Following the decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revoke the certificate of incorporation, which indicates the recognition of a company or corporation, for online news website Rappler, many in the media have called the move a “smack against press freedom and freedom of expression.” While one can argue the merits of the claim, when looking at the way local media operates, if the characterization is true, it’s hard to see how it would make a difference or change the landscape when it comes to local reporting.

Some say the decision will cause a “chilling effect” on the media and make them wary of covering certain stories, or being forced to adhere to a specific agenda. In an effort to take the position as “hero,” prominent media figures have made pronouncements, claiming it is they duty, to “tell the truth at all cost.”

The cause is a noble one, but when looking at their actions – as the cliché goes, “actions speak louder than words” – ensuring the media covers news a certain way and avoid stories that focus on certain individuals is just par for the course when it comes to local media.

It has been written about several times in previous columns, the way in which local media outlets band together to ensure they are creating an echo chamber for readers. When asked why there is such a practice, was told it was done as a matter of “unity.” If the goal is having media outlets share the same exact stories, publishing government press releases verbatim, and making sure nobody falls out of line when it comes to the stories of the day, that means freedom of expression isn’t valued at all.

Even asked a reporter, what is the point of putting in so much work to create an exceptional paper if the goal is to be like everybody else, received the response, “OK, anyway…”

In the past, have been told, after certain stories were published, in apparent insolence to the already-set agenda by colleagues, the individual “at fault” was ostracized. Such acts have also apparently caused for press conferences to be canceled because the subject’s feelings were hurt. Having a few prominent figures in the industry instructing how everybody else is supposed to operate, or else they are not accepted, is what creates a real chilling effect.

Government officials also like to brandish the word “libel” as a way of silencing the media and ensuring they never face negative coverage. As shown in a recent case where such threats were hurled, even when reporting on a legal document like an affidavit, the intimidation is still put out there.

If a newspaper were to report on mere rumor or hearsay, sure there’s a case; but when it is reporting on the content of a document one has sworn an oath to and filed by a legal officer, then it is valid information. In an environment where one is assumed innocent before being proven guilty, the assumption of one lying under oath is incumbent on the decision of a court. Even if it is proven an individual lied under oath, it is this presumption of innocence that allows for reports on the said affidavit to be permitted.

Even the subject of the allegations has the same presumption of innocence and it is incumbent upon them to prove themselves – against their accuser, not the media outlet simply providing information the public deserves to know.

Unfortunately, that is not the view of many in elected office, who would rather have the media used as a personal public relations firm rather than providing diverse information to the public.

The threat of jail at the hands of an oversensitive official is far worse than the consequences of the SEC decision.

The fact that local reporters, on a regular basis, collude to determine what they are “supposed” to write about, instead of independently seeking stories, is not an exercise of press freedom – it’s the opposite, it’s the media taking advantage of their influence and manipulating the public. To create this mob of media practitioners in order to ensure certain stories are not covered or certain individuals are not mentioned is media manipulation at the core; conducted not at the hands of the SEC, but by those who call themselves “journalists.”

The result of the SEC decision makes it very evident how blind many in the media are to their own practices. Individuals get on their soap box and decry the Rappler situation, calling it an attack on the freedom of expression, yet are completely unaware that their priorities of shielding certain individuals from negative reports or running government press releases as if they were hard news is, in itself, an attack on press freedom (and an unmistakable lack of integrity)./WDJ