Quirino Grandstand Ethical Analysis
I. Introduction
The Issue:
Lost in the aftermath of the investigation into what is now known as “Rizal Park hostage-taking incident” was the negative role of the Media played that added fuel to the shooting incident. Most of the major TV companies represented by their top news reporters, by communicating directly to the hostage-taker and by broadcasting the arrest of his brother, even though they know that a TV set was being used inside the bus, compromised and tied the hands of the negotiators to have the upper hand in the negotiation. The sight of his brother being arrested pushed the hostage-taker to start shooting the innocent victims. Although most of these Broadcast companies were found to be in violation of Section 4, Article 6 of the KBP Broadcast Code, which states “The coverage of crimes or crisis situations shall not provide vital information or offer comfort or support to the perpetrators”, with a fine of no more than P30,000.00, not one of them accepted direct responsibility and explicitly apologized for the said fiasco. KBP cannot even sanction one major TV Company since it was not a member.
The only positive output that came from this incident was the revision of Article 6 of the Broadcast code that added 9 more sections from the current 6 sections, that addresses the rules that are “vague and incomplete” like delaying the airing of the live footage, Media should assume the hostage-taker have access to all types of broadcast, the right to life takes precedence over the right to information, etc…
The Manila hostage crisis, officially known as the The Luneta Hostage-Taking Fiasco, occurred when a dismissed Philippine National Police officer took over a tourist bus in Rizal Park, Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2010. A disgruntled former Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza of the Manila Police District (MPD), hijacked a tourist bus carrying 25 people (20 tourists and a tour guide from Hong Kong, and four Filipinos) in an attempt to get his
The Issue:
Lost in the aftermath of the investigation into what is now known as “Rizal Park hostage-taking incident” was the negative role of the Media played that added fuel to the shooting incident. Most of the major TV companies represented by their top news reporters, by communicating directly to the hostage-taker and by broadcasting the arrest of his brother, even though they know that a TV set was being used inside the bus, compromised and tied the hands of the negotiators to have the upper hand in the negotiation. The sight of his brother being arrested pushed the hostage-taker to start shooting the innocent victims. Although most of these Broadcast companies were found to be in violation of Section 4, Article 6 of the KBP Broadcast Code, which states “The coverage of crimes or crisis situations shall not provide vital information or offer comfort or support to the perpetrators”, with a fine of no more than P30,000.00, not one of them accepted direct responsibility and explicitly apologized for the said fiasco. KBP cannot even sanction one major TV Company since it was not a member.
The only positive output that came from this incident was the revision of Article 6 of the Broadcast code that added 9 more sections from the current 6 sections, that addresses the rules that are “vague and incomplete” like delaying the airing of the live footage, Media should assume the hostage-taker have access to all types of broadcast, the right to life takes precedence over the right to information, etc…
The Manila hostage crisis, officially known as the The Luneta Hostage-Taking Fiasco, occurred when a dismissed Philippine National Police officer took over a tourist bus in Rizal Park, Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2010. A disgruntled former Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza of the Manila Police District (MPD), hijacked a tourist bus carrying 25 people (20 tourists and a tour guide from Hong Kong, and four Filipinos) in an attempt to get his