On May 30, 2025, the Council of Student Organizations issued a response to The LaSallian’s article on issues surrounding their LEAP operations. As one of the writers of that piece, backlash after the exposé’s publication was expected, and it is with respect that they are their own independent organization, entitled to their own statements and opinions. Those linked to the matter in question were under scrutiny, and they had every right to issue a response—whether or not they chose to engage with the publication’s requests for comment.
The problem, however, lies not in the act of responding, but in how the statement was framed. The response remained steadfast in its remark, calling the article saturated with “inaccurate details” without substantiating these claims or acknowledging the reporting process behind it.
Contrary to the tirade received, we cross-check the character and background of our sources and where they get their information from. To demand the revelation of informants is to misunderstand the ethical backbone of journalism. The shove to reveal sources leads to harassment, injury, or even the death of a witness or whistleblower. As a writer, you have the responsibility to protect the identity of how your lead came to light in the first place.
One retracted statement is the article reframed, re-angled, or shelved indefinitely. Handling sources falls under inconspicuous labor in journalism—work that remains unrecognized, but is essential to what makes the humanized narrative visible to the readership. Framing, angling, and dealing with cultural politics also fall under this form of work, shaping how information reaches the public.
The problem lies deeper when it is realized that people get what they need when the media steps in. Journalism continues to be in the pursuit of truth with a published story as a form of historical recording.
Ironically, constituents want campus journalism to hold people and Campus journalism serves until it doesn’t organizations accountable until a member of the said constituent becomes the subject, the lead, or the angle of the story. Unfortunately, these continued attacks against the campus press’ reputation mirror what the industry deals with outside the University. In the broader landscape, people often turn to the media for accountability amid the hampering red tape and processes to get the reconciliation they need because one of the responsibilities of the media is to act as a watchdog.
When authority deflects the media, this poses room for more questions. There is little room for complacency, and even less room to sit on the fence. Framing is intentional and serves its own purpose; words are rarely misplaced. As each word carries weight, angling and framing are the things we have to be responsible for. This is evident even in short-form reporting—where newsbites, live tweets, and headlines prioritize what must be known immediately, with succeeding paragraphs offering context and depth.
Choosing language, then, becomes a responsibility in itself. Journalists weave pieces of evidence, figures, and interviews into humanized statements. Each intricacy is made digestible to have the audience attuned to issues and narratives.
This tension does not stop with student organizations, it extends even to administrations. Last year, The LaSallian had to clarify even the University administration’s inconsistent announcements, which did not follow their original protocol. The publication was reprimanded for announcing shifts to modality when the handbook and pre-existing guides state that suspensions should have taken place. Our objective is to clarify where the uncertainty lies; thus, when the press is punished for raising an inquiry, we all carry the weight of suppression.
It can be argued that the article—or others like it—could have been framed more “kindly.” However, there is no kindness when livelihoods are at stake, cries are unheard, marginalized groups are oppressed, and justice is not served. Campus publications only touch the surface of real-world realities because there are narratives we do not know about, conversations behind locked doors, and organizations affected by the byproduct of system lapses—all were leads we could not touch on.
Why must kindness be extended to flawed systems or powerful entities when they have had the playing field this whole time?
I digress. If media suppression is present within the campus, then the University’s administration is no better than the state in protecting the press. These traditional practices that have once been reliable have become exhausted. The numerous levels of University approval compete with the Philippine bureaucracy. We celebrate a payment made months or even years later. Agendas shift, payments are made, and systems are recalibrated because of the press.
While journalists continue to hold parties accountable, the University’s student body begins to falter as a critic, both of its institutions and the government it seeks to hold responsible. Campus journalism serves its purpose until it becomes inconvenient. And when it does, the question is no longer whether the press has failed—but whether those it serves are willing to listen
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s January 2026 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSJan2026.
