UN passes resolution on safety of journos, sans push from ASEAN

THE THIRD COMMITTEE of the United Nations General Assembly on November 26 passed a resolution on the safety or journalists and the issue of impunity, among others setting 2 November as the “International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists.”

The resolution was approved without vote by the UN’s Committee for Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee (SOCHUM), one of six main committees of the international body, which is also called the “Third Committee”, according to a press statement of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA).

The resolution, one of 19 passed by the Third Committee on Tuesday, takes off from previous resolutions by various UN bodies to protect the work of journalists, including a resolution by the Human Rights Council and a joint plan of action by different UN bodies, both approved in 2012.

Previously, the International Day to End Impunity (IDEI) was commemorated annually by freedom of expression advocates on November 23 to mark the anniversary of the 2009 Ampatuan massacre, during which 58 persons were brutally murdered, including 32 media workers — the most horrific act of journalist killings globally.

“It would have been more meaningful if November 23 was chosen as the official IDEI date since it would underline the urgency of the problem of violence against journalists and impunity of perpetrators,” said Gayathry Venkiteswaran, executive director of SEAPA.

“Still, having an official day means we can join governments in commemorating the date, and especially in working together to address this serious problem of impunity,” Gayathry added.

“It is still symbolic that the UN General Assembly passed the resolution almost immediately after we commemorated the IDEI,” she noted further.

Gayathry expressed concerned that “not one country in Southeast Asia co-sponsored the resolution even though it is a problem throughout the region.”

Co-sponsoring the resolution “would have demonstrated the ASEAN member governments’ acknowledgement that the problem exists, and would have been a sign of their commitment to address the culture of impunity in the region,” Gayathry explained.

“For three years now, we have been campaigning on the issue of impunity in Southeast Asia but have received nothing more than polite acknowledgement from government representatives,” said Kulachada Chaipipat, SEAPA campaign manager.

Media freedom groups have been pressuring their respective governments for justice in the numerous cases of impunity killings, but little progress has been made in terms of investigations and prosecutions.

“Governments in the region have been in denial about impunity,” Kulachada said.

For example, the Philippines Communications Secretary, said in a 22 November press briefing that journalists killings were “not so serious”, if one did not consider the Ampatuan massacre.

“But the Philippines was the only country in Southeast Asia where journalists were killed in 2013 — and there were at least six,” Kulachada said.

SEAPA member, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) noted that the case backlog of journalist murders is at a highest point during the term of President Benigno Aquino, with 23 killings recorded.

If the Ampatuan massacre is not counted, “there are now more journalists killed per year on average under Aquino” than any other president after 1986, noted the PCIJ.

The bigger problem is that most cases remain unsolved, including the 2012 killing of Cambodian journalist Heng Serei Oudom, after the court dismissed in August 2013 the case against the primary suspects for lack of evidence.

Founded in 1998, SEAPA is an alliance of independent media organizations in the region, with a secretariat based in Bangkok.

Its members are the Thai Journalists Association, the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) and the Institute for Studies on the Free Flow of Information (ISAI) of Indonesia, the Center for Independent Journalism of Malaysia, and from the Philippines, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and PCIJ.

UN passes resolution on safety of journos, sans push from ASEAN

THE THIRD COMMITTEE of the United Nations General Assembly on November 26 passed a resolution on the safety or journalists and the issue of impunity, among others setting 2 November as the “International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists.”

The resolution was approved without vote by the UN’s Committee for Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee (SOCHUM), one of six main committees of the international body, which is also called the “Third Committee”, according to a press statement of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA).

The resolution, one of 19 passed by the Third Committee on Tuesday, takes off from previous resolutions by various UN bodies to protect the work of journalists, including a resolution by the Human Rights Council and a joint plan of action by different UN bodies, both approved in 2012.

Previously, the International Day to End Impunity (IDEI) was commemorated annually by freedom of expression advocates on November 23 to mark the anniversary of the 2009 Ampatuan massacre, during which 58 persons were brutally murdered, including 32 media workers — the most horrific act of journalist killings globally.

“It would have been more meaningful if November 23 was chosen as the official IDEI date since it would underline the urgency of the problem of violence against journalists and impunity of perpetrators,” said Gayathry Venkiteswaran, executive director of SEAPA.

“Still, having an official day means we can join governments in commemorating the date, and especially in working together to address this serious problem of impunity,” Gayathry added.

“It is still symbolic that the UN General Assembly passed the resolution almost immediately after we commemorated the IDEI,” she noted further.

Gayathry expressed concerned that “not one country in Southeast Asia co-sponsored the resolution even though it is a problem throughout the region.”

