CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

“A journalist sifts through the sides and knows when something is of value to national

security, and withholds until you can verify that it isn't.” (M. Ressa, personal communication,

April 24, 2019). For Nobel Peace Prize awardee and Rappler PH CEO Maria Ressa, journalism

is about filtering information until further verification. It is quite commonly known that for news

to be of genuine quality, being responsible for whatever is released to the general public must be

understood as a non-negotiable characteristic.

Rappler Philippines, widely known to be the first independent online news organization

here in the country, is one of the news media outlets often described as a source of fake news,

especially during the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte. Believed to be at the forefront

of upholding press freedom, however, Rappler PH has established itself to be necessary in

today’s time as people turn to newer media technologies for news and information. Moreover,

said news organization has a repertoire of articles that has landed on the international scene and

has been cited numerous times for its perceived credibility. To cite a few, Rest of World’s article

on Rappler being a publication that releases articles about their takes on an authoritarian

government, has made rounds on social media. Additionally, Scott Neuman from North Country

Public Radio has also released an article regarding Maria Ressa’s arrest and charges filed against

her for violating cyber libel laws, was also published back in 2020. In essence, Rappler

Philippines is ideally a news organization that thrives on responsible and people-oriented

journalism.
 To understand the importance of responsible journalism, however, one must first take into

consideration what credibility means. Bucy’s 2003 study (as cited in Calvo-Porral, et al., 2014),

credibility in mass communication media is believed to be the perception of news channel

believability from the audience, apart from the source or the message in question. Simply put,

credibility is perceived as essential when the audience concerned is known to be integral in the

process.

Rappler PH, albeit known for being responsible with the content it puts out, now puts

itself in a questionable setting as its co-founder and CEO Ressa has recently provided her insight

on what journalism is in today’s age. In the aforementioned interview, she gave an insight on

how WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, does not acquire the necessary qualities deemed fit for

a journalist as she described WikiLeaks as a source of “wholesale dumping” of unverified

confidential US government information. Following this statement, she added that journalists

should withhold such information until legitimately verified, which raises the question of who or

what information must be for.

It is questionable in a sense that journalism must not, in a general sense, be gatekept in

the first place. Journalism should act as pillars of exposing any information that the public must

be aware of, regardless of its value to the said audience involved. Information, relative to its

value, must continuously serve its purpose - to be known. Circling back to the definition of what

credibility constitutes, a message must be relatable to its audience, but this does not necessarily

entail that a message must be withheld until it becomes valuable in order for it to become

relatable. In one way or another, any information released is valuable to any person in ways we

cannot fully grasp, as we cannot define what is or what is not relevant for the general public.
 For further context, Rappler PH’s credibility becomes an area of increasing concern as

there has been a published article that verified said news organization having ties with the United

States’ government funding. Tiglao (2019) of Manila Times mentioned that there was support in

funding carried by the Omidyar Network and San Francisco-based firm North Base Media, both

of which invested on Rappler PH amounting to Php 180 million. This explains how Rappler PH

was able to afford tools vital for its creation in the digital media landscape.

The idea that a journalist threw a fellow journalist under the bus, the same year both of

these said journalists were arrested for supposedly speaking truth to power, is now considered an

area of concern. Consequently, three years later, Ressa is granted a Nobel Peace Prize award,

which the journalist’s media outlet questioned a decade ago for supposedly lacking credibility as

the years go by. In one of Rappler’s 2012 articles, France-Presse headlines an article about the

Nobel Peace Prize losing its prestige. The same Norwegian Nobel Committee declined to

comment on the nomination of Assange (Dwyer, 2011). It was reasoned out that the nomination

was past the deadline, but media commentaries beg to differ.

Such a situation has caused the study to take an interest in the relationship between

Rappler PH, US government funding, acceptance of Ressa with the Nobel Peace Prize award,

and the apparent deviating stance of Rappler’s CEO with Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks. It could

be argued that the news organization, as represented by Maria Ressa, and its stance on the Nobel

Peace Prize suddenly shifting after supposedly exposing Assange’s work in the field, has

something to do with the media outlet’s US government-backed funding. To better illustrate, the

following paragraphs would explain the main points of the study, and how it becomes relevant to

the necessity of conducting said research.

 The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by international committees and is directly involved

with personalities that often find themselves caught in controversies. This now puts Maria Ressa

in a more questionable state - why would Rappler PH’s CEO suddenly accept the supposed

“prestigious” award now, when her news organization released an article that questioned its

credibility ten years ago, and when three years after, she released a controversial statement

regarding responsible journalism and WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange?

The idea that such a media outlet has received funding from a US-backed in the same

decade-long timeline of events presented gives additional depth to the situation that has arised. In

2012, Rappler PH released an article about the Nobel Peace Prize’s declining prestige, and then

shortly three years after, an article was published about said news organization receiving funding

from Omidyar Network and North Base Media. Four years into the future, Ressa “throws

Assange under the bus” for his ethics, and then gets arrested that same year along with him.

Coincidentally, just three years after all that has transpired, she accepts the award as a

US-citizen, funded by the US-government, from the organization that is heavily influenced by

the same country, the United States.

The paper will focus primarily on how Rappler PH, in relation to how its CEO Maria

Ressa, given her history and brief profile, defines journalism and her thoughts on Julian Assange.

It will further focus on how Rappler PH positions itself in the context of mass communication

media credibility through a thorough analysis of its news content and editorial process, and how

this information would indicate Rappler PH’s take on the idea of what and who the press must

actually serve and protect. Alongside this, the research will tackle the relationship between the

aforementioned key points, and will argue the implications it would impose on societal and

economic parameters.
Statement of the Problem

The paper will analyze the content of Rappler PH’s news articles from the past six

months, starting from the time this research was started until the sixth month since its creation,

and will also venture out on determining the fact-checking and editorial process of said news

organization by reaching out to its editorial board. The research would use two key theories to

understand the problem at hand - the Agenda-Setting Theory and the Gatekeeping Theory,

which would be further discussed in the succeeding sections.

The study aims to understand how Rappler PH frames facts and information, and how

this can further elaborate Rappler PH’s understanding of credible and responsible journalism at

present. The research hypothesized that Rappler PH has misconstrued ideas on what responsible

journalism is, especially under its CEO Maria Ressa’s guidance and administration, and that

there is a significant gap between the news organization’s understanding of the concept of

responsible and credible journalism and their actual fact-checking and editorial process and

analysis on key national issues, which is valuable considering Rappler PH’s image to the general

public is perceived as essential. Through this study, the audience concerned would have a more

comprehensive understanding of Rappler PH’s motives and agenda for providing news and

information believed to be of relevance to said audience involved.

Review of Related Literature

This portion of the study introduces related studies which consist of relevant literature

and papers that are correlated with the current research being conducted. The following sections

provide comprehensive results and background that can further elaborate and strengthen the
relevance of the current paper, by involving similarities and differences in each relative to the

one at hand.

Journalistic credibility

Credibility in the context of journalism, seen in Ovadya (2019)’s Thoughtful Technology

project, is defined through various interpretations. According to the article, credibility is seen as

the likelihood by which an individual who is enabled by a certain factor is able to form accurate

beliefs relevant to their lives, causing them to make effective decisions based on said information

(Ovadya, 2019a). Moreover, he emphasized the importance of the Credibility Assessment Model

as a way to understand two key concepts in his project - the evidence chain and the reputation

network. The evidence chain, according to Ovadya (2019b), is a “frame that takes a claim and

looks for other claims that either support or contradict it based on observation or analysis.”,

while he described the reputation network as something that “evaluates claims based on a gestalt

of reputation.”

He continues to elaborate on this by comparing the evidence chain to an example of

statements, where he believed that something is true because it was experienced by someone

firsthand, or that it may be true because of existing conditions that strengthen its likelihood.

Additionally, he compared the function of the reputation network similar to how a consumer

makes a decision on buying something online based on how said consumer relates to the author’s

trustworthiness, the website’s respectability, the institution’s believability, or some combination

of all three (Ovadya, 2019c).

