Journalist Killings: A Suggestion (Revised)

The rampant murder of journalists in the Philippines continues. Just today, one day after the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists identified the Philippines as the world's most murderous country for journalists, an attempt was made on the life of another reporter, this time in Dipolog City. Appropriately, we look to the police to solve these crimes, and we complain loudly that they are not doing enough to bring the killers to justice. But, as I see it from the outside, I'm not sure that journalists themselves are doing all they can in this battle.

Although there are sometimes other motives for the killings, it seems pretty clear that many of these journalists are murdered to kill a story. Obviously, the people behind these attacks believe that killing the reporter will also stop the exposure of wrongdoings attributed to them by that reporter. And, unfortunately, it does seem to work that way. For a little while after a reporter is assassinated, we hear a lot about what a hard-hitting journalist he was, and how he was always working to expose this or that corrupt official. But we don't seem to hear any followup on the stories the journalist was working on when he died. So in that sense, it may be true that you can kill the story by killing the reporter. But would a corrupt government official be as quick to consider murder if he knew that the story he wanted to bury would not only continue, but would actually gain wider exposure after he murders a reporter? It seems to me that the best way to deter journalist killings might be to ensure that the story that prompted a murder does not die along with the reporter.

It should become standard practice among the journalist community that, whenever a reporter is murdered, the story he was working on would automatically become an item of national interest. His comrades in the media should continue to follow the reporters leads, and make sure the case remains in the national limelight until the issue under investigation has been run to ground. I'm not talking about the investigation of the murder itself. I'm talking about keeping the spotlight on whichever corrupt official the murdered reporter was investigating.

The certain knowledge that a story will not die with its reporter, and will in fact receive even more publicity, may be an effective deterrent to these killings. Obviously reporters are protective of their sources and their information, and it might require quite a bit of uncharacteristic cooperation among journalists, but it would certainly be possible for others to pick up the leads and continue the investigation, even if they have to start from scratch. The bottom line is, the original story must be kept alive. Otherwise, the idea that it is possible to kill a story by killing its reporter will guarantee further assassinations.