A culture of negativity

By Atty. Abraham A. Agamata

THE last quarter of 2018 saw significant gains for the Philippines in terms of protecting media workers. Last October, the Philippines was named by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) as one of the countries with an improved status in its 2018 Global Impunity Index. This December, there is more reason to celebrate as the Philippines was taken off the list of the Reporters without Borders (RSF) of the Top 5 deadliest countries in the world for journalists in 2018.  

Unfortunately, some sectors deliberately seek to dampen the festive mood of the Christmas holiday celebrations in the country by painting a bleak picture of the state of press freedom in the Philippines and describing it as marked by attacks and threats against the Philippine media that continue to rise under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The CPJ 2018 Global Impunity Index

A few weeks after news of the improved status of the Philippines in the CPJ’s 2018 Global Impunity Index, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), MindaNews, and Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), collectively calling themselves the Freedom for Media, Freedom for All Network, released on 23 November 2018 a report entitled THE STATE OF PHILIPPINE MEDIA: Relentless Attacks and Threats Online, On Ground, Across the Nation. The following statement in the report encapsulates its tenor:

But today under the Duterte administration, never has so much darkness hovered over the prospects of free and independent journalism since the democratic recovery of 1986.

Upon close scrutiny, however, it is actually this group that pushes the dark clouds to hover and rain on the substantial accomplishments of the very stakeholders in the protection of press freedom.  

The group timed the release of its report on the 9^th year anniversary of the Ampatuan Massacre. However, rather than point out the good news of having a trial court decision forthcoming in the early part of 2019 as the defense had already rested its case, the report mentioned data that allegedly constituted proof of the worsening state of Philippine media. It must be noted that the figures were not verified as their sources were not even cited.          

Curiously, the report indicated among others that the “PTFoMS Chair” was involved in two (2) counts of media violence. It did not specify the particular acts committed as well as the alleged victims.

The implication of the chairperson of the very government agency tasked to protect the life, liberty, and security of media workers in alleged incidents of violence entails serious adverse ramifications on the credibility, efforts, and track record of the Presidential Task Force on Media Security (PTFoMS) which is chaired by Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Menardo Guevarra and co-chaired by Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) Secretary Martin Andanar. Immediately, the Task Force conducted a thorough investigation on the allegation but did not find a single incident of media violence involving either Secretary Guevarra or Secretary Andanar. We therefore call on these allied organizations particularly the CMFR and NUJP — organizations which ironically are PTFoMS Media Observers/Resource Persons— to present factual evidence on their claims.

Meanwhile, riding the coattails of public outcry on the Massacre towards the end of their report, the group called for collective action as follows:    

Those who have joined in the collective resolve to stand up and insist on the freedom to report, on the free flow of information, not just for journalists but for all citizens; those who speak on behalf of those who are attacked and threatened, besieged, and beleaguered, must learn to work together, gaining strength from one another!

Today, the ninth anniversary of the Ampatauan Massacre of Nov. 23, 2009, we call on Filipinos to support press freedom and to come to the defense of those in media who struggle working within the narrowing space and time, to counter false narratives and disinformation, and to check the abuse of power.

In stark contrast to the group spewing out its all too familiar rhetoric published in the mainstream press, PTFoMS officials led by Secretary Andanar and Executive Director Usec. Joel Sy Egco, without fanfare, visited the shrine erected on “Ground Zero” in Maguindanao for a wreath-laying ceremony with Gov. Toto Mangudadatu on the eve of the anniversary. They then proceeded to General Santos City on the following day to attend a vigil at the graves of 12 of the 32 slain journalists and provide their families with the latest updates on the case. The visit of Secretary Andanar and Usec. Egco to the shrine marked the first time that ranking national government officials visited the actual site of the tragedy.

