1

MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

Media Should not be Allowed

to carry Firearms

Flavianita G. cervania

Jefferson II P. Dumandan

Polytechnic University of the Philppines

Abstract

The Philippine media has now subjected to different issues especially the arming of media men. The

issue has been the apple of the eye of rational people since the infamous Maguinadanao massacre

happened. This essay would provide you some arguments on not allowing media to be armed in

different instances, angles and scenarios. The current situation of the media men or journalist in our

country which is the vulnerability of them to any threats and death is not the basis on arming them. In

this essay, the national security is quite alarming since the Philippine National Police let this kind of

occurrence happen. The PNP is responsible for protecting every citizen in our country and they were

very much liable to this case. This is just the climax of our argument on not allowing media to be armed

and still, this essay would let you know the other cases and arguments on arming media. This essay

would use different approaches and structure in showing evidences.

November 23, 2009 is now said to be the darkest day in Philippine Journalism. More than a dozen

journalists were brutally killed along with a number of men and women supporters accompanying

Genalyn Tiamzon-Mangudadatu in Maguindanao province where she filed Certificates of Candidacy in

Maguindanao. Her husband Esmael Mangudadatu is running for Maguindanao governor against political

kingpin and incumbent administration governor Andal Ampatuan.

Along a deserted highway the group was flagged by armed men and subsequently killed in the most

savage of ways. Many of the women journalists were also allegedly raped before they were killed. There

are unconfirmed accounts that some of the victims were run over by vehicles to finish them off, while a

pre-dug grave site was waiting for the unceremonial burial bodies.

The killings sent shockwaves of disbelief, grief and rage in the media community in the Philippines, as

various media organizations have joined civil society in condemning the latest wholesale killing of

journalists.

The mediamen slaughter in Maguindanao only amplifies a nasty truth that press freedom is continuously

violated in a country like the Philippines which Belgium-based International News Safety Institute (INSI)

describes as the “deadliest nation on earth for news media”.

INSI Director Rodney Pinder said, “This is a horrific event for all in the world news community, but it

goes beyond an attack on journalism and press freedom — it is an appalling assault on democracy itself”

Global news media group Reporters Without Borders on the other hand said, “Never in the history of

journalism have the news media suffered a heavy loss of life in one day.”
 4
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

Before the Maguindanao massacre the Philippines was already threading on thin ice as it’s government

is constantly chided by international human rights groups for the unabated media killings in the country.

Along Iraq, Russia and Colombia, the Philippines shamelessly figured 4th among notorious nations

where journalists are being killed for mere doing their jobs. The latest massacre of about a dozen

journalists in Maguindanao may just catapult the Philippines to the top spot on a list of countries where

journalists must make themselves scarce.

From 1996 to 2008, INSI records show 76 journalists have been killed in the Philippines already. In 2009

alone (the year barely over) INSI has already recorded 4 deaths, excluding this week’s gruesome killings

in Maguindanao.

The National Union of Journalists in the Philippines on the other hand records 104 journalist killings

since 1986, 67 of which happened during the time of President Gloria Arroyo. Many of these journalists

were silenced because of the controversial stories they were pursuing, mostly exposes of corrupt

government officials or offices.

Each time a media practitioner is killed human rights groups and media communities look to the

government for solutions and the much desired action. Behind every condemnation of journalist killings

is an appeal to government authorities to do what it can in bringing perpetrators to justice.

Sadly, authorities do not even come close to solving the killings in the past while harassment and

violence continue to haunt journalists especially in critical areas and during crucial political times such as

elections. Without a major arrest of perpetrators and in the absence of prosecution not just of hired

guns but of masterminds, killing media practitioners just becomes more ingrained in our culture.

Reporters Without Borders said “We have often condemned the culture of impunity and violence in the

Philippines, especially Mindanao. This time, the frenzied violence of thugs working for corrupt politicians
 5
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

has resulted in an incomprehensible bloodbath. We call for a strong reaction from the local and national

authorities.”

