Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic
(Copyright @ 2018 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).
A
week after Rappler Inc., a Filipino online news outlet was shut down,
Philippines’ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finds probable breaches
of nationality restrictions to the organization. Philippine media has long been
touted as the “fourth estate” or the “fourth power” that juxtaposes a
symmetrical power to President Rodrigo Duterte as the vox populi, vox Dei.
The
current episode propelled a Pandora’s Box that questions power relations of the
executive branch over the fourth branch of the government. How come that
foreign ownership is pressed against a manufacturer of information like Rappler
when most netizens across the globe paved way by critical infrastructures for news
distribution remains borderless? How come that Rappler’s almost decade-long
existence since 2011, no government administration has condemned its critical narratives
and up-to-date news content, nonetheless, the reputable news outlet has even
become steadfast and truth worthy source of information shared in the
superhighway information. Is Rappler a threat to national security?
President
Duterte’s trust and mistrust with media has been described in his roller-coaster
journey’s ascent to power. His appeal to the masses massively constructed or
deconstructed both by the traditional and new media are intermittently displaced
whenever he disliked misinformation about his power projection. His upper hand
denial to compromises and closure of media outfits in the Philippines are countered
by ambiguously scrutinizing at flaws of family media owners despite robust
contributions and legacy of these institutions to the country’s nation-building,
using threats and fear as bold resolutions for submission to solidify his
draconian rule.
Last
year, he vowed to block the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise – the country’s
largest network, and retaliated based from his rants when the media giant
failed to air his political ad when he ran for presidency. He also singled out
the country’s most read print media – the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) for alleged
slanted reportage about him and on his banner policy against the war on drugs.
Patterns
of belligerence of the government against the manufacturers of information during
the Marcosian years and to the present have seen astute and brave media in
pursuit of press freedom; nevertheless, these select agents of change
revolutionized Philippine society that spurred people power. The difference of media
today than before, now there are quiet emergence of censored and uncensored websites,
that cling to rampant disinformation that may entice millions of netizens. The
appalling side of the information superhighway, it trespasses a country’s
sovereignty, and that the absence of regulation on the internet, citizen
journalists and traditional media practitioner may mete out wide-scale
reparations and malicious information damaging the integrity of the complex political
culture.
The
daunting tasks of democratizing journalism in the Philippines, regarded
supposedly as the freest in Asia, away from the social ills of political
innuendos could spur a Cultural Revolution paved way by the advent of the
dotcom era. The frequency of social media substantiated by the new media can
become a constant catalyst of change to bridge the wall between elites and the
masses subdued by stronger political patronage of mass media that manipulates
the objectivity of information and obstructs the reliance of scoops to
monopolize the subjectivity of truthfulness.
Ethical
issues can escalate as to the extent of the president’s power to shut down
institutions, particularly guardians of the right to communicate that have the
capacity to expose abuses and inefficiency of leaders. The dichotomy between
professional news and government propaganda exude discursive constructs of news
gathering and news reportage under the mantle of trust and reliability despite
that everything in the post-truth world are now deconstructed. People need
critical thinking to absorb truths and realities; but if a leader is petrified
of veracities, then he is not a wiser president.
Reality
bites, Duterte’s media warfare has become asymmetrical with the emergence of
non-state actors and individuals as truth in information has become subjective.
Nationality restrictions sought to be justified on the ground of national
security issue but not on political shenanigans that can become legitimate if
the genuine purpose is only to protect national interests and not solely personal
interest to consolidate power and perpetuate political survival.