These two concepts are similar in function to how other studies, which will be further

explained in the succeeding paragraphs, define source and medium credibility. The likelihood of

an information’s credibility would depend on the source, or in this case, the reputation network,
and on the medium, or better illustrated here as the evidence chain. It is similar to the current

paper being undertaken as both papers aim to strengthen the definition of credibility by

understanding what constitutes the word, but it differs on its applicability to the local context as

the audience where the research is being conducted does not really solely depend on such factors

mentioned.

Journalistic credibility, now defined by Mkoko (2013), is about understanding the idea of

source credibility and medium credibility. They also explained how credibility in journalism

could be explained in a holistic sense, which were provided with the help of several authors from

the mentioned study, and how this becomes integral in the process of framing the concept in

question.

In the said study about Raia Mwema’s Use of Anonymous Sources, they described

credibility in journalism in three ways. According to Meyer (1988:567, as cited in Mkoko,

2013a), a simplified definition of credibility is briefed as a concept that requires the

understanding of two dimensions - believability and community affiliation. He argues that for

news to be credible, it must be generally perceived by the public as such and must create an

environment by which it becomes believable. George (2007:899, as cited in Mkoko, 2013),

further argues that believability must incorporate fairness, lack of bias, and accuracy. On the idea

of community affiliation, he stated that, “The community affiliation index incorporates readers’

perception of whether the newspaper watches out for their interests, is concerned about their

community wellbeing, is patriotic, and is concerned mainly about the public interest.” (George,

2007:900, as cited in Mkoko, 2013b). Simply put, the idea of credibility in the lens of

community affiliation must fuse with the general interest of the public.
 Additionally, source and medium credibility were also understood as a matter of concern

in the same research. Sternadori and Thorson (2009:56, as cited in Mkoko, 2013c) defined

source credibility as the attitude toward a source of communication, how it relates to the

evaluation of the global landscape in terms of believability, or a combination of trustworthiness,

expertise, and goodwill. On the other hand, Kiousis (2001:382, as cited in Mkoko, 2013d) argued

that medium credibility must focus on the message or channel with which content is sent

through. To relate, credibility of the content delivered by a certain medium is affected by the

community affiliated with said content.

Similarities and differences arise in these studies. They are similar in a sense that it

provides a much more comprehensive take on the idea of the aforementioned evidence chain and

reputation network concepts through Ovadya’s Thoughtful Technology Project, and further

expounds on journalistic credibility as holistic, however sans context of why credibility is

integral to well-known sources, as this study only focuses on anonymous sources. Rappler PH is

believed to be famous in the local industry, which is why the study being reviewed deviates from

the supposed parameters of the current research.

Lastly, credibility according to Finberg et al., (2001), is defined through the public

perspective. In their Digital Journalism Credibility Study, the public perspective, in the age of

online technology, describes accuracy, completeness, and fairness as three of the most important

components in determining a story or news’ credibility. The public’s perspective is vital towards

shaping the concept of credibility as it further emphasizes the need to include the general

consensus of what is or what is not worth believing when it comes to valuable information. In the

said study, however, the factors by which credibility is understood are derived from the public

perspective and media workers’ perspective. In the findings, the relevance of these components
are ranked differently according to relevance, and it showed the difference in rankings between

what the public considers important, and what media workers consider valuable first.

The similarity is more concerned with the acknowledgement of audience perspective as a

vital tool in framing the narrative of journalistic credibility, but fails to mention that an

information put out is also affected by the source, and only differentiates the order of relevance

on the public’s end and the media’s end in its key findings.

Fact-checking in the digital age

Stencel (2015) emphasized in his study about the implications and lessons for journalists

in the field, the definition of fact-checking in journalism. In his article, he described

fact-checking as a more proactive form that goes beyond relaying events as is, and further

positions news organizations as advocates on behalf of the citizen than that of partisan groups. In

the age of digital media, this holds more depth as newer technologies like the Internet have

pulled in more users than traditional media. In the recent year, Johnson (2021) mentioned that as

of January, there have been 4.66 billion active internet users worldwide, which translates to 59.6

percent of the total global population. This only means that more people from the general public

have resorted to internet media use and thus it could be inferred that said users have had access

to news organizations now being run on the web. Defining fact-checking in journalism, then,

must now be able to adapt to these times, which means Stencel’s definition of journalistic

fact-checking could be used to relate itself in the digital world.