We share the view of senior media analysts in Mindanao that the carnage in Maguindanao is an omen

of things to come. The absence of arrests and prosecution will only encourage others to perpetrate

crimes against mediamen in particular. We can expect the attacks on journalists to be more daring,

more violently senseless in the future.

It is not enough that the government condemns to the highest degree, the senseless killing of journalists

in this country. We’re way past condemnations for press release purposes. The government must do all

in its power to serve justice, if only to show that in the Philippines, freedom of expression is not a

culturally and habitually transgressed human right.

A couple of congressmen have revived an old debate by proposing a law that will allow the arming of
journalists, in the wake of the killing of yet another media worker recently. Laguna Rep. Danilo Ramon

Fernandez and Buhay party-list Rep. Irwin Tieng said journalists have the right to protect themselves

and, being under constant threat, must therefore be armed.

Arming journalists as the answer?

Some media practitioners have given up on the government’s handling of journalists’ killings and opted

to arm themselves for much-needed security.

NUJP reiterated that the move would not solve the problem, and would instead aggravate it as it would

directly invite their perpetrators to legitimize their intent.

“Many of those who were killed were in fact armed,” it said adding: “Encouraging journalists to arm

themselves is a virtual admission by law-enforcement authorities of how inutile they are against those

who seek to silence the press in this country.”

“The killings of journalists are a symptom of a deeper problem of governance rooted in the failure of the

justice system to truly protect the very citizens whose rights and lives it is supposed to defend,” it said.

The IFJ likewise denounced the move. “The gun culture – turning journalists into combatants – is

contributing to the escalating violence directed towards journalists.”

Will giving media workers easier access to firearms lessen attacks on them?

This deterrent factor is the only reason, after all, why media workers should be allowed to carry

firearms. If it can be proven conclusively that an armed journalist is less likely to be attacked than an

unarmed one, then by all means they should be allowed to bear arms.
 7
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

But our own fear is that, far from being deterred, the people who have made the decision to assassinate

media workers whom they feel have wronged them will only ratchet up the arms race, as it were. Thus,

instead of a balance of terror—where those who would kill media workers would be discouraged from

doing so because of the threat of instant retaliation—we would have an escalation of violence, as the

killers make sure that they have the firepower and personnel that will always tilt the odds in their favor.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the 57 people, including more than 30 media workers, who were

slaughtered in Maguindanao last year were armed. How would that ill-fated group have fared against

the 100 or so heavily-armed men allegedly in the employ of the Ampatuan clan that waylaid them?

Surely, there would have been a gun battle, with casualties on both sides. But because of the superior

firepower, number and training of the family’s armed goons— who included professional policemen and

bodyguards—the outcome would probably have been the same.

And, had the perpetrators of that gruesome crime known beforehand that the media convoy was

armed, they would have certainly upped the ante by coming in with even more firepower and gunmen,

because their resources are infinitely greater than any armed group of media workers, even if all of the

latter had been trained in the use of guns. It’s a simple question of logistics: While a wealthy political

warlord can buy all the guns and hire all the men that he wants, a media worker allowed to carry

firearms will only have enough firepower to defend himself from a similarly-armed attacker, not an

entire army of heavily-armed goons.

In the end, the incidents of violence against media workers can only be expected to increase in both

number and intensity the moment journalists are armed. And, with apologies to my colleagues who
 8
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

believe that they can equalize matters by using a handgun against the various private armies that want

them dead, the only difference would be a higher body count and more ferocious attacks.

As for the argument that an armed journalist can take a couple of his attackers along with him if he is

attacked, that is so silly that it doesn’t even need to be refuted. The result, sadly, would be the same—

one more dead media worker in a country where 170 have already perished similarly in the past two

dozen years.

