Six versus two

I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognise the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.

Journalist’s Code of Ethics, No. 1

THE Philippine Daily Inquirer fell short of projecting a balanced report in “Catholics come out for RH bill; they remain faithful to Church but…” (10/06/10, p. 10). And it’s quite disappointing for a paper that claims to have “BALANCED NEWS, FEARLESS VIEWS.”

The article, which features the support for the RH bill by a group of Catholics, has more pro-RH sources and allows more space to their views compared to its anti-RH sources.

It has six pro-choice sources (including legislators and the national coordinator of the dissenting group of Catholics) and only two pro-life ones (a CBCP representative and a senator). (There there two other sources, however, who did not explicitly mention their stand on the bill.) And in the entirety of the article (39 paragraphs), only 8 paragraphs were given to the pro-life side.

You call that balance?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s