Press, Not Puppets

By Herman M. Lagon

Election coverage is an endurance sport. Journalists who take on the responsibility of reporting on campaigns, candidates, and the very process of democracy itself must walk a tightrope between truth and influence, ethics and pressure, independence and convenience. The stakes are high, and so are the temptations. Some reporters follow the path of integrity; others, unfortunately, stumble into the shadows where cash envelopes and patronage await. In our country, where elections are as much a spectacle as a democratic process, maintaining ethical journalism is compounded by cultural nuances, economic realities, and the emergence of pseudo-media players who trade legitimacy for profit.

One of the cardinal rules of ethical election coverage is financial independence. “Pay your way” is an ideal and a necessary standard. Journalists should never rely on candidates to cover their travel expenses, meals, or accommodations. When a reporter accepts these perks, they inevitably compromise their objectivity. An invisible yet potent debt is created when a politician pays for a journalist’s hotel stay or airfare. The expectation of reciprocity is real, and whether conscious or subconscious, it influences how stories are framed. Suppose an outlet cannot afford to send reporters to cover a political event. In that case, the ethical choice is to stay back and report from verified sources instead of embedding with campaigns.

Accepting cash or gifts from politicians or political parties is another ethical landmine. These “gifts” often come as so-called “media allowances,” a euphemism for outright bribery. Some justify it as “gas money” or “meal support,” but whatever the name, the intention remains the same: buying favor. Journalists who receive these incentives lose their credibility, whether or not they realize it. The problem worsens when we see the rise of “yellow,” “kuratong,” and “attach-collect-defend-collect (AC-DC)” media players—those who exist not to inform but to peddle influence in exchange for financial gain. They flood social media with sensationalized half-truths, defend political patrons, and attack perceived enemies. These are not journalists but mercenaries masquerading as members of the press.

Conflict of interest must also be declared. If a reporter has personal ties to a candidate, their readers deserve to know. If a journalist’s spouse, sibling, or close friend is a campaign manager, their coverage is bound to be questioned. Ethical journalism demands transparency; readers and viewers must be given the full context of a reporter’s possible biases. Unfortunately, some media outlets do not just fail to disclose conflicts of interest; they actively participate in partisan reporting. Some newsrooms are owned by political dynasties or business people with direct stakes in the elections. When owners dictate coverage, editorial independence crumbles and the newsroom becomes an extension of a campaign headquarters rather than a watchdog for the public.

Surveys, a staple in election coverage, also require careful handling. Poll results can shape public perception, but only if they are properly contextualized. The margin of error, methodology, funding sources, and sample size must all be disclosed. However, the reality is that many media outlets parrot poll results without critically analyzing their validity. Worse, candidates manufacture or commission some surveys to create a bandwagon effect. Reporting on surveys demands more than just listing numbers; it requires dissecting their implications and ensuring audiences understand what they do and do not signify.

Journalists must turn to colleagues who walk the talk when faced with ethical dilemmas. Seeking advice from seasoned and respected media professionals is essential. Not all advice is equal, and some so-called journalists thrive on the very corruption they claim to fight. It is crucial to filter through the noise and align with individuals who value journalistic integrity over convenience. Veteran journalists who have maintained their credibility despite decades in the field are the best guides. Their experience serves as a map for those who wish to navigate the treacherous landscape of election coverage without losing their ethical footing.

“Pack journalism” is anathema to independent reporting. Daily Guardian Editor-in-Chief Francis Allan Angelo, in one of his social media posts, describes it as an anathema to independent journalism. He said: “It’s like a mafia deciding what comes out of the news, with reporters ending up like a herd of docile sheep. If you tend to be enterprising, you will be ostracized.” This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in beat reporting, where journalists who refuse to follow the pack are seen as disruptors. The result is an industry where fear of exclusion outweighs the drive for originality. Election coverage should celebrate diverse perspectives, not suppress them. The electorate benefits when journalists challenge narratives rather than blindly follow them.

These six ethical pillars—paying your own way, refusing gifts, declaring conflicts of interest, being critical of surveys, seeking guidance from credible peers, and avoiding pack journalism—are emphasized in global journalism standards, particularly by the WAN IFRA Win Equality and Inclusion initiative. This program, run by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), champions ethical journalism, especially in promoting gender equality, newsroom diversity, and integrity in reporting. While its primary focus is empowering women in newsrooms, its values extend to every journalist, regardless of gender. These six principles are not arbitrary rules but safeguard against the erosion of press freedom and journalistic credibility.

Legitimate journalism is now competing with the rise of social media influencers who wield significant influence despite lacking journalistic rigor, training, and responsibility. Many of these self-proclaimed media personalities have massive followings, yet they operate without the rigor, ethical training, or accountability professional journalists adhere to. Their unchecked reach allows misinformation to spread rapidly, especially during election season. In contrast, ethical journalists painstakingly verify sources, contextualize reports, and ensure fairness in their coverage. The battle for truth is no longer just about accuracy; it is about visibility. When sensationalism drowns out ethical journalism, democracy suffers.

Journalism is not about gaining favor but demanding accountability. Yet, in our country, access is often mistaken for influence. Some reporters take pride in their closeness to politicians, equating proximity with credibility. Real journalistic power does not come from private meetings but from the courage to ask tough questions. A journalist’s worth is not measured by how many politicians know them but by how many feel uneasy in their presence.

Election coverage is more than reporting poll numbers; it equips voters with facts. Journalists must go beyond soundbites, scrutinizing candidates’ platforms, records, and inconsistencies. The press is not here to entertain but to inform. When journalists compromise ethics, democracy weakens. Upholding integrity in election coverage is not just a professional duty but public service.

Journalists must act for the greater good like a good public servant, constantly questioning their motivations and biases. The ability to seek truth over comfort is what separates real journalists from those chasing influence or a paycheck.

The coming elections will again test the media. Will journalists stand as guardians of truth or trade integrity for access? The choice is not just theirs—it is ours, as readers, to demand better, hold the press accountable, and distinguish real news from deception. Ultimately, a free press is only as strong as the public that defends it.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.