Ignorance and insecurity
Ignorance and insecurity
Posted 11:46pm (Mla time) Mar 08, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 9, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
WHEN Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan, deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, proposed to restrict media interviews with groups engaged in fighting the government, saying that broadcasting by radio, television, or disseminating by print aids terrorism, he caused a ruckus. Politicians were divided on the issue, and so were the media. The administration is pushing the punishment line, while officials who disagree oppose it. Media groups such as the National Union of Journalists have denounced the proposal, while the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, whose officers recently took their oaths before the President in Malacañang, has come out in support of the proposal.
In the immediate aftermath of the Valentine's Day bombings, it was certainly chilling to hear an Abu Sayyaf spokesman not only taking credit for the carnage, but also gloating about how they had carried them out. Those who wished to inflict harm on innocent civilians to further their political and religious ends certainly took heart from the gloating. However, it is is equally certain that the majority of decent, peace-loving people, regardless of their current opinion of the government, found the Abu Sayyaf statements cruel, disgusting and condemnable.
But if it were up to the military, the reporters who found and interviewed Abu Solayman would have been locked up. And this is precisely why such things should not be left to the military.
If it weren't for the media, the public would not have known, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who perpetrated the bombings. Neither would the public have known the reasons behind the bombings. Fear and panic as a result would not only have continued unabated, but that most corrosive and poisonous state to a society -- ignorance and suspicion -- would have been fostered as well. To our mind, there is no greater threat to national security than the insecurity bred by ignorance. Seeing that the military and police, whether by commission or omission, obviously failed in ensuring public safety by the mere fact that the bombings took place, it would be quite reasonable to hold any military statements on the incidents under suspicion.
This stems from the unfortunate tendency of the military and police, particularly in the past, to camouflage their incompetence by lashing out at the easiest targets available. Or by generally lashing out in general, to soothe their wounded pride by bearing down heavily on the population. The country cannot help suffering from a traumatic suspicion of military rhetoric and conclusions, which is why the media must serve as an independent verifier of facts. It is a sign of the shortsightedness of some military officials and allied civilian politicians that their reaction to a threat is to shoot the messenger.
The majority of Filipinos, regardless of their political leanings, profession, or circumstance in life, know right from wrong, and are loyal, law-abiding citizens of this country. They can be trusted to know right from wrong, and certainly, to at the very least know terrorism when they read or hear about it. Our public officials must adopt an attitude of trust for the citizens rather than actively distrusting them, even if the citizenry actively distrusts our officials and officers. As we've said, the distrust felt by the public (and media are part of this) stems from decades of bad experiences at the hands of officials and officers.
This is not to say that all media are saints, that all media people are absolutely loyal to the Constitution, to democracy, or to the republic. But we do claim for all our brethren in the profession, and for the citizenry at large, the right to information, which is the bulwark of all our liberties. It is for those liberties, first and foremost, and not for something as shadowy and ill defined as "national security," that all officials, from the President down to the humblest private or corporal, ultimately serve. The media are ultimately responsible not to the state, which may impose or attempt to regulate standards of conduct. The media, like government officials, are responsible to the public. It is the public that must ultimately judge the fitness of officials, the trustworthiness of members of media and even the continued validity and existence of the state.
The military is committing a big mistake when it doesn't recognize that the strongest weapon in the fight against terrorism is information that is free, unlimited, uncontrolled.
Posted 11:46pm (Mla time) Mar 08, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 9, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
WHEN Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan, deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, proposed to restrict media interviews with groups engaged in fighting the government, saying that broadcasting by radio, television, or disseminating by print aids terrorism, he caused a ruckus. Politicians were divided on the issue, and so were the media. The administration is pushing the punishment line, while officials who disagree oppose it. Media groups such as the National Union of Journalists have denounced the proposal, while the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, whose officers recently took their oaths before the President in Malacañang, has come out in support of the proposal.
In the immediate aftermath of the Valentine's Day bombings, it was certainly chilling to hear an Abu Sayyaf spokesman not only taking credit for the carnage, but also gloating about how they had carried them out. Those who wished to inflict harm on innocent civilians to further their political and religious ends certainly took heart from the gloating. However, it is is equally certain that the majority of decent, peace-loving people, regardless of their current opinion of the government, found the Abu Sayyaf statements cruel, disgusting and condemnable.
But if it were up to the military, the reporters who found and interviewed Abu Solayman would have been locked up. And this is precisely why such things should not be left to the military.
If it weren't for the media, the public would not have known, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who perpetrated the bombings. Neither would the public have known the reasons behind the bombings. Fear and panic as a result would not only have continued unabated, but that most corrosive and poisonous state to a society -- ignorance and suspicion -- would have been fostered as well. To our mind, there is no greater threat to national security than the insecurity bred by ignorance. Seeing that the military and police, whether by commission or omission, obviously failed in ensuring public safety by the mere fact that the bombings took place, it would be quite reasonable to hold any military statements on the incidents under suspicion.
This stems from the unfortunate tendency of the military and police, particularly in the past, to camouflage their incompetence by lashing out at the easiest targets available. Or by generally lashing out in general, to soothe their wounded pride by bearing down heavily on the population. The country cannot help suffering from a traumatic suspicion of military rhetoric and conclusions, which is why the media must serve as an independent verifier of facts. It is a sign of the shortsightedness of some military officials and allied civilian politicians that their reaction to a threat is to shoot the messenger.
The majority of Filipinos, regardless of their political leanings, profession, or circumstance in life, know right from wrong, and are loyal, law-abiding citizens of this country. They can be trusted to know right from wrong, and certainly, to at the very least know terrorism when they read or hear about it. Our public officials must adopt an attitude of trust for the citizens rather than actively distrusting them, even if the citizenry actively distrusts our officials and officers. As we've said, the distrust felt by the public (and media are part of this) stems from decades of bad experiences at the hands of officials and officers.
This is not to say that all media are saints, that all media people are absolutely loyal to the Constitution, to democracy, or to the republic. But we do claim for all our brethren in the profession, and for the citizenry at large, the right to information, which is the bulwark of all our liberties. It is for those liberties, first and foremost, and not for something as shadowy and ill defined as "national security," that all officials, from the President down to the humblest private or corporal, ultimately serve. The media are ultimately responsible not to the state, which may impose or attempt to regulate standards of conduct. The media, like government officials, are responsible to the public. It is the public that must ultimately judge the fitness of officials, the trustworthiness of members of media and even the continued validity and existence of the state.
The military is committing a big mistake when it doesn't recognize that the strongest weapon in the fight against terrorism is information that is free, unlimited, uncontrolled.
posted by Dante at 7:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home