The following is an excerpt of the Preamble from the Code of Ethics published in the Society of Professional Journalists website:

When this was first introduced to us in journalism class back when I was a meek boy in high school, the text struck me as very pure in intent (therefore elevating the stature of journalism in my book almost to that of “justice”) that I chose live and breathe it for several years. Never sensationalize, we were also taught, because that’s done by “lowly” tabloid writers. (As a teen, I was such a sucker for big ideals, True story.) The “creed,” as I loosely called it, ultimately became the foundation of the obsession passion that bagged me awards for two categories in editorial cartooning during a Regional Secondary School’s Press Conference, back in the day.

More than a decade later, I never thought I’d need to go back to the Code of Ethics to validate my fear that, indeed, what I am reading online is some gross class of irresponsible journalism. I’ll show you several web articles generated by an online key word search for “Krug” and “Le Cirque:”

• Eat your heart out (by Ana Marie Pamintuan, August 10, 2009). She wrote, “What drove up the tab to about $20,000, according to reports, were 11 bottles of Champagne Krug ($510 per bottle).”

The ethical question: Was the source of the “report” identified?

• Report on Arroyo’s NY dinner exaggerated – Palace (by Israel Malasa, ABS-CBN News, August 10, 2009, 12:10 PM). He wrote, “This was contrary to the online report detailing the orders of Mrs Arroyo’s entourage, including Osetra caviar ($1,400 for five ounces) and 11 bottles of Krug champagne ($510 per bottle)…They also reportedly had “Chef’s Tasting Menu” or wine paired with a dish ($4,500 for 25 orders), and a three-course “Chef’s Seasonal Menu” ($1,450 for 25 orders).”

The ethical question: Was the accuracy of the information tested? Was nothing misrepresented?

• Arroyo won’t say sorry over $20k dinner (by Christian V. Esguerra, Joey A. Gabieta of PDI, August 11, 2009). They wrote, “One computation making the rounds of blogs pegged the total bill at $19,866 with such items as Wild Golden Osetra Caviar ($1,400) and 11 bottles of Krug champagne ($5,610).”

The ethical question: How reliable is the so-called “computation making the rounds of blogs?” Did the “blog” where the computation originate from say/claim that this “bill” was the real deal?

• EDITORIAL – Profligate (The Philippine Star, Updated August 10, 2009, 12:00 AM). They wrote, “The dinner reportedly included 11 bottles of Krug champagne at $510 per bottle, Osetra caviar at $1,400 per five ounces, a “Chef’s Tasting Menu” of wine paired with a dish at $4,500 for 25 orders, a three-course “Chef’s Seasonal Menu” at $1,450 for 25 orders, and appetizers that included lobster salad, burgundy escargot and soft shell crab tempura.”

The ethical question: Is this information so reliable that it can be label “reportedly?”

• Palace: Just simple dinner (by By Christian V. Esguerra, Christine Avendaño, Norman Bordadora, Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 10, 2009, 1:22). They wrote, “The restaurant tab, purported copies of which have since circulated on blogs, showed that the Arroyo delegation had five servings of wild golden osetra caviar ($1,400), 11 bottles of Krug champagne ($5,610), and 25 orders each of the Chef’s Seasonal Menu and Tasting Menu (totaling $1,450 and $4,500 respectively), along with 17 other items.”

The ethical question: The Code of Ethics provided, “deliberate distortion is never permissible.” It would seem here, correct me if I’m wrong, that what has been circulating is truly, really a copy of the “restaurant tab.” Is it? Verified? Swear to God and hope to die?

• Binay hits GMA’s P960,000 dinner in US (by Anna Liza T. Villas, Manila Bulletin, August 8, 7:43pm). She wrote, “A copy of Mrs. Arroyo’s tab, posted in several blogs, showed her ordering 11 bottles of Krug champagne priced at $510 per bottle. The entourage also feasted on Osetra caviar ($1,400 for five ounces), a “Chef’s Tasting Menu” or wine paired with a dish ($4,500 for 25 orders) and a “three-course Chef’s Seasonal Menu” ($1,450 for 25 orders).”

The ethical question: by “A copy of Mrs. Arroyo’s tab,” you meant the ACTUAL tab? It could be misconstrued as such and responsible journalism has no room for could-be-misconstrued’s.

And then, there’s this one: GMA runs up $20,000 tab at Le Cirque in New York. At least these guys said “theoretical breakdown” of the bill and they also quoted the source, quezon.ph’s “Saint and Tripler” article, published on August 8, 2009, that had the following:

[ click on the image above to enlarge ]

WHOA! Looks like several people were all too excited to take on a “lead” and write about it ASAP, no? Did MLQ3′s article on its entirety serve as THE reference or was it just the jpeg? On a similar fashion, there are those on tumblr who managed to “stumble upon” the jpeg file of the “theoretical breakdown,” labeled it as “THE tab,” and “re-posted” them several hundred times over in other tumblr websites. Thus, the ruckus. This isn’t responsible journalism! It’s gossip! Sensationalized information at its grandest!

Let’s say it was indeed true that the President and her posse spent US$20k in Le Cirque. When a made-up, itemized “theoretical breakdown” comes in the picture, they can dodge the US$20k question and react with outrage over, “that’s preposterous! We did not order Krug nor caviar!” coupled with, “what we had in New York was a simple, late night dinner.” Right, but it’s already given that “simple” and “Le Cirque” belong to two entirely different planes of existence. Point is, no matter who paid the bill, the way they acted, being all snooty in a snooty restaurant, puts across what kind of message even if it was privately paid for? A “wrong message,” that’s what. OK, we are mad, we think it’s taxpayers’ money that they spent, but spreading something that’s been labeled theoretical as fact is the wrong means for a big expose. Have somebody snoop around Le Cirque or go find an eye-witness or something stealthy but equally ingenious like that!

The entire incident on this “theoretical breakdown” being misconstrued as the real thing could have been avoided if people actually READ MLQ3′s article through. I am aware that our average attention span on one web page has now been shortened to 5 seconds, recent studies have shown. If in those 5 seconds some glittery, excel spreadsheet converted to jpeg catches your attention, at least read the accompanying text it got published with. If you can’t afford that luxury, leave the files, text, everything, where they were as you close that browser window/tab.

Going back, to our dear journalists, expecially the ones that got mentioned above, please give my regards to your ethics. Tell it a blogger said, “hi!”

TRIVIA: The most expensive bottle of wine in Le Cirque’s list is the Chateau d’Yquem, Sauternes (1900). It costs US$ 11,810 :-P