What makes a good journalist?

utes after visiting his mother’s grave. He was put to shame by the media, which literally ganged up on him like hungry packs of hyenas. Reyes didn’t stand a chance against those who had adjudged him guilty as charged before he could be given space to defend himself.

What about the late Chief Justice Renato Corona? Remember him? He was impeached by the House of Representatives upon the behest of former President Noynoy Aquino on December 12, 2011 and subsequently found guilty by the Senate, which acted as an impeachment court on May 29, 2012.

What was wrong with the House impeachment and the impeachment proceedings at the Senate? Everything!

For one thing, the media did not provide enough coverage of the fact that the impeachment by the House of Representatives was deeply flawed. Congressmen who had signed the impeachment complaint reportedly did not even bother to read the complaint. The late chief justice was impeached for crimes not contemplated by law, such as his failure to declare his correct SALN.

More disturbing was the fact that the press gave the prosecutors literally a free pass. They did not challenge the process leading to the impeachment, neither did the media question the motive of the legislators in their sinister move to oust Corona, nor report extensively on the P50 million that was reportedly given to EACH senator by the Palace as “grease money” to facilitate the process. Corona died of a heart failure months later. He died a broken man.

In the hands of the irresponsible or malicious, the “pen” could ruin one’s reputation beyond redemption, or worse, cause people’s lives as the examples above would show. Indeed, “The pen is mightier than the sword,” as the saying goes.

There is today what the industry calls “AC/DC,” “Envelopmental journalism” or “Jukebox journalism.” “Envelopmental or Jukebox journalism,” as the term implies, is when a reporter writes or slants a story either for or against an individual at the behest of a “client” in exchange for monetary consideration. AC/DC, on the other hand, means “Attack and Collect; Defend and Collect.” First the reporter writes negative articles about an individual, then defends the same person, or sometimes just keeps silent, never again to write either negatively or positively after receipt of the money.

This was true in the yesteryears; it is still true today. Unfortunately, the same malaise pervades not only the mainstream media but more so, the Social Media today, where innocent individuals are subjected to malicious and unfounded accusations by people with dark intent masquerading as bloggers. Worse, oftentimes, individuals are subjected to ridicule just for the fun of it.

There are no written rules on what makes a good journalist. But for purposes of discussion, I offer my take. A good journalist is one who practices accuracy, fairness and objectivity in writing stories. Note that there are two kinds of journalists: the and the other is what you call the opinion writers. In both categories, it is a given that their articles and opinions are based on facts, not on conjecture or speculation.

More particularly, the reporters, in writing their stories, should see to it that their output is not swayed by personal biases or opinions – just the facts, as the saying goes. In contrast, the opinion writers are free to express their comments and opinions on the issues of the day. That is why they are called opinion writers. But both the reporters or news writers and opinion writers are bound by a common thread: public service. However, public service is best served and can only be served by the “Truth.” Their paramount duty is to inform the public as truthfully as they can.

In writing their pieces, journalists are bound by facts. They, too, are not entitled to their own facts. Nobody is. Unfortunately, some journalists twist facts and present them as truths. Some call these half-truths or half lies. Whether half-truths or half lies, both are not, in the strictest sense of the word, fact or truth. Truth or fact does not come in halves; they come as a whole, not in parts.

In referring to half-truths, the writer must be conscious of the other half and, therefore, should also give space to it so that the readers can be guided intelligently. You call this exercise – presenting both sides of the same coin.

Let us not forget that the role of a journalist is to inform the readers by presenting the news in the most accurate, fair and objective fashion. Absent those elements, it is fake news.

The advent of New Media or Social Media makes the journalism industry all the more interesting, to say the least. The assault on press freedom by some sinister forces masquerading as bloggers poses a challenge to the legitimate members of the press and to both the mainstream and new media industries as well.

The proliferation of fake news, more particularly on Social Media, has reached alarming proportions. The Senate Committee on Media has taken cognizance of the fake news that populate online sites and services, so that the body had conducted a series of hearings on how to curb libelous news items in various media outlets, particularly online. Attempts to license journalists is certainly not the answer to the pernicious problem of fake news. To do so would impinge on the freedom of the press and of free speech. There are abundant laws that will and can protect the innocent from people with malicious intent.

The mainstream media must learn to adapt to the growing pres people’s hearts and minds. Doing so would require putting to bed stories that are accurate, rich in facts and background, objective and fair. There is no room for lies or misstatements and errors, for that is not exactly what is expected of us by our readers, listeners and viewers alike. Perseverance, patience and commitment to the truth are what separate the legitimate members of the mainstream media from the new media where facts are often loose.

This is not to denigrate the bloggers. Many of them are very good bloggers, very credible and excellent sources of information. Unfortunately, with the ubiquitous computers, anybody or even a fool, can turn on his computer and start blogging or tweeting against persons he dislikes with wild abandon. Nobody edits them and they answer to nobody but their bloated egos. That’s the problem with the new media. Many of them lack responsibility and their stories are just innuendos and allegations; they are neither fair nor objective. They are not even factual!

Unlike the mainstream media, bloggers are not answerable to any institution or editor. Nobody factchecks their claims or edits their stories. Anything goes!

What then is a good journalist? Surely, there are good journalists from the ranks of the mainstream media and in the new media. There are also bad journalists from both media. Fortunately for the mainstream media, the rotten eggs in its - aged and forced to work within the framework of established company rules of discipline, very much unlike in the new media, where the “rules of engagement” are practically absent. On the other hand, who will disci

A good journalist, to my mind, is one who writes accurately, objectively and fairly. Is there a bright future that awaits a good journalist? Put in a more mundane way: “good journalist?” The answer is a resounding Yes!

Allow me to explain. Success, in my view, is not measured by mon-