Did this columnist commit an ethical lapse by omission?
Believe me, I know what I mean when I talk about disclosure in journalism (real-life, however, is another story). As former editor-in-chief of my college's publication, I was faced with several instances wherein I had to disclose certain affiliations of both myself and my staffers, especially during the student council election campaign.
Why did we deem this simple step necessary? Because we believe in responsibility and accountability, and while safeguards are in place (i.e. the objective and selective assignment of report beats that will not be of conflict for the certain staff), we give value to personal responsibility that goes with self-disclosure an declaring certain affiliations crucial to the nuance of our stories.
Every week, I read the Philippine Daily Inquirer's Sunday Inquirer Magazine, and one of the items I regularly read is Margaux Salcedo's Menu. Normally I enjoy Salcedo's articles, as I love food myself, but one piece left a rather bad taste in my mouth.
Today's piece was entitled "Hail Mary, and Mothers Everywhere" and has a lift-out quote that goes: "Of all the home cooking I have tried, though, there is one that trumps all others: the home cooking from the kitchen of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada."
It can be found here: http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/sim/sim/view/20110430-333875/Hail-Mary-and-Mothers-Everywhere
Yes, Salcedo's piece discusses the former President's culinary tastes in relation to his mother, the late Mary Ejercito, who had a profound influence on Estrada's own cooking.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that except...Salcedo is also Estrada's spokesperson.
Nothing wrong with that, either, except that when you write about the one you work for in a feature article, my journalism training dictates that with all due respect, you have to disclose your affiliation as a nod to ethics and accountability.
Maybe Salcedo no longer holds said position? Maybe she's no longer with Estrada? I dunno--a quick Google search with the keywords "resign" and "quit" proved otherwise. A deeper scouring revealed no indication that Salcedo has broken with Estrada to pursue journalism full-time.
But still, whether currently affiliated or recently resigned, indicating that she speaks for the former President wouldn't be too hard to insert in the article, as my good friend Kim Patria pointed out. I could have inserted it in the lead myself. Doing so would show that Salcedo respects her ongoing working relationship with Estrada even as he uses him as a subject for a feature article.
Why is that said omission so important that I even have to blog about it and point it out?
Because it's all about maintaining a transparent relationship with your readers. As journalists, we all have an obligation to our readers to make absolutely clear the context of our points and assertions--including how we arrived at them. We're talking here about the issues of access, bias, among others.
I'm not perfect; I don't claim to be a know-it-all when it comes to journalism ethics, but only someone who understands that the public deserves better. This field is after all, a public trust, and we owe it to the informed public to evaluate our articles based on how we write them and glean the information we place in them. If they feel that we are duping them, or worse, compromising our integrity as journalists, whether for straight news or features, then there's something wrong, and therefore we must correct.
Comments are highly appreciated and valued. Just kindly identify yourself, and be polite.
Why did we deem this simple step necessary? Because we believe in responsibility and accountability, and while safeguards are in place (i.e. the objective and selective assignment of report beats that will not be of conflict for the certain staff), we give value to personal responsibility that goes with self-disclosure an declaring certain affiliations crucial to the nuance of our stories.
Every week, I read the Philippine Daily Inquirer's Sunday Inquirer Magazine, and one of the items I regularly read is Margaux Salcedo's Menu. Normally I enjoy Salcedo's articles, as I love food myself, but one piece left a rather bad taste in my mouth.
Today's piece was entitled "Hail Mary, and Mothers Everywhere" and has a lift-out quote that goes: "Of all the home cooking I have tried, though, there is one that trumps all others: the home cooking from the kitchen of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada."
It can be found here: http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/sim/sim/view/20110430-333875/Hail-Mary-and-Mothers-Everywhere
Yes, Salcedo's piece discusses the former President's culinary tastes in relation to his mother, the late Mary Ejercito, who had a profound influence on Estrada's own cooking.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that except...Salcedo is also Estrada's spokesperson.
Nothing wrong with that, either, except that when you write about the one you work for in a feature article, my journalism training dictates that with all due respect, you have to disclose your affiliation as a nod to ethics and accountability.
Maybe Salcedo no longer holds said position? Maybe she's no longer with Estrada? I dunno--a quick Google search with the keywords "resign" and "quit" proved otherwise. A deeper scouring revealed no indication that Salcedo has broken with Estrada to pursue journalism full-time.
But still, whether currently affiliated or recently resigned, indicating that she speaks for the former President wouldn't be too hard to insert in the article, as my good friend Kim Patria pointed out. I could have inserted it in the lead myself. Doing so would show that Salcedo respects her ongoing working relationship with Estrada even as he uses him as a subject for a feature article.
Why is that said omission so important that I even have to blog about it and point it out?
Because it's all about maintaining a transparent relationship with your readers. As journalists, we all have an obligation to our readers to make absolutely clear the context of our points and assertions--including how we arrived at them. We're talking here about the issues of access, bias, among others.
I'm not perfect; I don't claim to be a know-it-all when it comes to journalism ethics, but only someone who understands that the public deserves better. This field is after all, a public trust, and we owe it to the informed public to evaluate our articles based on how we write them and glean the information we place in them. If they feel that we are duping them, or worse, compromising our integrity as journalists, whether for straight news or features, then there's something wrong, and therefore we must correct.
Comments are highly appreciated and valued. Just kindly identify yourself, and be polite.