Why we need to be critical—and credible

By Alex P. Vidal

“The press is a watchdog. Not an attack dog. Not a lapdog. A watchdog. Now, a watchdog can’t be right all the time. He doesn’t bark only when he sees or smells something that’s dangerous. A good watchdog barks at things that are suspicious.”— Dan Rather

SOME readers may be wondering why we always take the critical side when discussing issues about the government.

The answer is simple: check and balance.

We need a critical press to maintain balance and transparency in a democratic society where the government calls the shot when it comes to the disposition and handling of the taxpayers’ money.

We need a critical press to check what’s going on; to mirror, inform or report to the public how public funds are spent by those in power—elected or appointed public officials and their subalterns.

Public funds are the lifeblood and paramount assets of government.

It must be spent wisely and properly; public funds shouldn’t be wasted and stolen by those who are supposed to manage and safeguard them.

Our role as critical journalists is to remind the crooks in government that “hey, somebody is watching. Your actions and activities are under close scrutiny and will be reported to the public.”

Critical means we must constantly remind our public officials—and chide them, if necessary—if they commit infractions or inimical activities and actuations that expose them to scandal and compromise their image and functions basically as public servants.

-o0o-

We come in when public officials are on the brink of plunging into the abyss of moral turpitude.

That’s why the journalists, as watchdogs and “fiscalizers”, should be first and foremost also credible.

If the watchdogs and “fiscalizers” are scoundrels and “fixcalizers”, they have no credibility to handle and perform the responsibility of being investigative, confrontational and adversarial.

Journalists who can be bribed are no better than the crooks in government the press is supposed to rebuke and expose.

Two wrongdoers—crooks in government and rascal journalists—means a total chagrin and gradual setback for Juan de la Cruz.

Basically, a committed and principled journalist should avoid many friends in the political circle.

The more political friends a journalist acquires, the less he becomes effective as “catalyst of change.”

A genuine journalist is an ironclad gadfly of democracy, not an attack dog, lap dog or double-edged political mercenary.

At least this was how my mind as a remnant of the original post-Martial Law College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) has been shaped and trained especially when I became seriously involved in community journalism immediately after the EDSA Revolution, when press freedom and free speech were slightly and sardonically restored.

On my part, I would rather criticize than praise; I prefer to be hated as a critical journalist than to be praised (mostly by politicians) as a merchant of “praise release.” Everything boils down to walang personalan, trabaho lang.

Socrates said wisdom begins in wonder. I say journalism begins by being suspicious and in constructive criticism.

(The author, who is now based in New York City, used to be the editor of two local dailies in Iloilo.—Ed)