Were organizations of journalism, press freedom, human rights and civil liberties negligent in “defending the rights” of former journalist Jay Sonza?

This was the question hurled by a journalist-friend from Cagayan de Oro. It got mixed and mostly surprised reactions from organizations.

I guess it would have been worse if the organizations rushed to “defend” Sonza. The public would have raised serious questions why the organizations allowed themselves and their worthy causes to be used by Sonza, because the public knows the partisan political camp the former journalist have since allied himself with.

Even if we grant the widest possible latitude to Sonza's opinions, it would literally be a stretch. Nobody, not even Sonza, claims what he had said or believed was journalism or fair comment. Neither has Sonza been known to boldly defend press freedom or the rights of journalists to freely report or comment on his and his chosen political principals. The political camp he is aligned with is infamous for and remains unapologetic for shuttering the country's biggest broadcast network.

It is a camp also known to deploy — with much gusto — red-tagging against many critics, especially those identified with cause-oriented groups and alternative media outfits.

Neither was the arrest and detention of PGMN founder Franco Mabanta and others arising from a sting operation where they were caught receiving marked money as part of an alleged extortion attempt an issue of press freedom or journalism. While Mabanta and his so-called anchors can claim until their faces turn red that they are "free speech absolutists", such views cannot be an acceptable excuse for committing extortion. This is a serious issue they would have to explain and defend in court, and in the court of public opinion where they have portrayed themselves as somewhat superior to journalism practitioners.

My comments in this column are entirely my own, but these will go through the editorial pipeline of our newspaper to make sure my political commentary is free and fair, and that the paper's minimum ethical standards are met. My editors would not need to agree with my views, but as part of the organization and the processes, this column has to be checked for grammar, fairness, basic accuracy and relevance to the issues.

When the Manila Bulletin publishes anything on any of its platforms, the public safely assumes every bit of information had been vetted by Bulletin’s organization and processes. The common practice of journalism, shared by professionals across newsrooms and beats, would result in similar news reports. Not because they copy one another, but that journalism practice would result in varying presentations of the same set of facts.

The release of so-called reports on the president’s health, allegedly precarious, and the former House Speaker's involvement in scandals, could be independently looked into by journalists. They may encounter problems or challenges, but they can still manage to come out with reports in the name of the people’s right to know. The important difference with others is that the exact same issues are treated quite differently, as political cudgel or as a subject of alleged extortion. The people's right to information seems purely incidental, not central.

The cases of Sonza and PGMN provide journalism students and practitioners, and the public, an opportunity to examine more clearly the changes in the media landscape. It is a space contested by journalism, so-called “content creation” of different persuasions and motives, advocacies and causes, business, government and other actors.

The real dependable anchor could not merely be “new faces” but in how media earns public trust. This means faithfulness to the people's right to know and the right to seek, receive, and impart information, the freedom to access information, including government data, through any media. For what? For democratic accountability, transparency, and public participation.

Anything less would be suspect and betray public trust.