spot_img
28.4 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Without fear or favor

- Advertisement -

By Jonathan De La Cruz

The title of this piece is the ultimate journalist’s credo, as it should be even in this age of fake news. That elegant phrase was culled from a piece written by Adolf S. Ochs in 1896 when he took over The New York Times—the global newspaper of record, as its owners and editors claim it to be. It was Ochs’ battlecry of sorts as he engaged the “…powerful, sensationalistic competitors in the heyday of yellow journalism…” The creed remains an abiding guidepost to this day.

“It will be my earnest aim,” the 38-year-old Ochs said, “…that The New York Times give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form, in language that is parliamentary in good society, and give it as early, if not earlier, than it can be learned through any other reliable medium; to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved; to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

One cannot claim to be a true-blue journalist if he or she breaks this creed. As a reporter, one must report only the facts and nothing else. To be fair and credible, the truism goes, one must stick to the facts and, as much as possible, “get the other side of the story.”

Opinion writing is another matter. Still, writing an opinion piece is no license to fabricate or twist the facts. As the saying goes, one is entitled to one’s opinion but not to one’s own facts. Not even columnists can invent their own facts. To be credible and responsible one must be factual. Not a ‘hearsayer’ or a scriptwriter. Otherwise, one descends into the depths and becomes a ‘calum-nist,’ a muckraker undeserving of a column inch in print. Or even a second in radio or TV or social media.

- Advertisement -

“Without fear or favor” has been my creed in my decades long stint in media.

I intend to keep it that way as I get back into the groove, so to speak, having been out of circulation (at least in print) for almost five years now. So, let’s journey on: Report on the issues of the day and discuss and debate “questions of public importance,” as Ochs advised in 1896.

* * *

What’s the big fuss about the deportation—the airport-to-airport trip as the airline industry calls it—of Giacomo Filibeck, the Italian Deputy Secretary General of the Party of European Socialists? Filibeck was supposed to attend the annual congress of Akbayan—the party-list twin of the Liberal Party which lorded it over in the previous regime—when he was barred from entering the country for having “engaged in partisan political activities.”

As reported, the guy was a member of the seven-man “Human Rights Mission” of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, a political grouping in the European Parliament, which visited Manila last October 2017 and which roundly denounced the Duterte administration’s “bloody war on drugs” even before they could warm their seats. Apart from that, Fillibeck has been identified as an active European conduit of anti-Duterte groups spreading all kinds of unverified information, not only about the administration’s “failings” but the country’s “breakdown as a failed state.” Did he really expect a warm welcome after doing all these things?

Why should any self-respecting nation and government allow entry to people like Fillibeck who parachute into town with a prepared spiel on what’s wrong with the host country and its leaders (except for their partners) and gleefully parade all over the place armed only with their bias and prejudice based on tainted information? Why should we allow ourselves to be treated with such contempt by foreigners whose countries and leaders may even have worse “failings” than us? Fillibeck and his cohorts should know better than whine. After all, the last I heard, we remain a sovereign country with a democratically elected leader and a working system of government. We are not the vassal of any other nation or even a group of nations like the European Union. And, lest Akbayan and the Liberal Party forget, they chorused their approval of the “airport-to-airport trip” of a foreigner engaged in illegal political activities in 2015 even as their critics denounced them as ‘undemocratic and dictatorial.’

* * *

That Pope Francis should be deeply disturbed by the international community’s failure to come up with a common response to the crisis in Syria and other parts of the world comes as no surprise. The Roman Catholic Pontiff has steadfastly denounced the tragic civil war which has resulted in deaths to thousands that left this ancient and living country in ruins. That the war has also engulfed not only Syria’s neighbors but a host of powers competing for influence in the region has only exacerbated the situation.

All people of peace and goodwill should join the Pope and the Catholic faithful in knocking at the global community’s conscience to put an end to this long drawn-out civil war. This includes the likes of Giancomo Fillibert and his cohorts in the European Union and the European Alliance of Socialists.

If, as this group claims, it aims to be in solidarity with all those suffering from human rights abuses and undemocratic governance, perhaps they can now invite themselves to a number of countries, say, Syria or Afghanistan among those in the cusps of devastating civil war and do something to stop the tragedy. Better still, they can proceed to the White House or Buckingham Palace or the Elysee, to denounce the trigger happy, selective response of the occupants of these offices to the protagonists in these civil wars which has only led to more problems and prolonged the sufferings of the masses of civilians caught in the tug-of-war.

Best of all, Fillibeck can encamp in front of the Italian Parliament building in Rome and read out to one and all Pope Francis’ various statements on the human sufferings and devastation in Syria, Afghanistan and, yes, Libya, the former Italian colony, all of which are experiencing the tragic consequences of never ending civil war. He can do all this instead of poking a parachutist’s finger in the Philippines.

* * *

That was indeed a commendable act which President Duterte did in Hong Kong, and I am not just talking about that raucous and hopeful rally-of-sorts with thousands of our kababayans who could hardly move in that jampacked auditorium, nor about the merienda meeting with an OFW resulting in a free round-trip ticket plus vacation for the lucky woman. I am talking about the President’s apology to the Chinese people and the Hong Kong government for that failed Luneta rescue operation which resulted in the death of eight tourists from the region.

I am sure that although it was eight years (and counting) late, the Chinese public and the government wholeheartedly welcomed the President’s gesture. After all, compared with Noynoy’s silence and the almost-contemptuous statements issued by his cohort days after the tragic rescue after some prodding by a lot of people and sectors, this one was done without any prompting and conditions and with such sincerity and empathy that only a Duterte could possibly deliver. It was a class act by any reckoning.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles