The Commercialization of Philippine Broadcasting

According to Melinda de Jesus, The Philippines has always had a complicated relationship with its press
going back to the country’s national struggle for liberation from the colonial of Spain, when the media
seeded the armed revolution with ideals drawn from Europe.

With the proclamation of the Philippine Republic in 1898, the Philippines became the first Asian country
to win its freedom from a foreign power. The country was taken over by the United States at the end of
the Spanish-American War leading to the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth. By the time
the country claimed full sovereignty in 1946 the press had assumed a strong role, independent and
influential.

Filipinos enshrined the protection of press freedom in their written constitutions (1899, 1935). The
present Constitution, ratified in 1987 prohibits laws that will abridge “the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press.” Privatisation of the broadcast industry has set it apart. Even with media
owners holding political and business interests, the country still boasts of having the “freest” press in
Asia.

Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law and ruled the country as a dictator, disrupting media
development. But even during the period, an underground press flourished and later came out in
protest against the regime. Galvanized by the assassination of opposition leader, Benigno Aquino Jr., a
clutch of small publications fused the separate streams of dissident ideas into a national conversation,
connecting the different communities to form the People Power uprising in 1986. The press was among
the first institutions to operate in the new environment.

There are presently 1,018 news organisations — print, radio and television — operating in different
areas in the country. Journalism operates on different levels, but with exception of church and NGO
media, most media operate as commercial enterprises, including news programmes as profit centers.

The commercialization of the news forces journalists to work for ratings and circulation. This involves a
fundamental conflict of interest and clash between profit and the objectives of news as a public service.

Newspapers now run multiple sections, with a large proportion of pages given over to topics such as
lifestyle, entertainment, fashion, food and sports, youth and travel. As advertisers and media buyers
demand more prime space, newspapers have yielded by creating more of these “soft sections”, thus
adding to the number of “front” pages (the first page of each section) and with layouts dominated by
ads. News from a traditional journalism agenda is in short supply and there is a fraction of space given
over to foreign coverage.

During the 1970s, a call for journalism in aid of development provoked heated discussions. Its legitimate
progressive aspects were co-opted by governments wanting to control the press. The practice saw the
wholesale and institutional re-purposing of journalism as a vehicle for state propaganda.
This also encouraged and institutionalized the practice of cash incentives or gifts given to journalists to
secure favorable coverage. The conflict of interest is obvious: a journalist who takes bribes is reporting
for his personal gain. A reporter then can slant the story to favour a subject who has paid or promised
payment and shares the reward with other editors.

The practice cannot be excused because of low salaries: even those who are well paid succumb to
bribery. The overall lack of transparency is sinister. During the Marcos years the press openly favoured
the regime. Given today’s supposedly free press system and the claim for press autonomy, “paid-for
news” and political bias can be passed off and appear as legitimate stories.

Exchange deals, merchandise and other business services, are not all reported and the audience can be
oblivious to the advertising content in these so-called news features. Exchange deals are used for
employees as well as for guest entertainers or commentators who are not paid anything for their time.

These practices have also found their way online. Puff pieces on companies and their services appear as
regular articles but may have been produced on the basis of an exchange.

There has been no effort to establish rules about how news services online should clarify the division
between advertising and news. The dynamic character of web and social networking sites further blurs
the distinction between news and advertising and the lines separating the two. Advertorial features can
be found in the same space (home pages and social media timelines) as the news and other
independently-produced editorial content.

“Likes”, “retweets”, “hits” and “visits” are the Internet’s currency. People who can provide these are
paid for the service. In an environment where disinformation and misinformation abound, “influencers”
can dictate agenda and content, and act as a media “point man” and/or “shepherds”.

The effects of media-ized politics on political campaigns, is also largely negative for voters. The primary
method by which the media influence political campaigns is through “agenda-setting” or the press’s
ability to shape mass attention and interest toward some things and away from others. It can be a ‘pro’
for elites if they have enough power to control the agenda setting in a way that benefits them. Because
the media have many biases previously discussed by Hahn they do not always ‘set the agenda’ in a way
that is best for society or for most candidates.

Considering these pros and cons has led me to conclude that the media-ization of politics is primarily
detrimental to the American political process, though, I’m not convinced that any integration of media
and politics is inherently negative for society. Where the inherent troubles are introduced is via the
dependence on profit. Politicians using media to disseminate their messages and the media relying upon
political elites for content are not necessarily bad things.

I can clearly imagine an integration of media and politics that works smoothly and productively for to
the benefit of the democratic process. Without the need to maximize profit margins the news
organizations could hire the better journalists and provide them better training so they could produce
higher quality work. These better journalists could, being freed from time constraints set by the bottom
line, work more slowly, but not too slowly, to accurately analyze campaigns and candidates and present
them in clear ways without sacrificing their complexity. They could be critical without becoming trivial or
overly adversarial. Journalists would not be pressured to get a quick sound bite from the first available
“expert” so they could take their time to find the best sources for their stories. I do not think the
problem is the integration of media and politics but rather it’s the dependence on financial returns that
causes most of the problems. Thus I conclude that there is not an easy solution or perfect system for
media or politics to function without difficulty or problems but a reduction of commercial pressures on
media organizations in America would likely be beneficial for most citizens.