And will the freedom of the press and free expression be upheld in such an environment, where

journalists return fire with bullets, only to be ultimately overpowered by superior force? I certainly don’t

think so.

No, the way to end the ever-increasing body count of media workers killed in the line of duty is not

arming them. The cure lies in disbanding private armies and ensuring that no one—not the masterminds

nor their hired killers—goes unpunished for murder, whether or not the victim carries an ID card that

says “Press.”

Of course, it will take a lot more political will to go after the goons in the employ of politicians, especially

those in the provinces who believe that the “right to reply” requires the use of firearms. Going after

sirens is one thing; ending the long-entrenched warlordism and the culture of impunity that warlordism

engenders is quite another.

The sad fact of the matter is that no administration has ever disbanded the private armed groups

working for political warlords or even effectively punished the co-opted members of the police and the

armed forces who sometimes moonlight as politicians’ goons. Even during the darkest days of Ferdinand

Marcos’ martial rule, when only the military was supposed to have guns, a handful of loyal warlords like
 9
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

the Dimaporos of Lanao remained fully armed, often by justifying their use as “force multipliers” against

either the Communist or Moro insurgencies.

Since the overthrow of Marcos in 1986, the situation progressively reverted to its pre-martial law feudal

state of the warlord-as-king, reaching its absolute nadir last year in the Maguindanao massacre. And

despite all the stated good intentions of this new administration, it is highly doubtful if any significant

headway will be made.

But that doesn’t mean that the government should just give up and allow the situation to get worse. For

instance, we note with appreciation that the new defense secretary-designate, retired Gen. Voltaire

Gazmin, has announced that the disbanding of private armed groups will be one of his highest priorities

as head of his department.

Of course, we’ve heard that before, most recently from the previous administration, which has the

dubious honor of having the most number of journalists, activists and other people who work in at-risk

professions killed. And now that yet another journalist and yet another activist have been killed, less

than a week into a new administration, Gazmin and all the other authorities who should break up these

lawless armed gangs working for local politicians must realize the urgency of the situation.

On the prosecution side, the Department of Justice should stop believing that its mandate is to go after

the ill-gotten wealth of the predecessor in office of the Aquino administration and make cases like those

filed against Maguindanao’s Ampatuan family its foremost concern. If enough warlords are punished for

killing people they don’t like, the culture of impunity will be abolished.

But please don’t arm journalists and then declare that the state’s job of protecting them is done.

Instead, allow journalism— and the rights of all information and to free expression—to flourish by
 10
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

ending the culture of violence and impunity that is a worse enemy of freedom than any single corrupt,

violent, obscenely wealthy and seemingly omnipotent politician.

But who is responsible for this?

According to www.pnp.gov.ph, Philippine National Police mission is:

To enforce the law, to prevent and control crimes, to maintain peace and order, and to ensure

public safety and internal security with the active support of the community.

Referring to the scenario happened during and before the maguindanao tragedy would really give

us doubt if our police officers are really internalizing their duties and responsibilities as the peace

unit of our country. It was said that before the massacre happened, the convoy of the

mangudadatus asked for the assistance and protection from the police unit in the province of

maguindanao and the worst thing happened; the police refused with wholly unreasonable

explanation which can give us an idea that they could be a part of the ampatuans plan that day.

To cut the long story short, they were the one who is very much liable to that tragedy and now

they would say that media should be armed? They are getting too absurd! Media men should be

protected by the responsible institution for peace and order and in return they would give the

people of the nation the truth or the information that the nation wanted to hear from them. There

should be fairness. The police would do their job as well as the journalists.
 11
MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS

Conclusion

We are now in a post modern society and many things have changed even the killings of media

practitioner seems to be in the trend. For us to attain the peace and order that we want, we should

consider a structuralism approach in solving these problems. Everyone should function according

to their nature for us to get the smooth flow of the system. We also have to be open-minded that

for us to have the stability in the system there should be someone or something which should be

omitted.