The partisan weaponization of press freedom

BY ANTONIO CONTRERAS         FEBRUARY 12, 2019

FACULTY, students and alumni of the Communication Arts program of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) took to task Rodrigo “Jiggy” Manicad, former broadcaster and himself a graduate of the same program who is running for a Senate seat for allegedly belying the state-led pressures exerted on national and local media entities and for diminishing the systematic harassment and violence against visiting journalists, broadcasters and publications in the country.

These alumni, faculty and students argue that Manicad, through his public statements, betrayed “the most iudisputable principles of journalism and public communication.” They condemned Manicad’s statements as “inconsistent with the honored values of the AB communication arts program” of UPLB. They demanded that the freedom of the press, one that is founded on the freedom of expression and speech, should be protected from harm.

And yet, these guardians of free speech have not been contented in publicly excoriating Manicad who simply exercised the very same right to free speech which they are protecting. Some of them even wanted to punish Manicad by demanding that the College of Arts and Science (CAS) of UPLB withdraw the outstanding alumnus award it gave to him.

But this is nothing new. The loudest voices after the protection of free speech are often the same voices which bankroll, demean, diminish, demonize and punish others who speak loudly against them, or against the positions that they espouse.

It is one thing to argue against a position, and point to its flaws and fallacies. It is also fair for people to publicly condemn actions and statements as long as the focus is on the argument and not on the person. But it is another when the attacks veer away from the substance of the arguments and aim for the personal, even the physical.

It is wrong to attribute these kinds of behavior only to one side of the political divide, considering that the predisposition to harass and to descend to ad hominem attacks is not a monopoly of the critics of the President, or of his loyalists.

The Manicad haters are, however, a different breed. They are riled by the assaults on freedom of speech and of the press. They project their rage like it is a call to arms to defend press freedom, yet they never lose a beat in shaming and agitating to diminish voices that they disagree with, the same kinds of voices that are mere expressions of the very freedom they want to protect.

It cannot be denied that journalists are being attacked everywhere, and that it is not the monopoly of the Philippines. These atrocities need to be condemned, addressed and rectified. What is, however, patently inaccurate, and should be fact-checked, is the insinuation that attacks on press freedom are a systematic predisposition unique to, and is even an agenda of, the Duterte administration. The numbers simply do not support this claim. There were 16 reported cases of media killings under the first three years of the Duterte administration, seven of which were not work-related, another seven under investigation while two have already been dismissed. During the same period of the Aquino administration, the number was even higher with 29 cases, 11 of which were not work-related, 14 were under investigation, one case was dismissed; there were three convictions. Hence, and contrary to what is being painted, there is no reason to believe that the cases of media killings are significantly higher during the Duterte administration. In fact, the numbers are even less.

In the end, the image of impunity is being painted against President Duterte mainly based on the legal troubles that Rappler faces. And here, the message that is implied by the press freedom advocates is that media outfits should not be held accountable for their violation of the Constitution and the laws, lest the government be accused of political harassment. Hence, in the name of press freedom, the government should not scrutinize the registration papers of media outlets for ownership claims that violate the Constitution, and their nonpayment of taxes for which ordinary citizens are held accountable. This is patently a problematic exceptionalism that media crusaders would like for the Republic to grant media entities. They unabashedly deploy press freedom as an amulet to enable them to violate laws, and use it as a shield against legal prosecution which they now label as selective persecution.

At present, media is still free to engage in adversarial reporting. Mainstream media is unbridled and social media is raucous, even to the point of being chaotic. Unlike Cory Aquino, she who is being imaged by many as the patroness of free speech, and who sued veteran journalist Louie Beltran, President Duterte has not hauled a single journalist or columnist to court to date. To his credit, Duterte, in one of his first acts as President, created a Presidential Task Force on Media Security whose main job is to address the issue of media rights, include media-related attacks and killings.

If there is one systematic trend that has emerged in the Philippine media landscape, it is the increasing partisanship of media entities, where the right to press freedom has become weaponized. Media entities are no longer the neutral teller of truth and bearer of facts. They become partisan agents out to undermine the government and to enable the political opposition and critics of the President and the Marcoses. I wonder when the advocates of press freedom will come out to lament this, using the same words of the alumni, faculty and students of the UPLB Communication Arts program when they shamed Manicad, who is also accused of betraying “the most indisputable principles of journalism and public communication.”

https://www.manilatimes.net/the-partisan-weaponization-of-press-freedom/510314/