UST’s Corona dilemma and the power of journalism
San Francisco—First off, I take back what I said.
I led by my last column by saying that the brouhaha over Chief Justice Renato Corona’s doctorate degree from the University of Santo Tomas is a minor issue.
What I wanted to say was that the more important focus in the upcoming impeachment trial will likely be on the allegations related to his Supreme Court career, not questions on his doctorate degree from UST.
But it may have come across as my belittling the importance of academic scholarship and integrity. That was a boneheaded thing to do and I apologize, especially to friends in academia.
Earning a doctorate degree is tough work, and we should all have enormous respect for those who have done it. To be sure, academics play a very important role in any society.
So do journalists, I’d argue.
But based on reactions to my column, online journalism, which was denigrated by the UST old guard, is also seen by some as this strange, high-tech, reckless branch of media — as a world in which writers and reporters simply make things up and rush without thinking to publish their work.
It’s not. Online journalism is still journalism. The rules are the same. You report a story. You explore not just two sides of an issue or a problem, but several. And you make sure you get everything right before publishing.
Sometimes news organizations get it wrong. The responsible ones quickly correct the errors and learn from those mistakes. The reckless ones – and they do exist – routinely get it wrong, and don’t care.
But Rappler, the online news site at the center of this UST-Corona controversy, got it right. And how the Rappler reporters and editors chased this the story is an example of excellent and responsible journalism.
The most important point in Marites Vitug’s story can be found somewhere in the middle of the story. It reads: “Corona does not have a dissertation.”
That’s the sentence that a responsible reporter and his or her editor would focus on intensely. It’s the part of the story that would have made them nervous.
The reason is obvious: What if it’s not true? That’s the guiding question a journalist taking on an investigative project such as this must constantly ask: What if I’m wrong?
Apparently, some of UST’s defenders imagine Vitug and Co. rushing to publish their story without any careful investigation.
But that’s not how it happened.
The reporting for the story began in June, as Rappler relates on its Web site.
Vitug and Co. wanted to see the dissertation, but couldn’t find it. So they kept digging. The digging took not a few hours. Not a few days. Not even even weeks. They kept digging for about six months.
Even when UST was refusing to cooperate, they kept digging, they kept trying to nail down the answer to a key question: Did Corona submit a dissertation?
The timing of the story — which ran in late December — is an important point. Corona’s impeachment made questions about his academic credentials even more important and timely.
Rappler could have run a half-baked story to ride the wave of public interest created by the political developments.
But no. They did what responsible journalists do. They kept asking: What if we’re wrong? And they dug some more.
Eventually, that persistence paid off. For in fact, the Rappler team was right.
Corona did not submit a dissertation. Or more precisely, he did not write a dissertation the way most universities think of a dissertation.
The first official UST statement said the requirement had been waived. But a later statement said it “was not totally waived” — apparently he gave some kind of lecture that UST deemed enough to be considered a dissertation (That has raised questions about UST’s doctorate policies — but that’s another story.)
In a stunning public relations blunder, UST launched into an arrogant attack on journalism instead of simply explaining its position.
But for Rappler, prudence and patience paid off.
If they had been wrong, it would have led to a disaster for the young news organization. Imagine UST calling a press conference and waving a copy of Corona’s dissertation, while accusing Rappler of incompetence or worse.
But that’s not what happened. Rappler’s dogged reporting paid off — and serious questions about a major public figure’s integrity were exposed.
That’s why Rappler exemplifies the kind of journalism that young Filipinos who may be considering a career in this field should be aware of.
But one thing that’s striking about the UST-Corona controversy is that it could have have come to light another way.
This whole mess could have been the result of a group of UST doctorate students who found themselves asking the question: “Wait a minute, why are we being made to do all this hard work, researching, writing, rewriting and defending our dissertation, while you grant a degree to another candidate who didn’t endure the same ordeal?”
Which is to say that while journalists play an important role, what they do isn’t really rocket science or brain surgery.
It’s about taking on a problem and figuring it out by tirelessly asking questions. And the online world, the realm UST’s old guard appears to be clueless about, has just made it easier to do just that.
The fact that the Rappler team broke the story underscores the power of journalism.
In a way, Rappler continues the tradition of responsible, independent and hard-hitting reporting that groups such as the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Vera Files pioneered.
The Web may have ushered in a new kind of journalism that allows for faster dissemination of a news report — but the rules for good journalism haven’t changed.
In chasing a story, you don’t rush in pressing the button that would make the story accessible to millions of people.
Even when you can’t seem to get the answers you need, you keep on digging.
On Twitter @KuwentoPimentel. On Facebook at www.facebook.com/benjamin.pimentel
