CMFR blog's new address

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility has moved its blog to a new address: http://www.cmfr-phil.org/blog. Visit the new blog for our latest posts.

New fellowship for Asia-based journalists

Asia-based journalists who have been working for at least five years in any medium (print, radio, television, and online) are invited to apply for a fully-funded fellowship in Singapore.

The newly-established Asia Journalism Fellowship, launched by the Temasek Foundation and the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information of Nanyang Technological University (NTU), will run from February through April 2009.

The press in Singapore is heavily regulated and investigative journalism almost impossible to practice. But the sponsors claim that the fellowship will give 15 journalists the opportunity to “deepen their understanding of the issues they cover” and to familiarize themselves with “the latest trends in media and communication.” It will also be “a venue for the participants to interact with other journalists in the region and build networks for collaboration.”

"They (journalists) are in constant output mode, with precious little time for reflection and personal improvement. It's an occupational hazard,” Dr Cherian George, acting head of the journalism programme at NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School said in a press release. “With the support of Temasek Foundation, NTU is able to offer experienced journalists from the region some quality time to prepare for the next stage of their professional careers."

Details of the program are available here or they may contact Ms Jacquelene Teo at teosl@ntu.edu.sg for other inquiries. Applications are due by 10 November 2008.

2008 AMF Journalism Fellowship application deadline extended

The deadline for 2008 Asia Media Forum (AMF) Journalism Fellowship applications has been extended to Oct. 30, 2008.

The 2008 AMF Journalism Fellowship, launched in partnership with ActionAid, aims to “promote the concept of research-based journalism” in the region. The fellowship hopes to develop and enhance research ideas and concept related to current socio-political issues in Asia.

The fellowship covers three themes: Bhutanese Refugee, Impunity and Flawed Rule of Law in Democratic States of Southeast Asia, and Inclusive democracy: How Nepal could achieve it?

Practicing Asian journalists in any medium (print, TV, radio, or online) can apply for the journalism fellowship, worth £1,000 (1,762 U.S. dollars).


Below is AMF's press announcement on the fellowship:


2008 AMF Journalism Fellowship

Asia Media Forum (AMF), in partnership with Action Aid aims to provide journalism fellowship of £ 1,000 for the development and enhancement of research ideas and concept related to current socio-political debate among the journalists of Asia Region. The sole objective of this program is to promote the concept of research based journalism in the Asia Region. The Fellowship for 2008 covers following themes:

• Bhutanese Refugee
• Impunity and Flawed Rule of Law in Democratic States of South-east Asia
• Inclusive democracy: How Nepal could achieve it?

AMFC requests proposals from the practicing journalists (print and electronic media) for at least two years. The applicants should be from any Asian Country. Interested candidates with suitable background and experience in the related field can apply and submit the proposal till October 30, 2008. Please note that the story proposal should include copies of i) Work Experience letter ii) CVs of the applicants iii) Letter of reference -2 iv) Letter from Editor giving consent to publish/broadcast the stories, articles, documentary v) A story/article proposal not exceeding 1000 words on the subject he or she is interested vi) Two samples of their published/broadcast work

For Terms of Reference, please visit our website: www.theasiamediaforum.org

Send your applications before October 30, 2008 to :
Asia Media Forum Centre (AMFC)
336, Prashuti Griha Marg
Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal
E-mail : asiamediaforumktm@gmail.com


Terms of Reference for Journalism Fellowship

1. Who may apply?

To ensure a competitive and fair process, the allocation of grants for Journalism Fellowships is application based. Furthermore, the application selection process is made transparent with ample intellectual rigor to ensure that high quality and relevant research is produced, published and broadcast in the organization he or she is working for.

The Forum will accept following types of applications listed below that focuses thematically on topics salient to current socio-economic and political debate of Asia Region. The research theme is listed at the later part of TOR.

1. a. Basic Criteria

Applications are invited from practicing journalists of any Asian Country. He or she should have minimum five years of working experience as journalists in any medium (print, TV, radio or online), either as staff of media organizations or as freelancers. To ensure validity and credibility of the research outcome, the awarding fellowship will be based on sound assessments of scientific quality and its potential contribution to the current policy debate.

