How ABS-CBN, TV-5 violated broadcast rules

In the case of ABS-CBN and ABC-5, the KBP Standards Authority found the two networks guilty of also violating Section 4, Article 6 of the KBP Broadcast Code, which states: “The coverage of crimes or crisis situations shall not provide vital information or offer comfort or support to the perpetrators.”

The Standards Authority cited several instances where reporters of both ABS-CBN and ABC-5 gave details or showed video that telegraphed the intentions or activities of police officials. In particular, the KBP Standards Authority cited several live reports as examples of violations of the broadcast code:

Julius Babao (ABS-CBN):

“…papalapit na ang assault team sa likod ng bus…armado ng matataas na kalibre ng baril. Nasa gilid na ng bus… binasag ang salamin sa harap at walang putok ng baril. Nakapwesto na ang mga alagad ng batas.” (The assault team is coming near the back of the bus… they are armed with high-caliber guns. They are at the side of the bus… they have smashed the glass in front, and there is no gunfire. The assault team is in place.)

Ron Gagalac (ABS-CBN):

“…may panibagong assault unit na pumapasok sa gilid ng bus… hindi ko makita… dahan-dahan pumapasok ang mobile…”

“…hindi tinuloy ang pagpasok sa likod… hindi ko alam kung alam nila ang secret handle pero ngayon kinakalampag ng isang SWAT member ang harap ng pintuan…” (A new assault team is coming to the side of the bus… I cannot see… the mobile patrol car is coming near… they did not insist on coming through the rear… I don’t know now if they know about the secret handle there, but now a SWAT member is rattling the door in front.)

Erwin Tulfo (ABC-5):

“…nakikita na natin 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-…15 SWAT members…”

“…dalawang pulis ang nakaposisyon sa harap; dalawa ang nasa tabi at nakapaligid ang iba…”

“…may dalawang pulis nagtatago sa may bumper…”

“…dalawang mobile ang nasa tabi… 4 na mobile nakaantabay sa paligid ng bus…” (…We can see 1-2-3-4-5-6-7…15 SWAT members… two policemen are positioned in front of the bus… two are at the side, and the others are all around… there are two policemen hiding by the bumper of the bus… there are two mobile patrol cars at the side… four more are waiting near the bus)

DJ Sta Ana (ABC-5):

“…naglagay ng mobile sa likod ng bus para pambara sa bus kung sakali… “

“…may isang pulis na may dalang parang tali… siguro para hatakin ang pinto…” (They’ve placed a mobile patrol car near the rear of the bus to block it… there is a policeman with a rope… maybe to pull the door open with.)

In its decision, the KBP Standards Authority ruled that these were just some examples of vital information that the media agencies should not have broadcast, as they would compromise police rescue operations.

FLUID, NOT IN CONTROL

ABS-CBN argued that its officers had taken every reasonable step to limit the coverage and not show police operations. The company also argued that the assault was unsuccessful because of the lack of training, equipment, and preparation of the rescue team, and not because of the coverage of the network. In addition, ABS-CBN said its news teams had complied with all police directives on site.

One ABS-CBN executive who asked not to be identified told the PCIJ they were disappointed with the KBP decision. The executive said ABS-CBN’s news bosses had tried to be careful with what information or footage would be released to the public. But, the executive said, the situation was just too fast and fluid, and network bosses had no control over what their reporters would say during a live report.

“There were continuous discussions in the newsroom then,” the executive said. “We made sure that the cameras were just focused on the windshield so that we do not show the other positions.”

ABS-CBN lawyers also told the Standards Authority that it held back interviews that would compromise police positions, unlike “some media outfits” that aired footage “of the bus from the vantage point of the sniper which showed the rifle pointed towards the right side of the bus.” The network’s arch rival GMA-7 had broadcast a story from a sniper’s point of view during the hostage crisis.

COMPETITION

ABC-5 representatives meanwhile argued that its coverage did not provide any information that the hostage taker did not already know, since Mendoza was in an “elevated position” from where he could view the police operations against him. Channel 5 also said could not have provided vital information to Mendoza since Mendoza was watching a competitor’s channel on the television set inside the bus. (PCIJ was still waiting for ABC-5’s comment on the KBP ruling as of press time.)

In the case of both ABS-CBN and ABC-5, the KBP Standards Authority ruled that it was immaterial whose coverage Mendoza was monitoring inside the bus. “To constitute a violation of the code provision, it is not required for the hostage-taker to have actually received the information on the police operations aired by respondent,” the ruling stated.

It added, “We have viewed, studied, and reviewed a copy of the recorded coverage of the respondent, particularly the period covered by the rescue operations or police assault of the bus, and find that it was conducted in a manner which provided vital information, by being made available, to the hostage taker.”

“A general or broad approach in the coverage of the incident should have been adapted by respondent to remove itself from the proscription intended by the code provision,” the KBP said.

CAN’T TOUCH GMA-7

But the KBP Standards Authority rued its inability to investigate GMA-7, a non-member of the association, devoting a full page of its 23-page decision to discuss that problem.

The Standards Authority said KBP cannot do self-regulation of the broadcast industry if it has no power over some of the sector’s players. It noted: “We believe that the KBP was organized in April 1973 as a self-regulating private organization of the broadcast industry. It was meant to include all broadcast stations in the country, without exception. Anything less mocks the principle of self-regulation, as evidenced by our present inability to officially inquire into the coverage of the hostage-taking incident by GMA-7.”

“To this end,” said the Standards Authority, “it is suggested that the Office of the President, through the Office of the Executive Secretary, and with the assistance of the National Telecommunications Commission, support the KBP in establishing a system or mechanism by which the broadcast code is made to apply to all broadcast stations in the country, without exception.”

The unique case of GMA-7 appears to be a sore point among many KBP members. “What about GMA-7?” asked one media executive when informed of the sanctions imposed on the other networks. “Won’t it even be sanctioned?”

Gozum herself commented, “Our members are at a disadvantage because they must comply with the broadcast code regarding program and commercial loading and others.” It was for this reason, she said, that the KBP has asked Malacañang to find a way to end what she called “unfair competition.”

“Government must address the issue of GMA-7 and the other non-KBP members,” Gozum said.

But in an earlier interview with The Manila Bulletin in July 2006, GMA-7 chairman and president Felipe L. Gozon said the network bolted from the KBP precisely because it thought KBP’s self-regulatory functions were already obsolete.

“I did not believe in the regulatory function that KBP was imposing on members,” the newspaper quoted Gozon as saying. “That was obsolete already. The KBP was Marcos’s idea to regulate the broadcast industry. I did not agree in what KBP wanted to impose. I do not believe in censorship. I did not agree on load limitation. Even the US National Association of Broadcasters couldn’t impose load limitation now after they were hauled to court and the court ruled in favor of the complainant.” (To be concluded)