Clearly, the PTFoMS, despite the fact that it had not yet been established when trial for the Massacre case ensued years back, did not shirk in its duty of protecting the interests of the media workers involved by consistently monitoring the case and keeping their families updated of developments. And the Task Force continues to foster an atmosphere of inclusivity by continuously inviting media organizations to become part of it as Observers/Resource Persons and contribute to the formulation of its policies for implementation. As of this writing, in fact, the Mindanao Independent Press Council (MIPC), representing media workers in Mindanao, and the Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), representing community journalists nationwide, have accepted the invitation and immediately attended and actively participated in the inter-agency meeting of the Task Force held last 12 December 2018. On the other hand, the CMFR and NUJP, both pioneer organizations specified in President Duterte’s Administrative Order No. 1 creating the PTFoMS, appear to have distanced themselves from the Task Force and the rest of their colleagues in the media by not participating in its recent meetings and activities, apparently contradicting their own call for stakeholders to “work together and draw strength from one another”.  

 The Delisting from the 2018 RSF Report

Not content with downplaying the significant improvement of the Philippines in the CPJ Global Impunity Index, the same self-styled media watchdogs, this time with NUJP at the forefront in collaboration with the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the Southeast Asia Journalist Unions (SEAJU), caused the circulation in mainstream publications of a news article that dubbed the Philippines as the deadliest country in Southeast Asia for journalists.

The timing of the article’s release is highly suspect as it came shortly after the good news of the Philippines’ delisting from the RSF’s 2018 list of the Top 5 most dangerous countries in the world for journalists came out. The delisting is a remarkable feat considering the deplorable No.2 rank of the country in the list of the world’s deadliest countries for journalists much-ballyhooed by the IFJ and the very same mainstream publications months before President Duterte assumed office in 2016.

The article is, at best, self-serving. It is based on the 72-page Southeast Asia Media Freedom Report entitled Underneath the Autocrats published by the IFJ together with the SEAJU which was released only last 19 December 2018. For the methodology, the IFJ and SEAJU surveyed media workers on the extent to which journalists can carry out their work safely and to identify actions taken by stakeholders to promote journalists’ safety and fight impunity.

A careful reading of the report, however, will reveal flaws in the methodology that render the findings, most especially on the Philippines, inconclusive. First, the small number of respondents surveyed are not representative of the total number of media workers in the country. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, there are 495 newspaper titles in the country while the National Telecommunications Commission reported a total number of 436 TV broadcast stations, 411 AM broadcast radio stations, and 1014 FM broadcast stations, all of which employ journalists, broadcasters, and other personnel considered as media workers. One need not do the math to show that the 135 journalists surveyed is grossly disproportionate to the actual number of media practitioners in the Philippines.

Second, the report itself notes that questions on four (4) significant topics on media safety were not answered by the respondents from the Philippines: (1) Employment in public media; (2) Negative experiences associated with work; (3) Employer handling of safety and security concerns; and (4) Threats to organizations. It is never prudent to rely on surveys in which questions that determine the outcome were left unanswered. It is therefore totally unfair and highly improper to make a pronouncement with finality and give a poor rating for media safety in the Philippines when related important issues were disregarded by the respondents themselves.

Finally, it must be pointed out that the report is already tainted with bias at first glance. Appearing to be at the helm of SEAJU is current NUJP Chairperson Nonoy Espina, who spoke in its behalf when the report was launched. It is interesting to note that upon his recent assumption of the leadership of NUJP, the organization has since become inactive in the PTFoMS and has apparently proceeded to pursue its own agenda with its involvement in the preparation of the report.

Fabricated Lies and Deception

It has been said that “freedom of the press, like all liberties, has its limits, for the simple reason that it is vulnerable to abuse”. Twisting facts to humiliate one’s own country and government is never a form of dissent. It is the height of hypocrisy and disloyalty. It does not advance the interests of the Filipino working press and neither does it promote free expression and a free press. It actually reeks of a desperate attempt to salvage a failed mission to uphold press freedom, to protect journalists from attacks, threats, and harassment, and to organize media workers for better working conditions.  

At this point we are again reminded of Article No. 1 of the Journalist’s Code of Ethics which reads:

1. I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.

It is totally absurd to exact accountability and responsibility from the government on one hand while trampling upon the basic principles of love of country and ethical journalism on the other. 

(Atty. Abraham A. Agamata is chief of staff at the Presidential Task Force of Media Security.)