In a March 2017 column for The Philippine Star, Elfren S. Cruz discussed the myth of press freedom in the Philippines, noting, “Attacks on press freedom is the thinking that public dissent should be considered as treason or betrayal of public trust.” His statement rings loudly, now working in the Philippine media industry for just over a year and a half; the effect is amplified even more working in a smaller market. 

Based on past experiences, it would appear the local reporter pool conspires to ensure certain stories are run and others are concealed. It is unclear their motives, or who is manipulating the agenda, but it unquestionably sounds like, with certain venues, the media is orchestrating a false narrative; one in which certain negative news is shunned and only the positive is broadcast.

The situation came to a head when legal action was brandished because of a story – one that bucked the institutional blockade. The story in question was not based on plain hearsay, unnamed sources, or basic gossip; it was from a legal document. Whether or not the individual who submitted the document lied under oath is one thing, but the fact that it was filed with a legal office makes it a legitimate source for a story.

However, considering it appeared to break some sort of secret pact, certain individuals made their consternation public.

According to a 2017 report by Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders), they found the Philippines ranked number 127 in their annual World Press Freedom Index; notably, behind countries including Afghanistan, the Congo, and Uganda.

“[The] Philippines continues to be one of the most dangerous countries for the media,” they surmised. “Private militias, often hired by local politicians, silence journalists with complete impunity.”

Given the way reporters are seemingly “expected” to carry out their jobs, one cannot blame the organization for their evaluation of the country’s journalistic “standards.”

The Philippines 2016 Human Rights Report, conducted by the United States Department of State, revealed similar findings when it came to freedom of the press in the country.

“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,” the report found.

They also cited reports from journalists were threatened after publishing reports critical of government.

“Many journalists reported an uptick in online threats, including threats of violence and harassment, in response to articles posted online that were critical of the government,” they noted. “Authorities [use] criminal defamation charges, which carry the possibility of imprisonment and fines, to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against journalists.”

Considering the ways in which local journalists collude to pick and chooses stories, it would appear the interpretation of the media’s work is not the act of “gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information,” as defined by the American Press Institute; but more in line with acting like a public relations office for the government.

According to The Financial Times lexicon, they define public relations officer as “someone whose job is to supply information about a company or organization in a way that makes people have a good opinion of it.”

Since most media outlets are more than happy to present verbatim government press releases as news and eschew stories that may have negative implications for others, it is clear, local reporters are not operating as journalists – they’re publicity managers.

In a 2016 piece by Rachel E. Khan for The Philippine Daily Inquirer, she discussed the role of the media as a “watchdog of the three pillars of government,” noting, “Media practitioners should not be penalized for reporting what has occurred or what it has uncovered.”

“Good governance should include the fostering of pluralism rather than the intolerance for views which differ from our own,” she added. “True democracy should mean ‘we can agree to disagree,’ instead of imposing one’s views on others.”

It may be another reason why the country has never advanced since the 1980s, with the news media based on picking winners and losers, an accurate picture of reality is not presented; which means the correct procedure in moving forward is unclear. In addition, with many elected officials refusing to recognize challenging issues and only offering distractions that are merely a band aid for the problem (but make for great photo opportunities), then the problems never really get solved.

Freedom House, a non-governmental organization, which boasts Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of former US President Franklin Roosevelt, as one of its founders, described media freedom in the Philippines as “compromised by the threat of legal action, including under criminal defamation laws.”

In their section specifically focused political reporting, they observed, “Journalists are subject to harassment, threats, stalking, illegal arrests, raids on their outlets, and murder;” echoing the findings of the US State Department report.

“Weaknesses in the judicial system often affect the handling of cases related to media freedom,” the report noted. “Those with the means to hire strong legal representation are able to manipulate the technicalities of the law in their favor, or delay cases to the point where justice is effectively denied.”

“Cases continue to be filed against journalists whose reporting angers officials and other powerful individuals.” they added.

Would have assumed these types of incidents were common in places of high conflict, like Mindanao, where, in 2009, at least 34 journalists were murdered in Maguindanao, leading the Committee to Protect Journalists to name the Philippines the second more dangerous place for journalists – just behind Iraq. However, the tactics are different in other parts of the country; the legal system utilized in order to silence, not even opposing views, but unfavorable news.

Many in the media lament about the days of Martial Law, imposed during the administration of former President Ferdinand Marcos.

Jenny Santillan Santiago wrote a piece for the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, recounting her days as a young reporter during the era.

“[Journalists] contented themselves with the press releases churned out daily by the information ministry and other data released by government offices,” she wrote.

 “The work of reporters at that time consisted mainly of getting the press releases from their government beats and rewriting them,” she added. “It was not surprising that some press releases were simply reprinted word for word, although they carried the bylines of reporters.”

Her characterization of how the media operated back then sounds a lot like how they act today: “A passive media whose role at that time was to serve as the mouthpiece of government”

It’s ironic how people will lambast the days of Martial Law, to the point of even condemning the descendants of the former president merely for the last name they carry. Yet, with elements of what they refer to as tyranny and dictatorship still in use today, how does one differentiate between the past and present?/WDJ