Last Sunday, encountered another situation – one that is likely not as common outside of the Philippines (or perhaps Bacolod City) – where a “reporter” refused to cover stories because they were afraid to “upset” somebody in elected office, following the lead of others in the field, or some sort of combination of the two. The scenario has been played out before and this last encounter resulted in hitting a breaking point – if nobody else cares about advancing the newspaper, why bother?

While discussing the matter on why somebody would refuse to write a story, the response was they wanted to present the story to the involved parties before addressing the issue. There isn’t really a problem with the theory, but when some stories are of such magnitude, if somebody is not available for comment, media organizations (this newspaper included) often indicate the action of trying reaching out to an individual, however they may have not been able to respond in time.

According to the non-profit organization International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), they include among their definitions of news “events that have an impact on many people,” “events that describe unusual or exceptional situations,” and “events concerning well-known or prominent people.” There is no mention indicating a response from the parties involved is required before a story becomes newsworthy.

BBC Academy, an online resource center for journalists from the UK’s leading broadcasting network, notes, “Journalists have to produce more output now than ever before.” Yet, here in Bacolod City, “journalists” are not putting out all the content necessary; they are following the lead of other organizations and depending on them to decide what should be discarded and what they want to deem newsworthy.

When a compromise was offered to cover a portion of the story – one that still did not seem right, but for the purpose of, at least, getting a story out – the individual responded, something to the effect of, nobody else is covering the story.

Part of being a reporter is getting “the scoop” – it’s essential to the business.

Took the conversation off the topic of assignments and asked why there is no desire to pursue individual stories and instead engage in “pack journalism,” when various news outlets come together to report the same stories. The person responded by crediting a local organization for creating “unity.”

Was finally pushed over the edge after asking what the point is of trying to be an exceptional news outlet, when every reporter in the field is trying to ensure every newspaper is the same. The response: “Alright, anyways…”

The apathy was astounding.

A piece about pack journalism by Brendan Nyhan was published by the Columbia Journalism Review back in 2012, put out just before a presidential debate between then-incumbent President Barack Obama and his challenger former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

He looked at how the media responded during a prior presidential debate between then-Texas Governor George W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore and the focus made on the latter’s frequent sighing during the event.

“It’s possible, of course, that all of these journalists independently concluded that Gore’s sighs were one of the most important events at the debate,” Nyhan explained. “But it’s more likely that the media converged on that narrative as reporters digested interpretations of the event that were being offered to them in real time and immediately after the fact.”

To the point made by the local reporter, he does note, “There’s a degree of professional safety for journalists whose reporting remains in step with the prevailing take on the news.”

However, he went on to argue that diverse media interpretations are important.

“Media outlets need to differentiate themselves in an increasingly crowded marketplace,” Nyhan wrote. “Experimentation along the lines, I’m suggesting, could help us all learn something about the subjectivity of news judgment.”

A 2004 Washington Post piece by Jonathan Yardley took a look at the book “The Boys on the Bus,” written by Timothy Crouse, claiming it “turned the eyes of the press on the press itself, and opened the way to the age of media self-absorption.”

“Journalists are deathly afraid of being ‘wrong’ and thus tend to stay within parameters set by the pack,” he wrote. “Journalists want ‘to be on the Winner’s Bus.’”

He noted reporters believing 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern had a good shot at beating incumbent President Richard Nixon. Yet, in the end, the Republican won by a whopping 520 electoral votes to 17. It’s a similar narrative to the 2016 election, with every media outlet propagating the story that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would defeat businessman Donald Trump in a landslide – some “journalists” even projecting a near-400 electoral vote win for the would-be first female president. Not to mention, when data skewed from the narrative, like the Los Angeles Times poll giving Trump a lead, they called it an “outlier.”

After election night, with Trump taking a 304 to 227 electoral win, the media, who joined together to pushing the same agenda, all had egg on their face. Since then, the news continues to be questioned on their integrity; and given the recent suspension of ABC News investigative correspondent Brian Ross after reporting a flawed story about former national security adviser, retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, it does not help the mainstream media in their attempt to repair their image.

Yet, it is the method in which local journalists operate.

If independent voices are gone and replaced by an all-powerful gatekeeper, it is no longer a matter of finding stories and producing unique angles, but taking the lead from others and copying and pasting the same content across all venues – leaving the reader at a loss because they are being deprived of a news media featuring different views.

It also renders editors (like this writer) useless since reporters are taking their cues from peers.

It does, however, explain why 99 percent of the assignments given out to reporters are never reported on – the effort in trying to come up with original content veered from the agenda set by the reporters and the their “supreme” organization.

Attended a seminar a few months back, where an official from the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) said journalists cannot be called “professionals” because there is no standardized examination. Given the PPI Code of Ethics notes items like “taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission” and “write vigorously for public access to information,” it’s not really a matter of not having a standardized exam, it’s about practitioners being ignorant of their role as a journalist and resorting to unprofessional practices./WDJ