A major similarity in the current study arises from this reference - the idea that audience

participation and reception is of much value to the overall concept of journalism, as news

organizations must acknowledge the existence of the public to be able to come up with
information that is relevant and timely. However, it fails to relate itself in the local context,

because in the Philippines, big and growing media corporations show the tendency to lose focus

on who to be an advocate for. In the Philippines, media corporations like ABS-CBN are valuable

tools for information dissemination, but are largely influenced by external forces as they are

owned by partisan groups and individuals who do not fully represent the audience perceived to

be the ones they advocate for. This then puts independent news organization Rappler PH in

question, as its CEO Maria Ressa understands the concept of journalism quite deviating from the

definition found on the reference study in position.

According to another related study by Graves and Amazeen (2019), fact-checking is

defined in three related meanings, but this study would only concern itself with the first meaning.

Graves and Amazeen (2019) describes such practice as having the power to “denote a specific

role or stage in the production process, focused on confirming the details in a news report or

other work of nonfiction prior to publication.” It is vital to confirm information that may be

valuable prior to its release, but this could be interpreted depending on the current situation at

stake. Ideally, making sure details of any article or news being published are valid and sound

must be at the forefront of journalistic practice. However, such situations where the general

public’s lives may be put into grave danger are present, information, regardless of its verification

status, must at least be made known to the audience as it may or may not be threatening to

society. A possible insight would be that verifying bulks of information is unnecessary when said

practice only protects the limited few and not the majority.

Such is the case of Julian Assange’s website WikiLeaks, who Ressa described as

unverified information made accessible to the public. There have been no dated articles as of

present that have reported lives being at stake because of these “dumped” information and
details, and no reports of retraction from Assange’s end have been made known. Why then,

would Ressa insinuate that just because it is unverified, that it could be threatening to the lives of

people? Who, then, would Ressa refer to when she describes the lives threatened by such?

The aforementioned paper is relatable to the current research being conducted as it

positions the fact-checking process as a vital tool in framing the journalistic landscape, but it

fails to appropriately address said definition in audience reception and participation. In this

paper, it argues that for credibility in journalism to be considered, it must acknowledge the

presence of the external force that benefits from the process.

Lastly, journalistic fact-checking according to Arogundade (2019, as cited in Rasaki,

2020), is defined as being guided by a certain senior editorial board, whose duty is to ensure

information supplied is verified and corrected. In essence, a small group of senior journalists

have the power to control the provided information in order for it to pass as news appropriate for

media outlets. It raises a problematic stance as it undermines the capabilities of the whole

organization to function and serve their purpose in the field. Albeit quite understood that for

organizations to work more productively, a hierarchy must be established. However, this only

further solidifies the idea that only a ruling partisan can control what should and should not be

put out. To add to the context, this was inferred from the idea of traditional media organizations

providing information to the general public. The same nature of hierarchy is also applied to most

news organizations as they venture into the digital age.

This statement from the reference paper is deemed essential for the current study as it

looks into the hierarchical structure of journalism and media outlets - how editorial boards

process information before relaying it to the general public once they have been verified. It is

essential in a sense that the current study dives into the same nature of work most news outlets
use that Rappler PH’s Maria Ressa continues to uphold in her principles. Said principles are then

reflected in the media organization she currently works in and acts as part of the so-called

supervising board.

The editorial process as a questionable structure

The current study argues that the editorial process as an approach to relaying news and

information becomes problematic in a sense that it does not fully involve the whole organization

it reflects, therefore wounding the purpose of journalism in relation to the citizens it must serve.

To better illustrate, a few related literature have been made and in this paper, I criticize the

fundamental nature of such practice.

Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007, as cited in American Press Institute, n.d.), defines

journalism and its essence as a discipline of verification. In the book, they reiterate the

importance of seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or

asking various sides for comments in the process of verification. The said reference failed to

mention, however, the quantity of the witnesses, the sources, and the sides journalists must seek

out to find. This leaves a gray area on the discussion of how many people are deemed qualified

to partake in the process. There is no common standard of which qualifications to look out for

and how big the size must be for the board to settle into, that makes the process now more

complex than ever. To establish standards by ruling out the majority of the organization and

leaving the work to the limited few, only further reflects the concept of seizing control and

power.

Furthermore, the said study opposes itself in a way that it prohibits impartiality and

neutrality, but promotes the idea of a limited ruling few to decide on matters concerning the

population. In my paper, I will emphasize that the current approach of editorial boards
processing information to verify its credibility is something that needs further discussion and

revision. It does not fully entail the opinion of the general public, as it only provides insight from

the inside circle that controls and manipulates the power of generating what is perceived as

valuable.

In another research conducted by Ivor Shapiro, they suggest another lens to better argue

the editorial process. Shapiro (2010:153) stated that, “The step of ‘examination’ normally

proceeds from a prior step of ‘discovery’.” In other words, to verify information must proceed

after identifying the existence of such. It is understood that for news to be published, it must first

be discovered, and then examined thoroughly. Otherwise, news unresearched is news that ceases

to become valuable. It adds depth to the current study as it raises a question of who should take

control of the ‘examining’ process once it is discovered. In a known situation, it could be

inferred that the editorial board of any news organization is the one with such authority.

However, the related study did not mention such a standard.

In relation to the current study, the conducted research by Ivor Shapiro proves itself to be

useful in determining the standards of what and who should be included in decision-making

processes. I argue that for news organizations to come up with better strategies, they must look

into the foundational nature of journalistic practices and principles, before deciding on what

would work most effectively for the best interest of the general public.

Theoretical Framework

In this paper, I will use two key theories to bridge the lacking information from the

related literature, and will ensure that the study to be conducted would easily identify the

relationship between the concepts and issues presented above.

 To better understand this research, I present the Agenda Setting and Gatekeeping Theory.

Wanta and Alkazemi (2018) briefly explains that McCombs and Shaw’s Agenda Setting Theory

in journalism is the way news media highlight issues that are of utmost importance at present,

and consumers of such news process these salience cues to determine what they perceive as the

most important issues of today. Illustrating an example, the authors situates a newspaper

publishing a series of stories dealing with why there is a necessity for strict gun control laws. The

general public is then exposed to these stories, but the effect this has on individuals does not

change their attitudes - meaning, it affects people in such a way that they would believe gun

control laws are important, and not necessarily be convinced that we need strict gun control laws.

It is necessary to apply this theory to the current study as I dive into the news content of

Rappler PH for the past six months starting from when this research was conducted. The news

content of Rappler PH would then be analyzed in relation to the Agenda Setting Theory, by

sifting through the headlines of the said news organization and look into how audience reception

is presented through their website’s reaction model.

On the other hand, Shoemaker’s Gatekeeping Theory in journalism would be used as the

framework for identifying the editorial process of Rappler PH. Chris Roberts’ study presents the

idea of Gatekeeping Theory in the context of Framing. Framing, as defined by Roberts (2005), is

the attitude by which news outlets choose to present stories that they believe will fit the frame of

their organization as it is presented as final products. It is a function of the Gatekeeping Theory,

as “news gatherers” collect stories that would be filtered out in order to align themselves with the

source’s branding and narrative.

In the latter part of the study, this theory will be used as a foundation for understanding

how editorial boards, more specifically that of Rappler PH, process the collected information by
understanding the way they go through these stories to present on their outlet. The Gatekeeping

Theory will help determine the external and internal motives of these respondents inside the

news organization’s editorial board, and could better explain the rationale behind the presentation

of their news. By understanding their process, I will be able to come up with a more

comprehensive take on the validity of the aforementioned hypothesis.

Research Gap

With all the research done in the past to support the current study to be conducted, and

aside from the previously mentioned differences found in the review of related literature, a major

gap is seen in the frame - no mention of the same theoretical frameworks were used as

foundation for their research. The key theories mentioned in the framework of this study aims to

provide another perspective into the situation. In line with this, the setting is now understood to

have a communication-centric approach in viewing the credibility of the subject in the study.

