does this view affect the way news is being reported?

Ms. Melinda Quintos de Jesus, executive director of the media study group Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and Businessworld columnist, said that it is good for media not to use the label to any one group involved in any act of violence. But in terms of preparing oneself for any act of journalism, a practitioner should have a framework of understanding to achieve conceptual clarity when the terms are actually used, lest he or she become vulnerable to misrepresenting the phenomenon being reported. The practitioners should refrain form the use of the terms and see the context for their use. A "terrorist tactic" is used not necessarily only be the terrorist. With a conceptual framework, a practitioner can become more careful on what to include in his or her report.

Is it important to make a distinction between international and local events related to terrorism?

Following up her earlier discussion, Ms. Quintos de Jesus made a follow-up remark, sharing the results of a survey CMFR conducted. She said that there's very little knowledge shared in the local media of other terrorists in the Asia-Pacific Region, while international news have already reported that four Southeast Asian countries are now branded as "capitals" of terrorist groups. If you look at local print reports, the local media has concentrated on the Abu Sayaff, and terrorism reports were treated as crime stories. The military and police were referred for credentialed, authoritative analysis. The public now seems to use "terrorism" to describe just any kind of violence.

Mr. Howie Severino, news producer of GMA-7, said that as an unintended consequence of this practice, is to brand any group opposed to government as "terrorist". One popular definition of terrorism is violent action against civilians by any group or individual to further political objectives. But any group like the Abu Sayaff that kidnaps and often kills tourists, missionaries and farmers is called a "terrorist" organization by both the Philippines and the American governments. This only helps legitimize the Abu Sayaff by making people assume they have a political objective. But the group's political moorings had already been lost when their leader Abdurajak Janjalani was killed, after which the group went into kidnapping civilians. But the way they are reported on by the local media seems to imply that there has been no change to their political orientation. The use of the word "terrorist" would even serve to dignify what the Abu Sayaff is doing - kidnapping innocent civilians for ransom. No one, on the other hand, could say that the 9/11 hijackers did it to fatten their bank accounts. There was clearly a political objective, which is not the case with the Abu Sayaff whose members had not gone on any suicide mission. Some acts of terrorism can glamorize a group which is simply a "criminal gang".

Dr. Carlos said that if we look at the history of terrorism and its indicators, a terrorist act always has the factor of premeditation, heinousness of the act involving civilians and major damages, and media involvement. Media is always an integral component of terrorism - if it is not reported, a terrorist act simply becomes a criminal act.

Does the motivation of the group matter in defining an act as "terrorist"?

Dr. Carlos said that in the past, groups committing so-called terrorist acts had political objectives. Now, virtually all groups use the same tactics. Dr. Carlos expressed difficulty in giving a blanket conclusion, and said that this had to be considered on a case-to-case basis, depending on which specific group is referred to.

Atty. Rudolph Jularbal, KBP director, said that the motivation of the group committing terrorist acts is crucial in defining if it is a "terrorist"group or not. Abu Sayaff lacks a political orientation, which makes it closer to being branded as a "terrorist" group, and farther from being considered as a "separatist" group, with a right to self-determination under the UN Charter. Once an organization is branded as "terrorist" and recognized as such by any country in the world, they can be pursued by any country as such in the Philippines, as provided for by international law. Atty. Jularbal put forward his suggestion that any terrorist organization should have no political orientation.

Ms. Cruz-Valdez clarified if the participants were expected to define "terrorism" and tag what is a "terrorist group", since she believes that it is not the journalist's duty to tag a group as terrorist or not terrorist. A journalist's role is only to report, and if some other person tags the act as "terrorist", that is beyond the journalist's responsibility.

Does the media practitioner have a clear idea of how to use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist"?

Ms. Cruz-Valdes said that journalists are careful in using these terms, and that these terms are only applied to the act referred to, not the individuals or groups committing the act. A "terrorist act" is perpetrated against innocent civilians by an armed group with a cause. Regardless of the cause, media practitioners can label an act as "terrorist". Mr. Howie Severino expressed agreement with what Ms. Cruz-Valdez said.

Ms. Quintos de Jesus said that she worries more about what this practice does to the public mind, rather than what law enforcement agencies will do and what international agencies that have authority to run after these groups will do. Basically, they don't base what they do on what the media reports. Media practitioners should not worry about the implications of reports, except in what they create in the public mind. Running after terrorist groups is the responsibility of other groups.

Mr. Melo Acuna, station manager of Radio Veritas, noted that the term "domestic terrorism" is a concoction of the media and the police. Citing his own experience as a Bicol-based media practitioner in the past, Mr. Acuna said they just used the terms "communist guerrillas". The problem is that there are people in government who bribe ("give talent fees") journalists to label people, according to Mr. Acuna. We should also look behind and identify these people who further confound the issues. Groups with a political agenda can be labeled as "separatist" or "insurgents". Radio Veritas considers the Abu Sayaff then and now as "bandits". But practitioners are more careful in labeling the Communist Party of the Philippines or the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and some journalists are now in the watchlist of the Philippine Army.

