Skirting the Issues of Bad Journalism

AMADO DORONILA of the Philippine Daily Inquirer writes today about the perceived coercion that President Benigno Aquino III made on the press in defense of his "passion for flashy cars," and for  his lifestyle as a "pampered son of a wealthy family living an unfrugal life."

I encountered some confusion on how Mr. Doronila reasoned out his understanding on how frugal life is meant to be lived. Does he meant to keep the money on the vault unused simply for the sake of not spending them? That will be a suggestion for a miser's lifestyle.

Aquino may have "bought," actually exchanged, a third-hand Porsche for his old BMW for approximately the same valuation of P4.5 million. In effect, there was no significant money spent for the acquisition, except perhaps a sales tax if that applied. And here Mr. Doronila concluded that the new President of the Republic is living an "unfrugal life" (did he expect Mr. Aquino to sell the luxury car he had before he became president in order to satisfy Mr. Doronila's run of mind?)

Another issue about frugality pertains to a person's capacity to pay for his lifestyle. Aquino is single, no family to look after financially. He did not use the government coffers to "pay" for the "brand exchange." And since Aquino spent for his lifestyle using the  money he worked hard for, I believe it will be presumptuous for Mr. Doronilla to fault a lifestyle lived within a means as if Mr. Doronilla has not done so, only the amount involved maybe of big disparity owing to the disparity of what Mr. Aquino earned from his family's businesses and for being 15th president of the Philippines and of what Mr. Doronila earned for writing columns in a print media.

Suggesting that a ban on government agencies buying luxury cars as service vehicles is comparable to the President's choice of luxury vehicle I believe violates sensible logic. First, the money to be used in buying luxury vehicles for government agencies will be taken from the limited coffers of the government, and thus tantamount to misappropriating the limited tax money of the people. Second, his logic tried to remove from Aquino his Constitutional right to enjoy the fruits of his honest labor the way he wants it enjoyed, simply because he happened to be the Philippine president?

It is also brutally unfair for Mr. Doronilla to compare Aquino's appeal for responsibility in reporting, and the focus on good news over bad ones, to former president Joseph Estrada's efforts to "strangle" "newspapers hostile to him."

Since the campaign period, Aquino never shied away from facing detractors. But his appeal to responsible reporting and focus to positive news simply reminded media practitioners on their responsibility towards truth, and not to sensationalism even in the name of increased readership. Maybe professionalism in media continues to be a threatening prospect for Mr. Doronila. But media despite its mission to safeguard the truth had been shown in history to distort truth in the name of profit.

I believe that the argument that Mr. Doronila should have focused on was to refute why in the first place media practitioners report the truth at all, and push for sensationalistic reporting instead. That's the argument I expect him to expound to his readers. Instead of skirting from the issues of bad journalism. Instead of throwing rotten apples to an upright public servant. Are these rotten apples coming from Mr. Doronila's own backyard?

At the end of the day, only the truth can serve the Filipino people well. And that truth embodies professional journalism and a person's right to enjoy the fruit of his honest labor.