For the Journalism Fellowship, important elements of the criteria for selection are as follows:

1. Relevance of issue to be studies in view of the broader topic as given in the call for proposals.
2. A story proposal (in English) based on the given theme by 25 September, 2008. The essay should be no longer than 1000 words, and must altogether introduce the applicant and explain his/her story proposal.
3. Brief resume, with emphasis on current job
4. Two samples of their published/broadcast work (English translations in case of in other languages).
5. Two letters of reference.
6. A letter from the Editor giving consent for publication or telecast of stories as a part of the fellowship and if you are a freelancer, a letter from an Editor of a publication or TV channel willing to publish, telecast your work.
7. Dissemination of the fellowship should be in investigation and research based news stories (5 to 7), articles (2 to 3) format or TV News stories (5 to 7) or a documentary format for electronic media.


2. Themes for Journalism Fellowship

Asia Media Forum Centre (AMFC) has envisaged providing journalism fellowship to the journalist of Asia Region on the indicated themes by announcing call for proposals at least once a year.

Total amount of fellowship: £ 1,000

Time period: 2 -3 weeks

Themes:
The following themes are identified for the study. For generating idea to carry out the research for the applicants, a brief synopsis on the current situation of the identified theme is given below. It is the responsibility of the applicants to create their research proposal under the given theme with consideration of the research findings to the policy implication.

a. Bhutanese Refugee:

Bhutan is the last bastion of hereditary absolute monarchy order with a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic society. It is passing through a vexing period of internal insecurity, political instability and vulnerability created by current ruling elite. In the name of national integration, the government has implemented various racial and discriminatory policies aimed at forceful homogenization of multi-ethnic society. This 'Drukpanization' or in other words "debhutanization" policy was designed to wipe out the culture, religion and language of Lhotshampas, Sharchhops and other minority ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. Under this policy, all other ethnic and minority groups are required to assimilate their social and cultural identity as distinct ethnic groups with the society dominated by politically and economically dominant Ngalung or Drukpa ethnic group.

Bhutan is responsible for generating one of the highest per capita refugees (one fifth of the total population) in the world. More than 125,000 Bhutanese people, nearly a fifth of the kingdom's total population of approximately 782,548 have been forced to leave or forcibly evicted from the country by the Government. As on March 2001, approximately 98,886 Bhutanese refugees were living in seven UNHRC administered refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Rest live scattered in other parts of Nepal. About 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in North Bengal, India without any help.

b. Impunity and flawed rule of law in democratic states of Southeast Asia.

Impunity -- the failure to bring perpetrators of violations to account -- is joined to the failure of States to prevent violations, to protect human rights and to prosecute the suspects and bring them to justice. It is not just a failure of the justice system, but is related in an integral manner to the failure of democratic institutions.

Journalists have become the victims of the pattern in impunity. But the press community is implicated as well in the larger failure of the state to uphold justice and the rule of law when it fails to investigate and to explain the continuing perversion of law by those in power. Both democratic and authoritarian states in Southeast Asia show these weaknesses. This study will help the press in Asia to understand the underlying issues involved in selected countries in the region that exhibit different aspects of impunity.

c. Inclusive Democracy: How Nepal could achieve it?

The concept of inclusive democracy in Nepal came into rise after the failure of Multiparty Democracy system in 1990. The exclusion of low caste group, ethnic groups and janajatis in the state mechanism, decision making and benefit sharing process, social injustice and inequity is the key factor for the birth of Inclusive democracy. The concept of inclusive democracy is based on the equal distributions of powers at all levels and allows active participations of political power of minorities. In context of Nepal, inclusive democracy means sharing of power and authority by all caste/ethnic, gender, linguistic, religious, cultural and regional groups through caste/ethnic, linguistic and regional autonomy and sub-autonomy, proportional representation and special measures under a federal structure of government by using the processes of round table conference, right to self-determination, referendum and constituent assembly. Therefore, for sustainable development of the country, inclusive democracy is the major agenda for creating a good political platform.


Note:
• All applicants will receive a receipt confirming that the application is received and is in process.
• A detail Financial Report with necessary proofs (bills, tickets etc.) should be submitted at the time of completion of research report.


Applications should be sent before October 30, 2008 by mail to :

Asia Media Forum Centre (AMFC)
336, Prashuti Griha Marg
Babarmahal, Kathmandu
Nepal

Or e-mail to
asiamediaforumktm@gmail.com

Burmese journalist freed after 19 years

After 19 years in prison, a Burmese journalist who was also the longest-serving political prisoner in military-ruled Burma was released last Sept. 23 under the junta’s amnesty program.

