Journalism ethics is a must, but ultimately the journalist's choice

By Marivir R. Montebon

I often say that we journalists are only as good as our last written piece (or these days, podcast) are.

Every article is a birthing process, from choosing an event or person or topic to amplify - to the time the article is finished and distributed to the public.

Every article or media content, for me, is a challenge to our professed accuracy and adherence to truth, a test of timeliness and relevance, and if the media pieces we churn out are for public good.

The stories behind the stories that people read are as interesting themselves. In fact, they could be more exciting and gripping.

The case of the contractor couple was really a painful one which we journalists have been talking about lately.

There have been investigative reports in the past on the massive and systematic corruption between contractors and legislators and local executives. In fact, this sweetheart relationship has been horribly normalized, resulting in ghost or disastrous substandard projects.

So, if one sees a glamorous feature piece about contractors, how would any viewer feel? Or us journalists?

It is really a matter of ethics for journalists who they choose as subjects, and the kind of message and context being put out - whether that's a lifestyle piece or news feature.

Another problematic aspect in the media business is when the subjects pay to be interviewed, or are required to pay, which makes the podcast or article a PR piece, not journalistic. (This can be tackled separately.)

No amount of taray, smirks, insults can defend journalists after amplifying certain characters. Nope.