Mr. Hulog clarified that the aim of the forum was to establish how media practitioners look at the phenomenon of terrorism and how it is reported.

Dr. Carlos warned that the Filipinos got the propensity to label certain acts as "terrorist" from the Americans. Part of this is the labeling of what is "domestic terrorism" from "international terrorism". A terrorist act is a terrorist act, regardless of where it happens. International terrorist networks simply extend their operations beyond national borders.

According to Dr. Carlos, it doesn't help to label a group as "domestic:" or "international" terrorist" group. But this has legal and political implications. We now have the International Criminal Court, and directives from the US President which indicate that when a certain group is labeled as "terrorist", the US can come in.

If you look at the history of the use of the label "terrorist", it started as a political label for those against the State, reminded Dr. Carlos.

Mr. Andy Vital, news director of DZRH, said that most media practitioners do not like to use the term "terrorist" since it is a loaded term. Media practitioners should just stick to the facts. Government institutions have not come out with definitions of "terrorism" and media practitioners should help educate the institutions on what the real problem is, while being careful not to be used as tools of terrorists.

Do you think local media coverage on the conflict in the South is enough and useful? Does it help to determine options for resolution of this conflict?

Mr. Jose Pavia, executive director of the Philippine Press Institute, said that media practitioners confront the question on what to give the people: what they want to read or what they ought to know. The community press reports on what is existing or happening, but there are pressures from the audience. Media responsibilities do not change and remain constant all the time.

Ms. Maritess Vitug, editor-in-chief of Newsbreak magazine, said that a lot remains unwritten in Mindanao. A report may be 800-900 words long, but most reports on Mindanao lack context. In the case of siege of Buliok, Pikit, a lot of incidents have already transpired, but a lot of things have not been indicated in most media reports such as the background. Conflict reports need a lot of nuance, and there is need for editors to assist their reporters in this case.

Mr. Lacuna of RPN 9, said that the local media is not the most enlightened sector to help government resolve conflict. Media itself is in the dark on who is the real enemy of this country. A lot of military leaders have their own agenda, at the expense of national security. No one in the higher authority is helping media resolve conflict. Media itself is being used and manipulated by several sectors, and the dilemma over the sue of the word "terrorist" is a way of putting media in a corner in a way that they cannot respond effectively to enlighten people.

Ms. Quintos de Jesus said that based on CMFR reviews, media sources have been limited to the military, and few other voices have been reported on. The credentialed source is always taken to be the military. But the situation in Mindanao requires that other sources be considered to establish context, otherwise the only source option is only the military. Media tends to show only the military analysis. If you don't bring in the voices of the women, children, civil society and the Muslim non-combatants, the only picture you get is that the Muslims are just trouble-makers. There is need of greater sourcing. A practitioner can bring in voices from other government agencies. Editors should be tracking even the little stories.

Mr. Howie Severino said that in the case of the Abu Sayaff, people tend to think that it just came into the picture. Yet in the US press are found very graphic stories of poverty in Basilan, which can explain why the US military is putting resources to build waterwells in Basilan. Yet, local media does not even highlight the people's needs, and just focus on the battles ("sabong").

Ms. Luchie Cruz-Valdez said that ABS-CBN does not presume it knows how it is measured by its audience. But a lot of current affairs have cropped up, and competition is helping bring out the best among the media practitioners. Hence, most media practitioners feel that they are not amiss in integrating "context" in their stories. She, however, admits to certain tendency for sensationalism in the local media.

What is not being reported in the media? Does local media provide context?

Mr. Butch S. Canoy, vice-president of Radio Mindanao Network, said that like in a basketball game, media practitioners find it easier just to monitor the score, rather than provide a second-by-second reporting of the "game" so to speak. Media has been used by all sides, even by the Abu Sayaff, or the military sector which had suggested some kind of martial law on media reporting where it concerns Mindanao. Even the rebels call the media "conduits of the government".

He shared that President Macapagal-Arroyo had once asked RMN why it allowed the Abu Sayaff to go on the air, and RMN simply answered it wanted to know if the hostages were still alive. After the Abu Sayaff stepped up its kidnapping operations, RMN decided to call off any further coverage of the Abu Sayaff by their network. They have also decided not to use any information provided by this group.

Mr. Canoy said that media has always been the favorite whipping boy of various powerful sectors. As for defining terrorism, this is very hard since anything that can inflict pain can be called "terrorism".

