Real Time Reporting of Combat and Other Crises

By Melinda Quintos de Jesus & Evelyn O. Katigbak

Global media
Technological advancement plays a vital role in the evolution of media reporting and
coverage. It made possible live coverage of war and various global crises raising problematic
questions for both government and journalists. This revolution on journalism has been proven by
Cable News Network (CNN) and other American television networks which send instantaneous
images from the battlefield during the Gulf War. In the Philippines, the 2010 hostage-taking
crisis in Quirino Grandstand was televised in the whole world, including the devastation of
Yolanda in late 2013.
The amazing capability brought to bear by the media on the conduct of US government
foreign policy has not made American broadcast journalists insensitive to the issues raised by
media presence in the combat zone. Barrie Dunsmores The Next War: Live?, published by the
Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, discussed the down side of technological advancements being thoughtlessly
applied for media reporting.
An American broadcast journalist, Ted Koppel, defied this trend saying, During a war,
there just has to be a certain application of common sense here. The essence of journalism lies in
the editing process, not in training a camera on an event. That is not journalism. Not everyone
agreed on his side, considering that live coverage of any kind of happening, including calamities,
have all sharpened the competitive edge of electronic visual media.
When it comes to war, however, another American broadcast journalist, Tom Brokaw,
said We will bring to bear on out judgments all the experiences that weve had and well err on
the side of caution rather than on recklessness.
The Philippine Experience
The Philippine governments involvement in international crisis and conflict is hardly
comparable to the magnitude of policy experience of a global superpower like the U.S. Few
media organizations in the Philippines even field correspondents to cover foreign events. But the
debate against medias effect and impact on conflict and other crisis is barely unrelated to
Filipino journalists as set example by the coup attempts launched by military rebels against
Aquino government in 1987 and 1989. It was covered live on radio with minute-by-minute field
accounts of the war.
The December 1989 Coup

The initial years of the Cory administration was bombarded by series of rebel attacks
seeking to seize power over the government. This attack in December 1989 was recorded to be
the most costly with physical damage amounting to $5 million; one account wiped the lives of
110 people while 540 were injured.
During the rebels attempt to de-stabilize the government, it involved the media in a
dramatic way as it provided live radio coverage which gathered large crowds to various scenes
of military encounter. Television aired accounts during the day but the continuous radio reports
tracked the action live around the different military camps, in Malacaang, the blockades set up
in the streets and event in the rebels siege of Makati.
Immense media coverage drew civilians into the war zone. Most of them simple tried to
witness the conflict, excitedly waving at cameras, while some picked bullets and soldiers caps
after the shooting for souvenirs. People view this (the putsch) as some kind of theatrical show.
How can we persuade them that this is a real war?, the late Father Ben Carreon, a Roman
Catholic priest who had a radio show then, said during a TV program.
The reporters, of course, were not covered from stray bullets. In fact, their main problem
was not access to information but the danger of their lives. Even though security measures were
applied for reporters, it doesnt still guarantee their safety; Loy Caliuag, a reporter from DZRH,
was wounded by glass splinters when a bomb hit his mobile unit. Such stories gave the people
more reasons to gather at the battle field, raising the term uzis for insignificant oglers
(usyusero/usyusera in Filipino).
Broadcast responsibility vs. scoop
Field reporters interviewed all possible sources in hopes of getting a scoop, including
credible individuals from the rebel groups. DZXL, for example, interviewed a rebel
spokesman on air who proudly said they would soon enjoy the fruits of their labors. The rebel
also added, lets pray together for the enlightenment of those people pretending to be leaders
like Cory and their henchmen.
In another instance, DZBB news director Jun Ricafrente said in an interview that when he
was covering the coup attempt for DZMM, Scout Rangers approached him and said, Sir, pakibroadcast naman ninyo na bagamat kamiy nasa kabilang panig, itoy mga kapatid namin. Kaya
kami nandito ay para tulungan sila sapagkat demobilized na sila,may tama na sila. However,
Ricafrente expressed his doubt in the honesty of the rebels statement.
These stories were clear attempts by the rebels to use the media to serve their own
purpose.
National security vs. right to information

The conflict between military and the media was evident and understandable given their
cultural gap. Since military people plan ahead and secretive about their operations, media
people are somehow all-seeing for scoops to best their rival stations which gave rise to the
question: What should carry more weight national and operational security or the peoples right
to know?
In the coverage of the 1989 coup, the number of casualties from the government forces
was partly blamed on the media. To inform its audience about the happening, most radio stations
broadcasted sensitive and critical military tactics such as their movements, strengths and
armaments.
In an instance, Jewel Canson, Rizal provincial commander then, expressed his defiance
against media coverage after one of his men were killed because a radio station reported their
movements as they tried to surround a building occupied by the rebels. Consequently, the
mutineers who were also tuned in to their radios for information countered the military.
Media justified its reporting by citing its responsibilities as journalists to report what they
saw. According to Andy Vital, news director of DZRH then, this was their primary concern as
broadcast journalists and it was a form of service to the Filipino people. He insisted that a
broadcast journalists first responsibility is his or her job, the security of the soldiers depends on
the job of the military.
In another point of view, Ricafrente stated that a journalists responsibility includes
balancing all factors. Scoops that bring honor, prestige and commercials to the reporter and the
radio station mean nothing if they are earned at the expense of human lives, of the security of the
state, and of peace and order.
A framework for media coverage of a military action
The encounter between military and media cultures was a shock to both sides, but more
painfully to the military sector since they are conducting their operations without media scrutiny
all through the 1970s.
It is helpful to cite the framework by Dunsmore to understand the effects of live media
reportage. His discussion acknowledges the inevitability of live coverage of war. Without
necessary approving such coverage, his sources point out the factors that will bring this about.
More portable communications equipment will make it doable. Further, the competition among
news organizations and the commercial nature of media enterprise in the U.S. will drive them
toward real-time reporting from the combat zone.
The inevitable presence of media during crises has caused even the U.S. military defense
community to explore a policy of openness. Gen. John Shalikashvili, as chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, concludes that military planners will have to factor in live television coverage
when they develop their battle plans.
Here are the considerations raised by both media and military perspectives:

Military concerns include consequences such as providing information which would give
away a strategy, casing defeat and endangering lives also giving out descriptions of
military convoys and what they may be carrying signal the direction of the battle plan.
Media concerns, on the other hand, are based on the publics right to know, the peoples
access to information.

Another paper published by the Shorenstein Center, Clarifying the CNN Effect, written by
Steven Livingston, points out that media effects vary according to the type of military
intervention. It is classified into three: (1) coverage speeds up the diplomatic communication and
accelerates the way different policy communities and countries react to each other, (2) the media
case can be an impeding force, raising negative public opinion or endangering military
operations, (3) the media can also set the policy agenda.
Dunsmore prescribes the kind of high-level consultation between military and media leaders
to help each sector understand its different requirements. For such an effort to go well in the
Philippines, more confidence-building experience is needed on both sides. A free press presence
is part of public life and public affairs. In peace or war efforts, and all over the landscape of
crises which involve the military or police in rescue and disaster operations, there are enough
opportunities to build up a constructive framework for better information for citizens.