I think the article has some lapses in terms of content, and could have been written better to provide a fuller picture of the issue at hand. Some SPJ provisions come to mind:
- Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
- Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
- Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
More could have been said about the context wherein the statement was made by Duterte, as what was mentioned were about political threats and the statement about change in governance is presumed to be related to societal issues as well. By only mentioning political threats to the president, the story seems to have been oversimplified. In addition to this, the experts spoken to share very similar views and it would have been apt to feature opposing views as well, to give the audience an opportunity to analyze the statement and situation for themselves. It is also unclear toward the end of the article whether the second professor mentioned has a personal bias with regards to the president, in the way that he speaks and in the way that these quotes are framed. The writer could have also reached out to government officials from the PCOO for comment or clarification for fuller coverage of the President’s side as well.
However, it must be noted that there were provisions that were practiced.
- Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and public records are open to all.
- Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of the sources.
The article was able to call this statement to attention and show how it matters to the public. The comparison with previous historical events also helps the public understand the gravity of the situation as well. The interviewees are also identified and their backgrounds are mentioned as well, for the audience to have at least some semblance of who these statements and opinions came from. This then gives them more details with which to analyze the stated opinions and weigh their agreement with it, and the possible agendas (if any) of the professors.