Media warmongeringPress calls for more violence in Mindanao

By Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo
Published in PJR Reports, November-December 2011

The coverage of the armed confrontation between government troops and members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Basilan, Zamboanga Sibugay, and Lanao del Norte reversed the gains of the Philippine press in reporting Mindanao.

Previous PJR Reports monitors noted improvements in media reporting and commentary about Mindanao and its people. But the October coverage of the conflict there and the peace process highlighted such past shortcomings as limited, if not lack, of contextualization, sensationalism, and “body-count” reporting. Well-informed analyses and commentary on what was happening were few and far between.

PJR Reports monitored the daily broadsheets the Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star, news programs ABS-CBN 2’s TV Patrol and Bandila; GMA-7’s 24 Oras and Saksi; and TV5’s Aksyon, and selected websites.

The monitor covered the period Oct. 18—the date of the Al-Barka, Basilan encounter which killed 19 soldiers and six MILF members and injured more than 10 people—to Oct. 31.

As more information on the nine-hour encounter emerged, media coverage on Mindanao increased in frequency and prominence. But media attention eventually waned and shifted to the death of Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi, the Nov. 1 holiday preparations, and the Ramgen Revilla murder case.

Sensationalizing violence

An outbreak of hostilities is by itself sensational. It involves blood and gore and casualties, but also a range of story angles and ideas. “Body-count” or war-reporting can contribute to further conflict. Consequently, the telling of that part of the story should be done with caution, with the account being more precise, and, of course, accurate.

But media emotions ran high in the coverage of the government-MILF clash. The newspapers monitored led off with screaming headlines: “MILF goes on a rampage” (Star, Oct. 24) and “No Mercy: 6 soldiers killed in cold blood” (Bulletin, Oct. 20), among other examples. The news programs aired extensive footage on the families of the soldiers, who were distraught with grief and howling before the cameras, in a too obvious attempt to attract viewer sympathy for the soldiers killed and their families—and antipathy for the MILF and Muslims.

GMA-7 even aired an interview with the very young children of one of the soldiers (“Mga naulila ng mga napatay na sundalo, naghihintay na sa kanilang mahal sa buhay [Families of the soldiers in action wait for their loved ones],” Saksi, Oct. 20).

During probably the most vulnerable time for the bereaved, ABS-CBN broadcaster Noli de Castro asked one of their reporters in the field Ron Gagalac: “Paano ang naging reaksyon ng mga kamag-anak, for the first time, na makita nila ang bangkay ng kanilang mga mahal sa buhay (How did the families react when they saw their dead loved ones for the first time)?” To which Gagalac replied: “Natural na napakalungkot noong mood…. Secluded sila sa isang kwarto at ni wala ni isa sa kanila ang gustong magpa-interview dahil nandoon pa rin ‘yung sakit na kanilang nararamdaman (Naturally, the mood was mournful…. The families were in a secluded room and no one wanted to grant an interview because of their deep sorrow for their loss).” (TV Patrol, Oct. 21)

Loaded language

Conflicts are highly charged issues and language news and commentary use can provoke positive or negative reactions. Some words and phrases carry strong emotional connotations and their use is actually a way of passing and inviting judgment.

For example, instead of using “encounter”, “confrontation”, “fighting”, “clash”, or “kill” some news organizations used “massacre”, “ambush”, “slaughter”, or “murder” to describe what happened between government forces and the MILF.

The incidents, which happened in the three provinces, are still under investigation. Although some reports, in the media and by concerned groups, did say that the deaths may have been the result of poor communications between armed groups, rather than a massacre.

Some news reports and opinion pieces described the soldiers as “victims” and/or “heroes” while MILF members were habitually tagged as “Muslim rebels”, “Muslim separatists”, “bandits”, and/or “criminal/lawless elements”.

Missing perspective

The most significant sources were still the agencies of the Philippine government (GPH): the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Office of the President (Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process or OPAPP), the GPH and MILF peace panels, and members of Congress. Although the skirmishes took place in their areas of responsibility, the officials of the local government units where the clashes took place were far less cited in the reports.

Next Page>>