Information, rights, life as commodities: ABS-CBN interview with Commander Bravo

Below is an interview by Jorge Cariño of ABS-CBN with Abdurahman Macapaar alias Kumander Bravo, the leader of a break-away group of (Moro Islamic Liberation Front MILF). The MILF leader has a bounty of 10 million pesos for his whereabouts:

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez however is set to file a complaint against ABS-CBN’s airing of an exclusive interview with wanted Moro rebel leader Kumander Bravo before the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) to determine if the interview, aired on October 20 and 21, 2008, violated the 2007 Broadcast Code.

Gonzales left it to the KBP to determine if there’s a violation, adding that ABS-CBN could be sanctioned for airing the interview with Bravo without editing its propaganda content against the government.

Gonzalez said Bravo, who has a P10-million bounty on his head, clearly used the Lopez-owned television network to disparage the government and to encourage subversive acts, which he said is a stark violation of Article 21 of the Broadcast Code.

According to Article 21 of the Code:

“broadcast facilities shall not be used or be allowed to be used for advocating the overthrow of government by force of violence. Broadcast materials that tend to incite, treason, sedition, rebellion, or create civil disturbance is prohibited.”

The Justice chief said the interview shows Bravo as “actually challenging the President.” He added that speeches or any actions that will incite any person to violence or anti-social behavior is prohibited. The interview, according to him only made Bravo “greater than life.”

Gonzalez said one of the sanctions that can be meted on ABS-CBN is a possible review of its franchise to operate. He also said that news reporter, Jorge Cariño, who went to Central Mindanao to interview Bravo, may be invited for questioning.

The Philippine Constitution defines sedition as covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power.

Here we are faced with a tough choice whether the public’s right to know is to be given more weight than national security. Although it is still yet to be determined whether the interview was seditious in nature, the pressing question now is Was it necessary for the interview to be aired or for the statements of Kumander Bravo such as “magkaubusan tayo ng lahi,” “sa amin ang Mindanao, wala kayong karapatan sa Mindanao” be retained?

In the Philippines where there is a very competitive environment for media to operate, exclusive scoops differentiate and keep one media company ahead of its competitors. This explains why some reporters got kidnapped, caught between crossfire, or have their lives imperiled – all in the name of exclusivity.

And this interview with Kumander Bravo is nothing peculiar. No matter how Maria Ressa, Head of News of ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs Department, defends the station’s ground by saying that it’s all because of the network’s responsibility to report only the truth, the truth is, it’s not just about truth.

For ABS-CBN, the profile of Kumander Bravo, an exclusive interview with him, and the corresponding high ratings for its prime time news program TV Patrol World are all it takes to sacrifice the country’s national security.

Although there was no direct part of the interview that calls for the people to rebel against the government, the statement made by Bravo gave the public an idea of the vulnerability of the events in Mindanao and the military’s inability to contain the rebellion. Moreover these statements made by Bravo, aided by ABS-CBN, only strengthen the resolve of other other insurgent groups to take arms against the current administration thereby endangering the national security. Insurgent groups will can anytime use media to their advantage. These media, after all, will do anything just to be the first, the fastest, the one with an exclusive scoop.

The network should have at least edited some portions of the interview showing Kumander Bravo challenging the government. For after all it was just about informing the public about the rebels’ reaction to the government’s action of doing away with an agreement with the rebels those direct statements by Bravo mentioned above were unnecessary. These heated statements added nothing to the debate but sheer drama. Drama that ordinary viewing public looks for. Networks in the Philippines see to it that their primetime news wet the viewers’ appetite for the melodrama of their soap operas. I call that profit maximization.

A leader of the a rebel group with a bounty of 10 million pesos still at large being interviewed by a national broadcast company challenging the government on an all out war is bound to be seditious.

This issue of not granting Muslim Mindanao their ancestral domain, the government’s backing out from the MOA in a very un-gentlemanly manner, the media’s way of coverage all have created a dangerous bouillabaisse just waiting to spew poison that this country might have a hard time swallowing. The media, instead of forwarding their agenda, must be more responsible in their reportage. They should be covering the news conscientiously, trying to look into whether an absolutley free press will work in a situation such as in the Philippines. It’s not about the Philippine press succumbing to a totalitarian doctrine, it is understanding that sometimes truth is not end in itself. Truth is simply a means to create a better end.

Maria Ressa in an interview said that it is the responsibility of journalists to report on people and events that affect public interest because, she reasoned out, the public has the right to know.

However, will the interview benefit the public? In what way? It’s not clear to me on what assumptions did Maria Ressa base her statement. What is clear is that the interview is nothing but a media in a market economy attempting to use the public’s right to information as an excuse to stay ahead in the ratings war.

Everything is a commodity after all: information, rights, life.

