Bloggers’ accreditation from a Journ student’s viewpoint
THE recently released Department Order (DO) No. 15 known as “Interim Social Media Practiioner Accreditation,” or blogger’s accreditation, sparked arguments from various entities. I could hear the echoes of comments and negative connotations of many fellow students about the DO.
The DO allows Social Media Practitioners who are at least 18 years old and with an existing 5,000 followers to be an accredited media personnel covering events attended by President Rodrigo Duterte. Social Media Practitioners are defined by the DO as “a person that maintains a publicly-accessible social media page, blog or website which generates content and whose principal advocacy is the regular dissemination of original news and/or opinion in the internet.”
You could almost hear the complaints resounding down the hall of Journalism schools. “It’s so unfair. We are learning the craft of journalism for four years, but these bloggers couldjust go and cover presidential events with just 5,000 followers.”
This is the common comment you would hear in our university. You could also hear jkokes about leaving the university now and pursuing the work of being a blogger.
My thoughts? It is indeed unfair. These people could cover national beats with minimal requirements, but I say let us forget ourselves. Let us set our pride aside andfocus on the fact that media is a powerful thing, and to have this kind of power give to those unequipped to practice it responsibly is dangerous. Great power comeswith great responsibilities, as the saying goes, something that has been quoted by by our teachers and even, yes, by Spiderman.
There are limits, of course, according to this newfangled law. One of them is that the accreditation of these bloggers is only on a per-event basis, “unless expressly
Specified.” Nevertheless, I do not agree with the DO. Who can prevent this Order from being a tool of the government I generating and the snowballing of one-sided news or fake ones? And this situation, needless to say, is already the ominant kind of news circulating online.
This Order has too many loopholes, and the way I see it, the only reason why the
Presidential Communication Operations Office (PCOO) is pursuing this because theybenefit from it. The President benefits from it.
Moreover, the Order is vague and prone to abuse of power. We deserve more than the broad security measures on cancelling and suspending the accreditation due to “a. abuse of rights and privileges extended by PCOO; and b. put his/her accreditation to improper use.”
If the PCOO intends to adjust itself to the ever-changing landscape of media, clear
parameter must be set and carefully implemented. We cannot afford another grave mistake from the government.