Dr. Carlos explained that media is very important in seeking scientific explanations as media represents the first slice of history. There is always a place for in-depth, contextual analysis or reporting, which could be done in special investigative programs by media, or done at a much later time by social scientists. Whenever social scientists do research, they look at the archives provided by the media in part. Both media and social scientists are storytellers. The divide comes in the phase of critical research, engaged in by those who want to reform society. Media can do these two functions. There is no such thing as pure objectivity. Truth is consensually arrived at by the relevant sectors. Media is the shaper of people's minds, and helps us confront issues of social construction, which the military also confronts.

What should be reported, but is not being reported?

Ms. Quintos-de Jesus said that what might be missing in the usual reportage are the voices of those not involved in the combat, the effects of violent incidents on the people involved, and the process of empowerment of the afflicted, such as how they are rebuilding families and communities, or coping as refugees.

Modern media provides for limited time, but practitioners can still provide context in our reports and be more sensitive to the effects of what comes out in the media.

Ms. Cruz-Valdez said that while media does tend to sensationalize, media practitioners do try to get all sides and contextualize their stories. The observed limitations of context are more in the first salvo of materials, but in subsequent reports, there's more analysis and context.

Mr. Andy Vital said that sometimes, media limitations are due to the news sources used. In the case of the Davao bombing, one of his sources had remarked that it should not be taken as a basis for declaring martial law in Mindanao, even while the source did not mention anything at all about the victims.

Mr. Melo Acuna said that media should now try to enrich their sources of news. For instance, media should now consider the Office of the Press Secretary as a news source.

Ms. Hetty Alburitas, project coordinator of People's Media Center, remarked that media puts up with a lot of pressure, and among others, should also now educate its news sources.

Are balance and fairness important in reporting?

Dr. Carlos said that judgment on this has to be made on an individual level. In Vietnam, media was commandeered to report everything from the perspective of the Americans. Later, more critical practitioners like David Halberstam came in.

Ms. Cruz-Valdez said that to achieve balance, media has devised certain mechanisms like phone interviews on cam. At the same time, it has agreed to refrain from any further reporting on the Abu Sayaff.

Concerning the Abu Sayaff beheadings, she said that the events caught on camera happened eight months earlier, and had already made the rounds of military offices. It took time for the media to use this material.

Mr. Melo Acuna said that media, in fact, create more enemies by reporting on the sentiments of all sides, and hence is more silent on the more salient national security issues, rather than get certain personalities to talk about it.

Mr. Lacuna said that a dilemma now poses itself before media - has the media now diminished the right to talk of these groups such that media practitioners need not seek them out? Mr. Hulog agrees that if certain groups do not get interviewed, media cannot achieve a balance in its reporting.

Ms. Quintos de Jesus said that journalism is an edited process - the problem is when there is already a portrayal of heroes, and when they are glamorized. Fairness and news balance should not be taken as variables against national security, but media practitioners should be careful not to reveal anything that can endanger any of the involved parties.

Dr. Soliven said that current practitioners do not attempt to explain the context of the situation and the psychology of parties. Muslim intellectuals, for one thing, do not even get interviewed on television.

Should media make a conscious effort to provide fair and balanced coverage?

Ms. Cruz Valdez said that, in fact, there should be a law that will mandate the airing of incisive public affairs shows on prime time.

Dr. Carlos said that media preference is also class-based. In a survey conducted on American TV, those watching Jay Leno-type of shows have lower educational attainment, while those watching Ted Koppel-type shows have higher educational attainment.

Mr. Severino said that incisive news in prime time programming is a gamble for broadcasters. Filipino TV watchers do not like to watch documentaries, but Eyewitness had survived for years now at the 11:30 pm time slot.

Ms. Cruz-Valdez said that ABS-CBN gambled on the Early Edition series at 5:30 pm for sometime, but it did not last.

Atty. Jularbal inquired if the participants think that broadcasters should now give so-called terrorists equal opportunity to be aired, considering their anti-establishment objectives.

Atty. Adrian Sison, anchorperson of DWBR and a media consultant, said that though his radio station is government-owned, it is now giving time for Muslims to get their own air time. Even the extremists should be given their own air time to express their views.

Summing-up

Mr. Ramon R. Tuazon, AIJC vice president, provided the summing -up. He said that there was consensus that practitioners should be cautious in, and better refrain from, using the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism". If such terms were used, it should be because the news sources used them. A lot of stories remain missing from the mainstream media, such as efforts to win peace, perspectives from non-traditional news sources, impact of war and terrorism. Practitioners need a sound framework to have conceptual clarity. They also need to get intelligent and credible sources. Broadcasters should now gamble on putting public affairs shows on television prime time. To sum up the state of media practice today, Mr. Tuazon said that now "is the best and worst time to be a journalist".

Closing Remarks

Mr. Ruperto Nicdao, KBP vice-president for radio and president of the Manila Broadcasting Corporation, thanked the participants in his closing remarks, saying that all participants have a common vision and mission, and share the objective of making the Philippines a better place to live in through a responsible media.