Why the Philippine Press Is Too Careful in Handling Brian Gorrell Case

The mainstream media is getting a serious drubbing on the Internet, particularly in blogs and message boards because of the way it has handled the story of Brian Gorrell, the Australian who launched a blog to recover the $70,000 that he said his former lover, a Filipino, stole from him. The media outlets who ran stories on Gorrell, including PinoyPress, did not identify these people because of libel considerations. As such, we’re being labeled by bloggers as wimps. Is the criticism fair? Or are they just trying to bait mainstream journalism into doing something that can be fundamentally wrong, journalistically speaking?

JV RUFINO: I’d rather be called a wimp than be wrong. The conventions followed by mainstream media exist and have evolved for a reason. Freedom isn’t license and it’s certainly isn’t license to malign.

DANILO ARAO: I think media organizations that published or aired stories related to what Brian Gorrell wrote were correct in not identifying his lover and associates. More than the prospects of libel, it is necessary to handle such stories in a way that will protect the privacy of those who are accused. They have not been found guilty, after all, of all the very serious accusations of, among others, theft and drug use. While the public may be curious about what goes on in high society, they should not be fed with gossip, which is what Gorrell’s blog is all about. As part of media literacy, the public, or bloggers for that matter, should be informed that there is nothing “wimpy” about being careful with one’s facts. At the same time, media organizations that ran the story should also try to explain why they have picked up the stories related to the claims of Brian Gorrell. Is the information significant, for example, in the shaping of public opinion? Or were the stories ran just for the sake of selling papers? While there is nothing unethical about selecting what stories to publish or air, there is something unprofessional about being “baited” into publishing or airing such as they become unmindful of their obligation to the public.

For how long can the mainstream press invoke its conventions (mainly libel) in a story that, were it not for these elements, would have made the front pages?

RUFINO: I might ask how long before the conventions of mainstream media are made to apply to the so-called new media. Defamation laws evolved to cover the then new media of radio and television. More and more online libel test cases are being filed and precedents being set. Sooner or later, as the Internet becomes ever more a part of our lives and one’s digital footprint becomes indelibly part of one’s public persona, laws will evolve so that people can protect their reputations online as well as they now can offline.

An example from admittedly left, left field: Many ISPs state explicitly that they will cooperate with authorities if you attempt to purvey child pornography using their facilities.

Having drawn that line, what will stop ISPs from being eventually required to cooperate with authorities in defamation cases? It’s a wide, wide gulf to be sure between child pornography and defamation, but it’s not completely unbridgeable.