Co-sponsoring the resolution “would have demonstrated the ASEAN member governments’ acknowledgement that the problem exists, and would have been a sign of their commitment to address the culture of impunity in the region,” Gayathry explained.

“For three years now, we have been campaigning on the issue of impunity in Southeast Asia but have received nothing more than polite acknowledgement from government representatives,” said Kulachada Chaipipat, SEAPA campaign manager.

Media freedom groups have been pressuring their respective governments for justice in the numerous cases of impunity killings, but little progress has been made in terms of investigations and prosecutions.

“Governments in the region have been in denial about impunity,” Kulachada said.

For example, the Philippines Communications Secretary, said in a 22 November press briefing that journalists killings were “not so serious”, if one did not consider the Ampatuan massacre.

“But the Philippines was the only country in Southeast Asia where journalists were killed in 2013 — and there were at least six,” Kulachada said.

SEAPA member, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) noted that the case backlog of journalist murders is at a highest point during the term of President Benigno Aquino, with 23 killings recorded.

If the Ampatuan massacre is not counted, “there are now more journalists killed per year on average under Aquino” than any other president after 1986, noted the PCIJ.

The bigger problem is that most cases remain unsolved, including the 2012 killing of Cambodian journalist Heng Serei Oudom, after the court dismissed in August 2013 the case against the primary suspects for lack of evidence.

Founded in 1998, SEAPA is an alliance of independent media organizations in the region, with a secretariat based in Bangkok.

Its members are the Thai Journalists Association, the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) and the Institute for Studies on the Free Flow of Information (ISAI) of Indonesia, the Center for Independent Journalism of Malaysia, and from the Philippines, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and PCIJ.

FFFJ to Coloma: Media murders are about impunity, role of State

WHAT follows is the full statement of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) on comments made by Communications Secretary Herminio ‘Sonny’ Coloma that under the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III, there is no culture of impunity that lingers in the Philippines.

The FFFJ is composed of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), the Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ).

CMFR is the secretariat of the FFFJ.

BEYOND THE NUMBERS

IS THERE “no more culture of impunity” as Secretary Herminio ‘Sonny’ Coloma of the Presidential Communication Operations Office argued during a press conference last November 22, on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the November 23, 2009 Ampatuan Massacre?

Secretary Coloma was reacting to allegations that the Aquino administration has pulled ahead of past administrations because of the number of journalists killed — 19, or an average of six per year — during the first three years of its watch. He bases this argument on another argument: that the number of journalists and media workers killed during the first three years of President Benigno Aquino III, from 2010 to 2013, which, as documented by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), currently stands at 19, is inflated because “a driver of a network, employees of ‘fly-by-night’ newspapers, and a blocktimer selling skin whiteners” are included in the count.

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility includes media workers, such as drivers and grips, because of the indispensable support these give to journalists. They perform services required by journalists to do their work. CMFR also includes blocktimers and those working in tabloids who may be sponsored by political and commercial interests, because whatever the quality of their work, they remain part of the free media community, exercising a crucial role in a democracy and equally protected by the Constitution.

When they’re killed in the course of their work or for their work, it has an impact on the state of the press and media because the killings serve as a deterrent against other journalists’ doing their jobs without fear. The CMFR list does not look into the compliance of practitioners with ethical and professional standards, that being a separate issue altogether from the fundamental one: that no one who does journalistic work or who supports the work of journalists deserves to be killed, and their killing has a chilling effect on the way the press and the media provide the information and analysis citizens need. CMFR and other advocate groups believe that their killers must be punished.

CMFR looks very closely into every report, whether from the news media or from its own network, on the killing of a journalist or media worker. CMFR alerts, and threats officers call the Philippine National Police and local journalists, to confirm if indeed the killing took place. If it did, CMFR interviews the local police for the details of the killing, and the colleague of the slain to establish if the victim was indeed regarded by the local press and media community as a journalist; what he was working on; his history in the profession; whether he has received any death or other threats; and if the opinion of the press community his killing was work related. CMFR also contacts the family to verify if the slain was indeed working as a journalist and if he had mentioned any threats to his life, and from whom the slain thought they were coming from. CMFR then contacts whoever, if at all, the slain had told his family was threatening him to get his side.

CMFR, which also serves as the Secretariat for the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ), continues to validate its early findings by verifying them with other sources. Only when there is a high probability that the motive for the killing was work related is the name of the slain included in the CMFR database and a report on it released to the CMFR national and international networks, and if approved by its member organizations, to FFFJ networks as well. CMFR is aware that a journalist or media worker could be killed for other than work-related reasons, such as a private dispute or a love triangle, and has excluded thirteen (13) non-work related killings from its list of journalists killed during the Aquino administration, whose three-year record would otherwise total 32.