U Win Tin, former editor of the newspaper Hanthawathi and vice-president of the Burma Writers Association, was among several detainees who benefited from the amnesty.. The junta will release 9,002 detainees in preparation for the upcoming 2010 elections, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said, quoting the government-owned newspaper New Light of Myanmar.

RSF reported U Win Tin as saying: “I am going to continue practicing politics because I am a political man. I did not sign document 401, which would have forced me to give up that role. Starting today, I am going to continue supporting Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD). I will soon be 80, but I am not going to stop.” U Win Tin is also a founder of the NLD.

International media organization RSF and the Burma Media Association were elated with U Win Tin’s release.

“We worked together to defend U Win Tin’s innocence and we are immensely relieved that he has finally been freed,” RSF and the Burma Media Association said in a statement.

“It is unacceptable that he was made to serve 19 years in prison for peacefully advocating democracy but today his release is an historic moment. We hope other journalists and prisoners of conscience will also be freed and that U Win Tin will be able to resume his peaceful struggle for press freedom and democracy in Burma.”

U Win Tin was imprisoned on July 4, 1989 for several charges including anti-government propaganda, RSF reported. Eight journalists are still in prison in Burma. – RSF/SEAPA

Additional links:

Joy at U Win Tin’s release after 19 years in prison
Burmese journalist U Win Tin released after 19 years in prison
Regime Frees Longest-serving Political Prisoner, Win Tin
World Association of Newspapers' report on Burma

Update on the Rolando Ureta case hearing

2008 AMF Journalism Fellowship is now open

The Asia Media Forum Center (AMF) Nepal is inviting practicing Asian journalists in any medium (print, TV, radio, or online) to apply for a journalism fellowship of £1,000 (1,762 U.S. dollars).

The 2008 AMF Journalism Fellowship, launched in partnership with ActionAid, aims to “promote the concept of research-based journalism” in the region. The fellowship hopes to develop and enhance research ideas and concept related to current socio-political issues in Asia. The fellowship covers three themes: Bhutanese Refugee, Impunity and Flawed Rule of Law in Democratic States of Southeast Asia, and Inclusive democracy: How Nepal could achieve it?

Applicants should have five years or more working experience and must email the requirements on or before Sep 25, 2008 at asiamediaforumktm@gmail.com.

The exact dates of the fellowship, which will run from two to three weeks, will be announced soon. Read the terms of reference here.

CMFR Statement: Assault on the Public's Right to Know

Contact: Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo
(02) 894-1326/894-1314
staff@cmfr-phil.org


The Supreme Court’s affirmation of its March 25 decision in favor of executive privilege undermines the public interest function of the press to provide information to a citizenry that has a right to it on matters of public concern. Even more dangerously it also erodes the democratic imperative of transparency in governance.

By expanding the coverage of executive privilege to include communications authored or solicited and received by a presidential advisor, in this case then National Economic and Development Authority Director General Romulo Neri, the Court has legitimized government secrecy to an extent yet to be established by practice.

The Court also affirmed that executive privilege includes information on presidential decisions as well as the materials that were discussed prior to those decisions, thus enabling the president and/or his/her advisers to use executive privilege to conceal information on corruption and other forms of official wrongdoing from the Senate, the press and the public.

The impact on the public’s right to know and on the basic responsibility of the press to provide such information is obvious. But it is equally relevant to the health and future of democracy. If no information can be obtained because of executive privilege, then no information vital to the exercise of the sovereign right of the people in a democracy to decide on policy and other governance issues can be made available.

Oddly in conflict with the impending passage of a bill on public and press access to government information, the decision also strikes at the heart of the imperative for transparency in the affairs of a government in which corruption has so metastasized that it now afflicts it from top to bottom. Vital in the fight against corruption, transparency is the only weapon available to citizens to assure honesty in governance. By in effect providing the legal basis for the de facto reversal of that policy, the court has made that fight even more difficult and problematic.

To meet the challenge posed by the expansion of executive privilege, journalists will have to exert greater efforts to get at the truth of government transactions, policies and actions. As in the dying days of the Marcos regime, the need of the hour is for a journalism firmly committed to the truth- telling necessary in a democracy and vital to a sovereign people’s capacity to hold governments accountable. We call on our colleagues in the press to transcend through practice that’s both vigilant as well as responsible the limits the Supreme Court decision has imposed on the public’s right to information.