KBP Broadcast Code of 2007

12 thoughts on “Information, rights, life as commodities: ABS-CBN interview with Commander Bravo”

  1. Point taken. It was a mistake on my part. Moves to professionalize journalism has been stalled because there is no group of journalists deemed capable of regulating the actions of its members. The KBP code is the nearest we have but like most of codes in the Philippines, they’re failures as regards implementation.

  2. I think that the non-judicial way of sanctioning an erring member of any member of a professional group is better than the judicial way. Although I would say that the parallelism used by John in his latest answer to compare KBP and those other Professional Groups of doctors, medical technologists are OUT OF CONTEXT. This is because the latter groups have been officially recognized by PRC. The lawyers for example cannot practice law without being a member of the BAR, or the doctors of the PMA. But for the media, it is a category of its own. Mostly the sanctions have something to do with economic threats. An example would be what happened to Inday Badiday (buon anima) when the famous slinging by microphone of Divina Valencia on Rey de la Cruz (buon anima). So PANA thought this was not acceptable. And so advertising agencies and companies advertising their products on that show threatened to pull out. So that show, (maybe Eye to Eye or whatever) went off air becaue of nonjudicial sanctions. Environmentalists are now starting to make use of Code of Ethics on certain groups so that violations are meted out with nonjudicial sanctions of the rest of the members which will threaten the erring party with so much economic loss. Althoug KBP really could damage a station with financial sanction, I am not sure whether giant stations like GMA or ABS-CBN could afford to disparagingly laugh at these sanctions

    At any rate, the comparison made by John was erroneous on the groups of doctors. med techs and what have you.

  3. Okay, probably, I failed to state it as clearly as I possibly could. Whatever complaint filed against ABS-CBN, being a member of KBP, like other kinds of professionals who are members of professional organizations such as doctors (PMA, I suppose) or medical technologists (PAMET), are sent to this organization for suspension of membership or whatever sanction there is. This may or may not be with a case filed in court. However, it is also possible to file this directly to court.

    Now, for GMA, the station by virtue of it not being a member of KBP, then there’ll be no reason why the court cannot act on it. I should have defined what I meant by “necessary first step”. These organizations exist to help protect it members, create a guiding principles on the conduct of the profession, and to give sanctions to its erring members if it calls for it. It is a sign of delicadeza on the part of the justice department by calling first the attention of the KBP before engaging on a full blown case filed in court.

    Thanks for the comments, though.

  4. Well, it is not a requirement under the law to go through KBP first on complaints about media. I do not know where you get your info. Assuming that you were right, if anybody had a complaint against GMA, which at this time, is not a member of KBP. So you are saying that you cannot bring to court GMA simply because the KBP step that you imagined is a ‘required step’ was lacking. I think you are dreaming.

  5. Well, it is not a requirement under the law to go through KBP first on complaints about media. I do not know where you get your info. Assuming that you were right, if anybody had a complaint against GMA, which at this time, is not a member of KBP. So you are saying that you cannot bring to court GMA simply because the KBP step that you imagined is a ‘required step’ was lacking. I think you are dreaming.

  6. Although KBP has reputation of dubious character, it is still the necessary first step in filing complaints against media organizations.

  7. Maybe you are right about the unpreparedness of the Filipino people and also on the treatment of the Bravo interview. But the KBP as a tool for policing the broadcast media is a big joke.

  8. Cases such as these are not usually directly sent to the judiciary because professions such as journalism have organizations that look into the ethics and conducts of its member. Only after this has been exhausted that complaints against these professionals are sent to court, that’s as far as I know with regard to broadcast media.

    Now, the right of the public to know is superseded if national security is at stake. And as far as I understood it, the statements of Bravo were seditious, aided by the broadcast of ABS-CBN, making the station an ‘accomplice’.

    But the point I am trying to make here is the irresponsibility of the station to report everything that they deemed dramatic, such as Kumander Bravo’s statements. It’s not going into the real reasons why the break-away group are rebelling. Very shallow reporting cloaked with the motherly statement of defending the viewers’ right to know the truth.

    Truth favors the prepared mind. Unfortunately, the general viewing Filipino public is far from prepared to synthesize reports and sensationalized stories of Philippines journalism.

  9. I am inclined in this case with Maria Ressa. I think that the public has the right to know. If I am not mistaken, interviews of Bin Laden have been aired in the U.S. television, but then I assume that this is indirectly being recorded from foreign t.v. stations and not by an american broadcast station. but i would like to think that the Bin Laden interviews and those of Bravo in the Philippines are not at all dissimilar.

    Although I am not into broadcast journalism, you might have heard of GMA violating one of the codes of the KBP, and the latter I assumed sanctioned the network. All GMA did was to ignore this and totally withdrew its membership from the KBP.

    Also, since the complaints are from no less than the DOJ Secretary, I was wondering why not just lodge a real legal complaint against this to a court of law. My guess is that the complaint will not prosper and so the KBP is one way subjecting the network to an organizational disciplinary entity like the KBP. But then again, GMA showed everybody how they ingnored such ‘independent’ body.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s