The public's right to know

In the wake of a House Bill proposing media blackout “on all delicate police and military movements in times of crisis or emergency” the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters sa Pilipinas (KBP) made this statement.

…KBP president Herman Basbaño said the media should not be blamed for airing blow-by-blow coverage of the hostage-taking incident since it is merely performing its duty to keep the public informed.

He maintained that the media cannot be prevented from covering newsworthy events like the hostage-taking the other day since media blackout will be a violation of the public’s right to know. [Manila Bulletin]

The KBP is obviously confused. Or trying to confuse us. There is a difference between satisfying a curiosity and the right to know. The public was curious about the goings-on at the Quirino grandstand but the public could not demand, as a matter of right, that it was entitled to every bit of information about them.

The pubic has a right to know how taxpayers’ money is spent. The public has a right to know every time the government secures a loan because it is the taxpayer who will pay for it. The public has a right to know the details of debates and discussions that go with every proposed bill because laws affect everyone. The public has a right to know the nitty-gritty of every transaction that the government enters into so all documents must be open to public scrutiny. The public can demand, by right, access to the attendance and expenditures records of every public official because it is the public that spends for him.

But the public does not have the right to know anything and everything about everyone and every incident. If it were otherwise, the media can make public reports about a person’s life and justify it by claiming that the public has a right to know — paparazzi style. In that case, no person would enjoy privacy.

So, no, we don’t have a right to know whether this-or-that mayor is really bald and is only wearing a wig or whether he suffers from alipunga or hemorrhoids or already incapable of acquiring an erection. Yet, we are made to believe otherwise by introducing us to the concept of “public property.”

Who do you think came up with the concept that celebrities and public personas are “public property”? If you don’t know it yet, it is glued to mass media’s convoluted interpretation of the public’s right to know. Slavery has been outlawed in every modern society and media still infringe on people’s privacy by claiming they are public property. No person, no matter his public stature, is anyone’s property. But media would have us believe otherwise because if there were no “public property” media would be deprived of a huge chunk of its income. So, digging up dirt and scandal in the private lives of public personalities, justified by their being “public property”, has become the norm.

But does the public have a right to know every step that the police takes in a hostage-taking situation? Is the public entitled, by right, to a blow-by-blow televised account of every movement in a crime scene? What benefits will the public derive from it?

While it may be argued that the public has a right to know how competent or incompetent our police force is, footage of the hostage incident could have been aired at a later time after the crisis had been resolved. But, no. Media, local and foreign, had to go LIVE! Even when everyone knew there was a television in the bus and hostage-taker Mendoza was making the most out of the live broadcast to stay one step ahead of the police.

So why is the KBP harping on the public’s-right-to-know argument? Media want us to side with them because we are their protection against being cordoned off and booted out, depriving networks of extraordinary audience share, ratings spikes and advertising revenue. Media is using the public as an unwitting tool and ally to ensure profitability. It has nothing to do with the intention to feed us with facts — objectively — so that we may be better informed and in a position to make intelligent decisions. Ask yourself: What useful information could we glean from a blow-by-blow account of the Quirino hostage taking incident that can lead to better decisions? Nothing. Except, perhaps, information to decide which gossip and haka-haka to spread, Twitter style.

The KPB wants us to believe that we are being deprived of something if we don’t get those blow-by-blow accounts which, of course, is NOT the same as knowing everything because those blow-by-blow accounts are events as seen through the eyes of a particular reporter, his cameraman and his network. Every observation, even when it is a mistaken observation, becomes part of a report which the public accepts as a factual account. But even a reporter watching a crime scene does not see every angle. Ergo, every observation that he articulates on the air (and, yes, he has to keep talking even when he is merely blubbering incoherently to keep the televiewers glued) can be biased and can lead to the confusion of the public.

No, I won’t feel deprived nor misinformed if there had been no blow-by-blow account of the hostage incident. In the first place, I wasn’t glued to the television or radio. In fact, I didn’t know about the hostage drama until 4.00 o’clock in the afternoon.

In the same manner, I wouldn’t have felt deprived nor sadly uninformed if media did not waste time airing segments on the gowns of the Aquino sisters before Noynoy’s oath-taking. I’m sure that all those segments were produced and aired based on the theory of the public’s right to know.

Get the difference now? Blurring the distinction between the public’s right to know and what the public wants to know? What the public wants to know translates to ratings and profits. By saying it’s the same as the public’s right to know, media ensure that it is untouchable and nothing stands between them and profits. Sometimes, they call it press freedom.