The 2008 SONA: Predictable coverage of a ho-hum event

Media provided the usual reports praising and criticizing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s last State of the Nation Address (SONA)--without offering much-needed analyses of the July 28 speech as well as the issues it raised.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) monitor from July 27 to 30 found that most of the reports in both print and broadcast focused on the response of her allies and detractors to Arroyo’s facts and figures.

The reports lacked the analysis and backgrounding needed to aid people in understanding the implications to the present situation of the public policies she said would continue, among them the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and the Value Added Tax (VAT), or the politics behind her decision to support natural family planning.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer noted discordant employment figures from different government offices in its front-page reports “Jeers from foes but a near-perfect score from top ally” (July 29) and “How GMA fared in previous SONAs” (July 28), but did not try to explain the inconsistency.

Neither did any media organization bother to confirm if the likes of Alan Amanse, the former fisherman turned whaleshark watch officer, along with the other human props Arroyo trotted out, were indicative of the country’s present condition.

Red carpet treatment

Much of the SONA coverage of the three major dailies (Inquirer, The Philippine Star, and the Manila Bulletin) and news programs of the two top networks, ABS-CBN 2 (TV Patrol and Bandila) and GMA-7 (24 Oras and Saksi) was limited to an account of the events prior to and after Arroyo’s speech.

The press highlighted the SONA as a red carpet event in which the politicians and their wives’ clothes were given detailed coverage. A particular case was that of the Nagtipunan mayor of the Bugkalot tribe in Central Luzon who wore only a g-string, and whose photo, for that reason, made it to all the papers.

The Bulletin even had a full page photo display of the women politicians who came in ternos—complete with the names of their respective couturiers.

Looking back

To be sure there was an effort to provide a detailed background on Arroyo’s previous SONAs. Abs-cbnnews.com and the Inquirer, for example, listed the themes, key points, promises, and accomplishments by the President from year to year. But the effort came to naught as the flood of figures without explanation did not foster a better understanding of how well or how badly Arroyo had met expectations and fulfilled past promises.

The blogsite of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), meanwhile, provided the few bright spots in a generally ho-hum, coverage through the articles “Hunger, poverty figures the President chose to ignore” and “SONA pickiness with numbers leaves state of economy hazy” last July 28, which challenged the validity of the data in the 2008 SONA Technical Report prepared by the Presidential Management Staff. PCIJ’s “Covering the SONA ritual” article, on the other hand, noted how the press considers Arroyo’s SONA more of a predictable political event rather than an opportunity for her to assess where the country is and to indicate where it’s going.

Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak also reported in the article “GMA’s SONA stats don’t show complete picture” how Arroyo did not provide the context that would have made the data she presented meaningful.

The SONA coverage was in short as predictable as the event itself.

Fundamentals

by Luis V. Teodoro


IN THE last three weeks or so, PJR Reports has been accused of various offenses through letters to the PJRR editor as well as repeated text messages, phone calls and e-mails.

PJR/PJRR has admitted its errors and promptly corrected them in the past, but will not concede imagined offences such as its supposedly saying, implying or alleging that the Abu Sayyaf is in peace negotiations with the government.

The PJRR report on the kidnapping of ABS-CBN reporter Cecilia “Ces” Drilon (“When Journalists are News,” PJRR July 2008) has for some obscure reason been accused of that gross error, as well as of citing Ms. Drilon as an authority on the Mindanao problem.

The story was about Ms. Drilon and her kidnapping, and not about Mindanao, in the first place. The story’s lead was emphasizing Ms. Drilon’s attempt to imbue with public value an attempt to further her career by claiming that any interview with the Abu Sayyaf would enhance negotiations with the government. The second sentence in fact asks if government negotiations with the ASG should even be in the government agenda.

The entire lead reads:

“Would it have improved the prospects (underscoring ours) for peace negotiations between the Abu Sayyaf group and the government if ABS-CBN 2’s Cecilia Victoria ‘Ces’ Drilon had obtained and aired that exclusive interview with the bandit group’s new leaders she said she was after? Should peace negotiations between a police problem like the ASG and the government be on the national agenda at all?”

