Suspected militiamen killing of Lumad student
Link to article:
SPJ Code of Ethics provisions involved:
- “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
The article was able to give a clear narrative of what happened, and was as comprehensive as possible stating all details at hand. It was also put into the context of a timeline of previous Lumad killings since 2008, and recent statements made by Pres. Duterte regarding Lumad schools, as the victim was a student. However, I believe that the last part of the article about the murder of a couple was an unnecessary addition.
- “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.”
- “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.“
The article was able to feature the sides of both the Save Our Schools Network and government figures (local police, Bayan Muna representative). This gives the reader context as to their beliefs, convictions, and possible motivations behind their statements. In a way, they were able to give voice to the voiceless through the spokesperson and lead convenor of Save Our Schools Network Mindanao, who acted as representatives for Lumad rights. Their statements focused on the plights of the Lumads, but also called out the president for his actions (and words), and demanded accountability. It is unclear whether the victim’s mother was not given a voice or if she declined to give a statement.
As a whole, the article was able to adhere to provisions included in the SPJ Code of Ethics.