After studying journalism at Rutgers University, the state university of New Jersey, and having some exposure to media in the United States, having previously worked as a stringer for a newspaper and contributing to a few online media outlets, found the journalism environment in the Philippines completely different. While there is criticism of media bias in the United States, a lot of it comes from the personal views of reporters and news anchors. In the Philippines, it would appear the question of bias focuses on the foundation of the media outlet itself and who they are trying to benefit.
Having previously written an article looking at the 2016 United States Department of State Human Rights Report for the Philippines, in terms of the state of journalism, they noted, “Media commentators criticized most media outlets for lacking rigorous journalistic standards and for reflecting the particular political or economic orientations of owners, publishers, or patrons, some of whom were close associates of present or past high-level officials.”
Discussing with a friend back in the United States, she said, “Sounds just like how you describe the industry there.”
In journalism school, the topic of “agenda-setting” was brought up many times. The term refers to how media outlets determine the most important stories of the days and set the agenda for what is “newsworthy” for their viewers or readers. Locally, seeing the way reporters – across the board – operate, it would appear they allow the politicians and the powerful set the agenda. The questions asked are rather flimsy, those being questioned are never challenged, and (given word on how some politicians are) there is a need to stay on their good side or they refuse to cooperate – something done in an effort to make journalists cower and not a proper attitude for something in elected office.
According to those on the ground, it is not merely asking tough questions that gives consternation to these so-called leaders (not like anybody locally is asking the hard-hitting questions), it is reporting a story public figures may not like – even if it is factual.
Some elected officials are known to cancel scheduled press conferences because their feelings were hurt by a report that may have been published that morning. Others complain when a story presents them in a way that, while accurate, does not give them the image of perfection they wish to project to the public.
One of the more egregious cases is when politicians own media outlets themselves. The direct link makes a newspaper no longer a newspaper, but propaganda. There is nothing else expected of a media outlet owned by a politician than serving special interests and presenting a glowing image of whomever they are representing.
Last year, in the Czech Republic, a law seeking to curb media ownership by politicians was passed by the country’s parliament, in order to avoid conflicts of interest. Czech President Milos Zeman eventually vetoed the bill.
According to the bill, “The ‘conflict of interest’ law prevents ministers from accumulating media, business, and political power.” Despite the president claiming a constitutional issue, saying the bill would breach the “principle of open competition between political parties,” without the bill, it still puts the integrity of certain media outlets in question because of their ownership – how does one trust news is objective when those who they are reporting on are the same parties paying their salaries?
Another issue brought up by the State Department report indicated, “Authorities used criminal defamation charges, which carry the possibility of imprisonment and fines, to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against journalists.” While in some cases, when a blatant characterization is presented without evidence to back up the claims, a journalist is liable, but when an individual is described in a certain manner that can be drawn based on their history, actions they have taken, and statements made, nobody has the right to silence them – especially, if it is simply based on a politician’s feelings being hurt.
The concept of “investigative journalism” is also something that appears absent among local media practitioners. The standard operating procedure for local reporters seems to be asking the fundamental who, what, where, when, and why and echo everything said in response without follow-up. While it does provide the basics in journalism, there should always be more.
On so many occasions, newspapers report on an individual saying one thing the first week, then reversing themselves the next week with no clarification. One such case focused on the provincial government spending a massive amount of funds on four projects. In the first report, the individual said the projects would be funded from one certain account; the next time, it was a different account; when asked why there was a change, the person ignored the fact they gave two divergent answers and reiterated what was said previously – with the reporter failing to get to the meat of the third inquiry.
However, the reporter in this case cannot be blamed because the environment they are working in does not encourage a discourse with politicians – the way reporters are perceived (and even the way they view themselves) are as press secretaries for those they are interviewing; many times, they try to sidle up with elected officials in the hopes of working for them in the future.
Perhaps it is also a different beast.
In the United States, fundamentally, reporters want to be known as the providers of truth, getting the story that the average citizen would not have access to. Not a goal that can be achieved when the reporter is angling to work for their interview subject in the future – clearly, that report will also put the subject in a positive light.
On the one hand, it’s an industry culture clash in the way practitioners operate around the world; however, it is also a bastardization of the industry and complete rubbishing of freedom of the press./WDJ