The criticism of PJR/PJRR has lately had a déjà vu quality. During its 18-year history, the Philippine Journalism Review and its successor monitoring publication, PJR Reports, have been accused of (1) not having the credentials to criticize press performance; and (2) of itself not being subject to the monitoring it does on the rest of the press.

The same claims are currently being made, in addition to accusations that PJRR has committed gross factual errors. The first charge was in the past also accompanied by claims that PJR/PJRR staff members, although holders of journalism degrees, are “too young” and “too inexperienced” to be evaluating the performance of “veteran practitioners”.

A public right and a duty

The question on the qualifications of PJRR staff is a fundamental one. Are lack of experience and youth disqualifications from commenting on the press, a public service whose performance has an impact on all of society? On the other hand, do experience and sterling performance in the past exempt “veteran practitioners” from criticism by anyone? Does past performance assure present and future professional excellence and ethical compliance?

To claim the first is to impose limits on criticism of the media and the press—a public service everyone is entitled to monitor and evaluate, in the same way that criticism of the performance of public officials is both a duty as well as a public right. Meanwhile, to exempt veteran practitioners from criticism is to deny that even such worthies do make mistakes. And yet the argument would exempt editors, senior reporters, or even anyone who’s been in journalism for, say, a decade or two, from the evaluation the press deserves and needs.

A prerogative of citizenship

Although run by senior journalists, neither PJR nor PJRR has ever claimed any special qualification for what it does except that of informed citizenship. The right to monitor and evaluate press performance is a public right that brooks no exceptions. It is a prerogative of citizenship. One doesn’t need to be a journalist or a media expert to evaluate press performance, in much the same way that one doesn’t have to be a public official to monitor government policy. To demand that critics of public institutions must have certain credentials first other than citizenship is to undermine the democratic dialogue both in and about the press.

Neither has PJR/PJRR ever regarded itself as exempt from the monitoring it does. Nothing prevents anyone from publishing or airing critiques of its reports, analyses and commentary—to which, of course, PJRR would claim the same right of reply press subjects are entitled to. The PJRR pages and websites are also open to those who’re ready to commit either to paper or cyberspace their criticism, just as PJR/PJRR is ready to respond to them.

PJR Reports has never claimed to be exempt from criticism, and, we repeat, has corrected its errors, as part of the responsibility attached to monitoring the media. The freedom to criticize imposes certain responsibilities on those who would exercise it. PJR Reports is fully aware of those responsibilities, as every critic, whether of the media or of PJRR itself, should be.

Second issue of only refereed journal on journalism released

THE second issue of the Philippine Journalism Review (PJR), the only refereed journal in Asia devoted to journalism concerns and issues, is now available, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) has announced.

Now an annual, the Philippine Journalism Review, or PJR, used to be a press monitoring publication in magazine format. That function has been taken over by the monthly PJR Reports, which CMFR also publishes. The first issue of the reformatted PJR appeared in 2007 and was launched during the awarding ceremonies of the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellence in Journalism that year.

The 2008 issue of PJR has a paper by St. Scholastica's College journalism professor Ma. Aurora Lolita L. Lomibao on the beat system ("Revisiting the Beat System"), Philippine Daily Inquirer reporter DJ Yap's "Literary Journalism in the Philippines from the 1950s to the 1980s," and Philippine Social Science Council Technical Services and Information head Joanne B. Agbisit's "Media-Policy Interaction in the Passage of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995."

GMA 7 researcher Ederic Eder also reviewed an online publication ("Global Voices Online"), while University of the Philippines journalism professor Danilo A. Arao interviewed "barefoot journalism" advocate Ben Domingo ("Understanding Barefoot Journalism). A commentary by Johanna Camille Sisante on the Philippine Daily Inquirer's error-correction box ("The Inquirer Box of Errors") completes the 2008 issue contents.

University of the Philippines journalism professor and CMFR Deputy Director Luis V. Teodoro edits PJR, assisted by Prof. Danilo A. Arao, who is its managing editor. The PJR Board of Advisers is composed of academics from the Ateneo de Manila, the University of Santo Tomas, the University of the Philippines, St. Scholastica's College, the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication and the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

PJR copies may be ordered from the CMFR (840-0889; 894-1314, 894-1326) and the Office of Research and Publication of the UP College of Mass Communication (981-8500 local 2668).