As far as the number of journalists killed during the first three years of the Aquino government (19) is concerned, only the gunman in the January 2011 killing of Palawan broadcaster and environmental advocate Gerry Ortega has been convicted.

Meanwhile, in 2013 alone, 66 threats, whimsical and politically-motivated libel suits, illegal arrests, physical assaults, being barred from covering events of public concern, and other harassments have been recorded, with no one being held to account for them.

Impunity is the name for the fact that only one gunman and no mastermind has been tried or even arrested in 18 out of the 19 killings of journalists from 2010 to 2013, and for the continuing harassments many journalists have to contend with in the course of their work.

FFFJ holds that the primary reason why the killings and harassments are continuing today is the slow progress of the Ampatuan Massacre trial, which is still hearing petitions for bail three years after it began, while 89 out of the 194 accused of masterminding and carrying out the Massacre are still at large.

But whatever the numbers — whether the driver of a TV network should be excluded from the list of 32 journalists and media workers killed during the Ampatuan Massacre or not — what is at issue is State responsibility for the safety of all its constituencies including journalists and media workers.

This has always been FFFJ’s stand, which is shared by CMFR and the other members of the FFFJ. That is why it continues to ask for government action. It is also the international standard, as United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Frank La Rue has reminded media and media advocacy groups, by which to determine the persistence of the culture of impunity in the Philippines and in other countries.

———–
SIGNATORIES:
Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists:
Center for Community Journalism and Development
Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
Philippine Press Institute

Delivering Muckrakers’ Tales Without the Advertisers

Global Investigative Journalism Network 2013

ESTABLISHING new avenues for digging-in and delivering on the muckraker’s craft is a double-edged sword: freeing investigative journalists from kowtowing to advertisers but requiring that they navigate through some lean times.

“The commercial model has been: make money from advertising. And you rarely go after your own advertisers,” longtime investigative journalist Charles Lewis told a packed room on Saturday in a panel discussion on successful business models at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference (GIJC13).

“Most media models function from advertising. You could see their ads. When you noticed the paper wasn’t investigating their biggest advertisers, you at least knew why.”

Lewis has founded several nonprofit investigative news organizations including the Center for Public Integrity, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and most recently the Investigative Lab at American University.

“To understand an organization and what it cares about and who supports them, that’s essential,” he said. Every nonprofit newsroom should develop, make public and adhere to an ethics policy that assures their funding sources are transparent to the public.

Lewis spoke alongside Reg Chua, data and innovation editor at Thomson Reuters and Sheila Coronel, director of the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University.

Coronel founded the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in 1989. When they opened their doors, only one person in her office earned a paycheck — her assistant.

“We started out in a borrowed office with DOS computers,” she said. “We had donated furniture and a lot of free labor.”

They earned money by syndicating their stories although it’s often impossible to recover the costs of an investigation; and they applied for grants from foreign foundations.

“I tried everything — coffee mugs, books, business plans for a café or mailing center,” she said. “The only lesson I learned is that you will make mistakes. But you have to move on. There’s no time to cry.”

Just as funding models have shifted, so have the delivery mechanism for – and even the very definition of — “investigative journalism.”

Coronel has come to embrace a simple description: the exposure of wrongdoing in the public interest “in whatever form and on whatever platform where it reaches the audience,” she said.

Reg Chua said new models must also consider how they package their content.

“Are you selling investigative journalism or a product that happens to have investigative journalism in it,” Chua encouraged entrepreneurs to ask when they develop a business model.

“People come to restaurants because of ambiance, service, location, health ratings, branding. You have to put it in a broader package.”

Purely investigative centers will continue to exist, as well general interest news organizations that do no deep-dives. The question is, what mix will provide sustainability?

“Some of the best work that can be done is the less episodic but really sustained regular coverage of a subject, that in the course of doing helps you develop great stories,” he said.

“Watchdog reporting is the classic investigation. You expose it and bring people to justice. Scarecrow reporting is the regular day-to-day reporting, the threat of which keeps wrongdoings at bay.”

Pork, budget scams: FOI a key tool

BUDGET SCAMS, pork by any other name, who should stand trial — the pain and the rage against the controversies of recent weeks could, and should, end in a few good things for the Filipino people.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) law tops the list as an imperative in outing the truth to all these issues, according to the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition.

In a statement released on Friday, the Coalition of over 160 member-organizations and civil society leaders said it will join the people’s indignation rally against pork and budget scams on Monday, August 26, 2013, at the Luneta.