Moreover, the concept of credibility in journalism is sans context of the local scene. Most

of the research conducted has varying areas of concern which does not fully replicate the same

problem of the current study. Most of the related studies reviewed were not fully compatible with

the paper’s objectives, which said paper would seek to venture out on as it is conducted.

Significance of the study

The research at present will primarily look into Rappler Philippines’ news content and

editorial process, relative to the information presented about its CEO and co-founder Maria

Ressa, and how this could affect the digital media landscape and journalistic principles and

practices by viewing it as vital for the strengthening of journalism credibility and responsibility.
In doing this research, communication as a discipline could venture out into the areas that might

have been overlooked by understanding and highlighting the importance of audience reception

and/or participation in framing the narrative of information dissemination.

Furthermore, this study will attempt to find concrete solutions that may be pivotal to the

progress of Philippine journalism, especially in the country’s current political climate. As

understood, journalism is essential in understanding the political scene, where facts and

information presented in news articles are of value to the societal and economic conditions of

citizens living in the Philippines.

Scope and Limitation

This paper will focus on the news articles of Rappler PH for the past six months, how it is

framed, how the audience perceives the news, and how it relates to the editorial process of the

said news organization as causal to the credibility of Rappler PH in today’s age. The research

aims to determine the significant relationship between these factors by using the theoretical

frameworks as a foundation for analyzing the collected data from their news content, and as well

as the insights of the editorial board in their editorial process.

The research will use a mixture of content analysis and in-depth interviews to validate its

hypothesis, and will further strengthen its arguments through the triangulation method.

Connecting the relationship between the aforementioned issues present in the statement of the

problem would help better illustrate the research hypothesis in the findings. Lastly, the research

would not extend beyond other factors such as the traditional media landscape, the other

functions of the news organization that is not included in the editorial board, and other
international affiliations of Rappler PH besides the aforementioned San Francisco-based firm and

media network.

Definition of Terms

The following key concepts related to the current paper are defined either operationally

or conceptually.

Audience Perception. This is the concept with which the current study gives

acknowledgement to. It is defined as a vital tool for determining credibility, as it gives an insight

on news outlets’ motives, whether it be out of the general public’s interest or not, behind the

publication of news and information (George, 2007:900)

Credibility. It is the variable measured to generate a comprehensive understanding of the

subject matter at hand. Conceptually, Ovadya (2019) defines this as the ability of an individual to

make effective decisions based on factors that influence the relevancy of said information to their

lives.

Editorial Process. It is another variable measured to give more insight into the validity

of Rappler PH’s journalism, by using the Gatekeeping Theory. It is also understood to be the

process by which editorial boards verify and correct information prior to publication.

Framing. This is the process by which journalists identify news according to the way

their media outlets brand themselves (Roberts, 2005). It is essential in the current research as it

provides context to the editorial process, by using the theory made popular by Pamela

Shoemaker in the field of journalism.

Message Credibility. This is a concept understood to be vital in understanding the idea

of credibility in a holistic sense. It is important in the research as it gives much essence on the
news content being delivered, which would be analyzed in the paper using the Agenda Setting

Theory. Additionally, Kiousis (2001:382, as cited in Mkoko, 2013d) defines medium credibility

as an instrument that must focus on the message or channel with which content is sent through.

Responsible Journalism. It is an idea that the current paper would wish to acknowledge

and better address. Conceptually, it is believed to be a principle in journalism that should never

fail to be reinstated. It is integral to the verification process of information, which Kovach and

Rosenstiel (2007) emphasizes as a discipline in journalism that should not be overlooked.

Source Credibility. It is also an instrumental concept that is believed to be important in

solidifying the definition of credibility as a whole. This is essential in the study as it provides

context to the news outlet in question, which is one of the significant problems currently

undertaken. Conceptually, Sternadori and Thorson (2009:56,) defined source credibility as the

attitude toward a source of communication, how it relates to the evaluation of the global

landscape in terms of believability, or a combination of trustworthiness, expertise, and goodwill.