The Inquirer columnist as kontrabida
INQUIRER.net editor John Nery and columnist Oscar Franklin Tan recently engaged in a friendly debate on what should and shouldn’t be published in this news site’s commentary section.
Tan criticized the Inquirer’s decision to publish an opinion piece on the proposed Bangsa Moro Basic Law that he says were based on flawed premises. Nery defended the decision to run the article, citing the principle of open democratic debate.
I’m weighing in because it’s an important issue that touches on media concerns also in the spotlight in the US, and also because Oscar asked me to.
He invited me to react to his argument “that media filter basic legal propositions like any other fact that can be empirically verified.”
“You will never be able to rely on people refuting, and that very unfairly shifts the huge social cost of being the ‘kontrabida’ to the people conscientious enough to be the refuters and attempt to correct what has already spread through full blown media organizations,” he told me.
“Nakakapagod rin maging kontrabida,” he added.
I chuckled when I read that. And it’s because I actually think being the “kontrabida” is an apt description for the Inquirer columnist, who must sometimes challenge popularly held beliefs.
On his criticisms of the Inquirer, I’m afraid Oscar will not completely like with what I have to say. For one thing, I agree with John, who is an old friend and schoolmate, and who points to a distinction between reporting and opinion.
When it comes to the news sections of this site, there’s no debate: The reporting must be based on facts.
But contributors to a news site’s commentary section typically are given more latitude. As John noted, the commentary section isn’t a scholarly journal where articles are typically peer-reviewed, subjected to a strict review process involving experts in the specific field of study.
But John’s response is, I think, incomplete. And this is where Oscar has done a great service by being a “kontrabida.”
John wrote: “The free market is not perfect (whether as metaphor or reality). But it flourishes only when it is open.”
I agree. But here’s the missing element in this argument: No commentary section can be completely open. It’s impossible.
John noted that the space for opinion pieces has “multiplied” thanks to the respected journalist and Inquirer Opinion Editor Chato Garcellano. And he argues that the “opinion pages should not aspire to be a law classroom, but rather a public square.”
But there’s a limit to how many people can fit into, and take part in a debate in a public square.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the Inquirer gets hundreds if not thousands of unsolicited opinion pieces on a range of issues. Whether they like it or not, Inquirer editors must make decisions which opinion pieces to publish, and which ones to cast aside.
John actually addresses this point in both of his responses to Oscar’s arguments. And he uses the term “cranks” to describe the process embraced by the Inquirer.
He says the Inquirer’s opinion page “tries to weed out the obvious cranks, but otherwise keeps itself open to all comers.” In another column, he says that “Aside from spotting obvious cranks, an editor should be responsible for welcoming all opinions—including those which challenge his most cherished beliefs.”
Now even the most open-minded editor will run into the practical limitations of space. Which leads to the question: How do Inquirer editors decide which would-be contributor is a crank and which ones are worthy of seeing their viewpoints published on the site?
And certainly Inquirer editors are also making decisions on what debates should be given space in the newspaper and the news site. The 2016 presidential election, the Mindanao peace talks or the dispute with China obviously are important issues.
But the Inquirer wouldn’t (at least I hope not) waste time and space on such questions as: Did the moon landing really happen? Was Barack Obama really born in the U.S. and not in Kenya? Did the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos really win all those medals for bravery during World War II?
Well, of course, there are blogs and websites that still would be drawn into these faux debates based on their political agendas. This is a problem media face with even more serious issues. One example is climate change.
This is now known as a major controversy being debated all over the world — although in many ways it really isn’t controversial; at least not to the most of the respected, credible scientists in the world.
Which is why some major news organizations have begun rethinking the way they’ve been covering this issue.
Take the BBC News’ governing body which last year criticized the broadcast network’s “over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality” that led it to give “undue attention to marginal opinion.”
This self-criticism was based on the assessment that BBC News, in its effort to be impartial, simply gave too much airtime to staunch deniers of the climate crisis who simply were not credible.
“Impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views,” the report said.
For that kind of misguided impartiality, it continued, would lead to a dilemma that a news organization like the Inquirer clearly would want to avoid: “false balance.”
It’s not always easy to do that, which is why it’s good to have kontrabidas on the Inquirer’s opinion pages to make sure the balance is real and meaningful.
Visit the Kuwento page on Facebook at www.facebook.com/boyingpimentel
On Twitter @boyingpimentel
Like us on Facebook
