Liberalizing the Philippine Media: Pros and Cons

We have gone this far holding mass media as our own, having our trusty old watchdog, though limping and perhaps infested with fleas, bite the hands off dictators and dishonest leaders. Why let a strange collie, no matter how attractive it is, do the gate keeping?

By ROANNE DURAN
Contributed to Bulatlat

                The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the
                Philippines, or    to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and
                managed by such citizens; --Art. XVI, Sec 3, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

Drafters of the 1987 Constitution had every reason to put such provision. Media, having been part of every important period of our history, need all the protection from foreign entities to be able to serve the people and function as gatekeepers of the state.

However, one of the goals in the Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan 2004-2010 (MTPDP) aims “to liberalize the ownership by dismantling legal, administrative, and constitutional barriers to foreign investments.” Since 2004, the proposal to amend the constitution has been furtive but persistent. Today, with the continuous campaign to realize Charter Change, instigated by the Constitutional Committee, liberalization may not be too far ahead. When these amendments push through, media will surely be pressed to open up.

Freedom from what?

Pushing for liberalization of mass media may be quite ironic in a country which has one of the so-called freest press in the world. Why and exactly from what should Philippine mass media be liberalized?

Constitutional Committee member Prof. Alexander Magno stressed the need “to liberate our media from the oligarchs.” Most Philippine dailies do not gain revenue but continue to circulate in order to serve other purposes. Sheila Coronel’s investigative reports “The Lords of the Press” and “The New Lords of the Press” showed how newspapers “…have been used to defend their owners’ political allies or otherwise advance their proprietors’ business concerns… They have also been utilized by their owners to wage political and business battles.”

Allowing foreign entities to own Philippine mass media, may lead to great improvements in terms of facilities, equipment, and other technical needs since they are more financially capable. “Our media… leave too much to be desired,” said Dr. Renato Velasco, former director-general of the Philippine Information Agency. “[There are so many] media entities that lack critical equipment and facilities.” A broader worldview is also highly important, especially in the time of globalization. Velasco described the orientation of Philippine media as “parochial… as if the world events revolve around the Philippines.”

Still, the biggest enticement to open media ownership in the country remains to be the economic profits it would generate. “That (Art. XVI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) is one of the stupidest provisions in the constitution… Maraming investment opportunities ang nawawala,” (Many investment opportunities are gone.) Magno said. “Ang media natin parang sari-sari store in the age of 7-eleven..Papatayin ka ng 7-eleven.”  (Our media are like the variety stores in the age of 7-eleven. You will be killed by 7-eleven.)

According to Magno, opening the media would open a large area of investment because Filipinos have a comparative advantage in production, animation, screenplay, and more. It would also open more job opportunities, which may lessen unethical practices in media. In Carlos Conde’s PJR report “How Malacanang Corrupted the Media” in March 2001, one would see how journalists justify bribery with “low wages and miserable benefits.” Velasco said that higher salaries are the solution to media corruption. “Kapag mas mataas ang suweldo, yung temptation for corruption is less.” (If the salary is high, the temptation for corruption is less.)

Greater competition, higher standards

Opening the media may provide the needed competition to improve local media standards. But University of the Philippines (UP) History Prof. Ricardo Jose, writer of the essay “Fragments from the Past: Towards a History of the Philippine Press,” said that paying more serious attention to media groups like the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) would do the job.  “1960’s pa dinidiscuss yan [problem with standards] eh, and foreign ownership is not the solution.”  (This has been discussed since the 1960s, and foreign ownership is not the solution.)

Velasco is positive about the whole thing, confident in the capability of Filipinos to improve remarkably if faced with foreign competition. “Hindi ba pagpasok ng McDonald’s we came up with Jollibee? And Jollibee has gone international…And hindi McDonald’s ang number one dito, [kundi] Jollibee.” (Isn’t it that when McDonald’s came in, we came up with Jollibee? And Jollibee has gone international. And McDonald’s is not number one here, but Jollibee.)

While the strong confidence in the Filipino is admirable, it is too simplistic to compare mass media to a fast food chain. Fast food chains do not hold power to influence a people and stir a country. Nor does it play the crucial role in shaping national consciousness. 

No guarantee

It is this crucial role that makes it even more dangerous to leave media in the hands of foreigners.

Freeing our media from local oligarchs does not guarantee freedom from large media conglomerates like AOL Time Warner, which has over 125 fully- and partially-owned labels internationally, including CNN, Time magazine, Warner Bros. and Winamp. How high then, is the probability of having conflicts of interest with this kind of business structure?

In fact, we are not really sure how mass media would be should we open them to foreign entities. According to the European Federation of Journalist’s (EFJ) report “Eastern Empires: Foreign Media Ownership in CEE” in 2003, countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, and Poland have allowed foreign ownership of media to prevent the concentration and monopoly of local companies. But now they are facing the same problem with foreign media domination, and the continued weakening of local mass media. EFJ describes the “growing domination by foreign media groups through a process of market colonization which has taken place since 1989” in Central and Eastern European countries.

Rowena Carranza-Paraan of the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) said that the main concern of those resisting the liberalization of media is the dominance of foreign view. Large networks would definitely be of foreign investors’ interest because of profit, but print would be a good catch because of its great influence. “Ganoong ka-influential ang media kaya delikado na ipahawak mo [sa foreigners]…Iba ang mindset, iba ang interest, iba ang takbo ng isip [nila].” (That is how influential media are so it is dangerous to have them in foreign hands. There is a difference in mindset and interest. How they think is also different.)

Role of alternative press

What would become of the alternative press should foreigners be allowed to own Philippine media?

Carranza said that foreign investors would have no interest in such, since alternative media are never profit-oriented. With the investor’s eyes fixed on the mainstream, the alternative press would have a more significant role in promoting the ideals and issues of the Filipinos.

Readers seeking the Filipino perspective in news writing and dissemination would definitely turn to the alternative press. “Lagi siyang [the alternative press] may papel lalo na kapag nagkaroon ng foreign ownership” (It will always play a role, especially when there exists foreign ownership), Carranza said. But it is also possible that the entry of foreign media giants would be overwhelming for small media companies without very strong economic foundations.

Jose agreed with Carranza in the alternative press’s role. “But the problem is baka maging tidal wave ito. Philippine alternative press would be stronger but…kung foreign media yan, malaking capital yan. So how do they challenge that?” (But the problem is that foreign ownership might become like a tidal wave. Philippine alternative press would be stronger but foreign media have bigger capital. So how do you challenge that?)

Greatest casualty

The greatest casualty of allowing the liberalization of media is not the mere uncertainties on our media’s future, but the risk of having outsiders gain dominance of our mainstream media. Would we actually let them be the voice of our people?

Every Filipino is aware of the media’s power, and how it has molded and sculpted our history from colonial powers to dictatorship rule, from the ousting of an incompetent leader, to the strive to oust yet another deceitful president. We have gone this far holding mass media as our own, having our trusty old watchdog, though limping and perhaps infested with fleas, bite the hands off dictators and dishonest leaders. Why let a strange collie, no matter how attractive it is, do the gate keeping? Contributed to Bulatlat

Editor’s Note: Roanne Duran, a student of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication (UP CMC), submitted this explanatory article for her Journalism 133 (Alternative Journalism) class under Prof. Danilo A. Arao.

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2006 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Media Center

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.