“We find repugnant the breakdown in government checks and accountability mechanisms, with the plunder prospering under the very noses of the Department of Budget and Management and the various implementing line agencies of the Executive, the legislators in their PDAF allocations,” the statement said.

“Now more than ever we are convinced of the urgency to pass the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act,” the Coalition said.

However, it also noted “the glaring absence of the passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) law in the measures on PDAF proposed by the President” who spoke on Friday about his intention to reform the pork barrel system.

“We reiterate our resolve to fight, alongside legislators who are showing independence and similar commitment, for the passage of an effective and empowering FOI law. This is our contribution to the various citizens’ initiatives to push for the accountability of all those involved in the plunder, and to finally put a stop to the budget scams, whether in PDAF or elsewhere, that have bled our public resources,” the Coalition added.

The PCIJ is a founding member of the Right to Know, Right Now! Coalition that recently filed a People’s FOI bill with both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

What follows is the full text of the Coalition’s statement:

FOI advocates joining Luneta indignation on budget scam

The Right to Know. Right Now! Coalition heeds the spontaneous call for a people’s march to Luneta on August 26. We join the people in expressing collective indignation over the large-scale budget scam reported by various media outfits and by the Commission on Audit (COA), and currently under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

While we are still far from knowing the complete facts of this controversy, it is already established that corrupt individuals have systematically created bogus non-government organizations or foundations for the purpose of plundering hard-earned taxpayers’ money through ghost projects, under-deliveries, or overpricing in the implementation of the Priority Development Assistant Fund (PDAF).

Already the public rage is bearing positive government response. In addition to the ongoing investigation by the DOJ, the Senate has reversed its earlier decision not to conduct its own investigation. The President has also proposed a “new mechanism” that will embody changes in project scope and budget releases.

Such initial positive responses from the different government agencies, however, should further stoke rather than dampen the spontaneous action in Luneta on August 26. We have just begun to scratch the surface of the issue.

For one, the question of what to ultimately do about the system of pork barrel remains up in the air. For another, the investigations are still at the preliminary stages, with more questions remaining unanswered and details still to uncover before we can even proceed to the stage of full accountability.

Equally important, we find repugnant the breakdown in government checks and accountability mechanisms, with the plunder prospering under the very noses of the Department of Budget and Management and the various implementing line agencies of the Executive, the legislators in their PDAF allocations, the Commission on Audit, and the Ombudsman, and with applicable safeguards such as the procurement law.

If such breakdown of checks and accountability mechanisms can happen to PDAF constituting less than 1.5 percent of the total government budget, how can we be assured that no such breakdown happens in the bigger 98.5 percent of the budget? We note, for instance, that the fertilizer fund scam that appears to have used similar modus operandi happened with agency budget and not PDAF. While the COA special audit covered expenditures made prior to 2010, we are deluding ourselves if we think that similar schemes just magically disappeared with the change of administration.

Now more than ever we are convinced of the urgency to pass the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. We cannot help but observe the glaring absence of the passage of the FOI law in the measures on PDAF proposed by the President. True, the measures reiterate the ongoing program of proactive disclosure by the DBM on the budget, but we emphasize that such proactive transparency, largely limited to general or aggregate allocations and spending or listing of projects, is not enough to allow citizens to get to the bottom of scams.

While these provide leads, we need to complement them with request-based access to information to be able to dig deeper. The People’s FOI Bill seeks to address this, but it is also the potential effectiveness of FOI in mitigating scams that appears to be the reason why it has been facing determined resistance across government administrations.

We reiterate our resolve to fight, alongside legislators who are showing independence and similar commitment, for the passage of an effective and empowering FOI law. This is our contribution to the various citizens’ initiatives to push for the accountability of all those involved in the plunder, and to finally put a stop to the budget scams, whether in PDAF or elsewhere, that have bled our public resources.

In relation to the FOI legislative process, we are happy to note that Senator Grace Poe, Chairperson of the Committee on Public Information at the Senate, is already in the process of scheduling the first committee hearing on the FOI Bills. We hope for a prompt passage of FOI in the Senate, to allow everyone to focus on overcoming the roadblocks that historically characterize the legislative process on FOI at the House of Representatives.

For the August 26 march, we come in solidarity with citizens who choose to take action, and encourage others to do the same. Our contingent will assemble at Leasing Boniface at 9 a.m, and we will then march by 10 a.m. to Luneta to join the people’s gathering.

Stop the budget scams! Deepen, expand and promptly complete the investigation! Prosecute those found to be culpable! Pass the People’s FOI Act!