BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PRESENTING NEWS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM:

1. BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS:THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PRESENTINGNEWS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM: PROF. JEFFREY P. DEATRAS BABC, MPSDC, PH.D (CANDIDATE)

2. PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN • Ethical standards in presenting well written broadcast journalistic scripts revolve around the factors of voice, looks and personality, in-depth knowledge and training, wit, wisdom and professionalism in handling sensitive ideas and information among presenters/anchors. • In both radio and television pleasant looks and well-managed voice are keys. • Unpleasant sights and sounds from presenters simply distort the messages

3. PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN • Distorted messages misinform the mass audience. • Ill-informed audience leads to uncritical public opinion and ineffectual social change • Broadcasters have the responsibility to shape critical, progressive and developmental public opinion among the masses. • Pleasant looks and voice simply affirms communication theories’ avoidance of “noise”----anything that hinders the ideal and effective transmission of messages from source to receiver.

4. PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN • Wit and wisdom in handling sensitive information comes with in-depth knowledge and training. • Knowledge in diverse academic areas (history, politics, economics, health, etc.) helps in making a sensible broadcast presentation • Commentaries, interviews, and other varieties that come with news announcing requires a great deal of wit, wisdom, and academic training. • Continuity or transitional lines may not be written all the time, thus wit may solve the problem • The free-flow of ideas in interview and commentary may put the presenter in great trouble from a simple word or phrase. Witty and smart broadcasters can always get away with such trouble

5. broadcast commentary and debate • the art of debate has been the primary framework in commentary and other public affairs discussion programs • In debate, there is the affirmative side (proposing a change) and the negative side (status qou). • In public affairs discussions, the affirmative might take the forms of proponents, complainants, etc. • The negative might fall upon those who defend or answer the complaints or go against the wishes of the proponents. • Commentaries and debate use news, history, statistics and other proofs as evidences to support arguments

6. affirmative versus negative • The “burden of proof” or the task to prove that something is wrong or unreasonable with the status qou lies with the affirmative or complainants using appropriate proofs and evidences • The negative or defendants must combat by attacking the reasoning of the affirmative through counter proofs/evidences • A broadcast journalist-commentator using pertinent news, history, and other documents may pursue a stand either of the affirmative or negative • Another way is to present the arguments of both sides and let the audience decide to make a stand • On pressing issues, commentaries must make a clear stand reflecting public welfare against partisan interests.

7. issues and propositions • In broadcast context, “issues” are socio-political problems reflected through most sensational news • In formal debate, “propositions are statements showing a planned action or change as an ideal solution to an issue/s • An excellent commentary must be clear of its “stand”, an informal term for debate proposition • In formal debate, propositions are never stated in the negative (such as using negation terms and affixes “not”, “in”, “dis”, etc.) • Commentaries can freely state its stand

8. organizing a stand • Like debate, great commentaries are well-written sequence of organized discussion of information that supports a stand. • Organization may begin with history or background of an issue or problem. This part must state a clear stand/proposition as it discusses how it started citing proofs and evidences. • It is followed by the discussion of its practicability through convincing and persuading the audience of how a stand becomes a practical solution. • The discussion ends with the part emphasizing the “urgency” of making a stand

9. of debaters and commentators • Commentaries are like the constructivespeeches in debates • Heated exchange of views between commentators versus guest/s or guest/s versus guest/s are like interpellationin debates where questions are thrown to trash the proofs and arguments of the opponents • Closing arguments in commentaries where the final assessment aimed at destroying the arguments/proofs of the opponents constitute the rebuttal in formal debate • READ: “The Art of Argumentation and Debate” by Africa

10. ACTIVITY • In a group of 15 members, make a commentary-stand on a recent issue. • Leader will act as commentator, thus the group will help him/her do a clear and organized sequence guide • History, practicability, and urgency will use four members/researchers each (4 x 3=12) to write and deliver proofs/evidences as one-minuter news each (12 total minutes). • The commentator will present 1-2 minutes (x 3= 3 to 6 total minutes) constructive arguments for each part (history, practicability, urgency) • Two members will deliver a minute each rebuttal against the arguments and proofs of the commentary. • Commentary ends in 15-20 minutes. Interpellation comes for the next level of the activity.