This is where media has taken us. My aunt went to our house two weeks ago and asked me if I could search the internet for Imbestigador’s contact details. “May
ipapa-imbestigador ako,” she told me. According to her, she has a
neighbor who is bound in chains because of a mental illness.
Magsusumbong daw siya sa Imbestigador. I
used to have fun watching the drama, the twist and turns, and the
suspense of Imbestigador (I never really liked XXX, so I’ll just talk
about Imbestigador). They’re currently celebrating their nth year
anniversary, and showing re-runs of their best episodes. The fact that
the show is nearing its decade of existence clearly shows that Mike
Enriquez has become sort of an icon to the masses. In fact, people are
more afraid of Imbestigador than of the police. I mean, you can truly
see the big difference when you tell a person, “ipapapulis kita!” as
opposed to saying, “ipapa-Imbestigador kita!” I
can say that many people admire the cause of tv shows such as
Imbestigador. I used to admire Mike Enriquez! Yet, as in every other
program, there is still a tinge of the desire to create a show that
would attract ALL primetime viewers. I believe that Imbestigador is
more of that. Every other journalist knows that what Imbestigador (and
XXX, and the like) is doing is totally wrong. Primarily,
such shows are unethical in a sense. Whatever happened to justice and
humaneness? People has this mindset that the use of hidden cameras and
other forms of “journalistic deception” is OK, especially of the person
whose privacy is being invaded is guilty of the crime. The
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) ethics manual says
that the use of hidden cameras is an indication of the laziness of the
reporter. Why spend much of your time gathering data through
interviews, searching documents, analyzing data, and observing when you
can just bring out your camera, set up an entrapment, and catch the
criminal red-handed? There’s
this thing called “invasion of privacy”. Another thing is the right of
suspects to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in the COURT OF
THE LAW. Even though a person is caught with the weapon on his hands,
he still has the right to be presumed innocent. There is also this
thing called “the fruit of the forbidden tree”. If someone is caught
red-handed through illegal searches, or wiretaps and such, the evidence
gathered will never be accepted by the court as evidence. Lastly, one
can never control the reaction of the people towards what they have
seen. There is an inevitable bias towards the suspect that may have an
effect on his/her trial. Imagine being stigmatized by the society with
an iniquitous name or image without even being proven guilty of the
crime. The
Poynter Institute, according to CMFR admits that hidden cameras may be
used in “certain circumstances” such as when the “information obtained
is of profound importance”, especially if it involves public interest.
Question: will marital or family problems stir public interest? Will it
greatly have an effect in the lives of the greater public? Hidden
cameras may also be used “when all other alternatives for obtaining the
same information have been exhausted’, “when the journalists involved
are willing to disclose the nature of the deception and the reason for
it” and “when the individuals involved and their news organization
apply excellence through outstanding craftsmanship as well as the
commitment of time and funding needed to pursue the story fully”, “when
the harm prevented by the information revealed through deception
outweighs any harm caused by the act of deception” and “when the
journalists involved have conducted a meaningful, collaborative and
deliberative decision-making proves on the ethical and legal issues.” I
must admit, there are exceptional cases in Imbestigador. But what about
the petty acts of extortion or trivial crimes wherein the perpetrators
are the marginalized people whose lives may be adversely affected by
the showing of the video footages? Should they still show these things?
Even hardcore criminals have rights too. CMFR
says that there are “reasons” why journalists resort to going against
their ethics and unknowingly violate individual rights just to pursue a
story. Some of them want to win the Peabody award, or the Jaime V. Ongpin
award, or even the Pulitzer prize (why not?). Others want to beat the
competition. My teacher said that Imbestigador basically caused
Magandang Gabi Bayan and the succeeding tv programs to shut down.
Humakot sa takilya. Other journalists are just plain lazy. Others do it
because everybody else is doing it (sounds familiar?). Imbestigador
does it so XXX might as well do it. Lastly, journalists say that the
subjects or the suspects themselves are unethical. This is the most
common misconception of all. People think that just because a person
does something immoral, it means that he/she has already stripped
him/herself of his/her right to protect his/her privacy. It is possible that the society has lost their faith in the police that they go to the media instead.
Anyway, this is getting longer. So I’ll stop. I just want to say that I don’t like Imbestigador. | 
