Aquino Domination and the Media: Role of Journalism in the “Victory” of Noynoy Aquino vs. ex-President Gloria Arroyo in the ‘10 Elections

(Source: www.aboutmyrecovery,com)

In August 2009, former President Corazon Aquino, fondly known as Tita Cory, succumbed to colon cancer. Many Filipinos from different walks of life paid tribute to the “Icon of Democracy” after she assumed office when the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos was deposed in 1986. Once again, the so-called “Cory Magic” has evoked a sudden surge of sadness and sympathy for the Aquino family; gratitude to Cory and her family for being the icon of democracy; and, a clamor for a descendant of Ninoy and Cory to continue their legacy and run for the presidential race in 2010. So who did they call? The only son of Ninoy and Cory, then Senator Benigno Aquino III, popularly known as Noynoy.

Noynoy, the Presidential Candidate

Photo By: Jonathan C. Tribiana (http://www.lightstalkers.org)

In 2007, Tarlac Representative Benigno Aquino III ran and won as Senator under the Genuine Opposition alliance pitted against then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration slate. Halfway into his Senate term, Aquino III was once again a candidate. But this time, the stakes are higher: he’s running for the Presidency to replace then outgoing President Arroyo. Many sectors of society pushed for Noynoy’s presidential campaign especially after President Cory was laid to rest. During that time, possible presidential contenders have already been making rounds in preparation for May 2010. One of them is ex-Senator and now DILG Secretary Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, Aquino’s partymate in the Liberal Party (LP).

After Cory Aquino’s burial, Mar Roxas, who was also the LP president, announced his withdrawal from the presidential race to give way to Noynoy. During this time, Aquino was still in the process of discernment and asked for various consultations and advices regarding calls for him to run as President of the Republic. Eventually, Noynoy accepted the call for him to run for the presidency and tapped Roxas to be his running mate, with his clean and non-corrupt image and the “Cory Magic” as his political capital.

Months after announcing his presidential bid and filing his certificate of candidacy, Noynoy Aquino banked on his parents’ legacy, particularly the Cory Magic. Cory Magic has no definite description. One news report in August 2009 described it as drawing “multitudes who showered her (Cory Aquino) with cheers, confetti and even tears in a huge outpouring of love and gratitude for the woman who led them in their fight to win back their freedom.¹” True enough, Noynoy was able to muster this ‘Cory magic’ as he started his campaign to Malacanang. During the announcement of Aquino’s bid at the historic Club Filipino, Cory loyalists and supporters flocked the venue as if it was February 25, 1986 minus Cory and other EDSA Revolt personalities. But as the official campaign period started in February 2010, one problem arose from the initial campaign strategy of Aquino: Cory magic’s sustainability. If banking on this alone (without any media backup, i.e. news reports/coverage) would have been his strategy, his survey ratings in 2010 would have steadily dropped and could have caused him the presidency. Even members of the LP, back in 2010, “acknowledged… that the so-called ‘Cory Magic” that catapulted Aquino as the favorite to win the presidential race may already be wearing off.²” As a result, the LP campaign team came up with another strategy that required media attention in order to pull off the advocacy-cum-campaign strategy – the tagline “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.”

Anti-corruption stance: advocacy or strategy?

Aquino during a televised presidential 'debate' in DLSU-Taft. (Screen grab from ANC/abs-cbnnews.com).

The Cory magic died down. The media attention towards that campaign capital of Noynoy Aquino was not enough. So they had to come up with a concrete advocacy/platform, which turned out to be a campaign strategy that they have turned to be his government’s foundation: an anti-corruption drive. Of course, it was a very hot and relevant issue during that time, especially under an administration highly perceived to be corrupt during its 9-year stint. It is an issue that the media will definitely focus its attention, just like how it focused on various corruption exposés attributed to Gloria Arroyo and her underlings like the NBN-ZTE scam, Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard scandal, Road Users’ Tax scam, Fertilizer Fund Scam and much more to mention. So, the Liberals must have thought of strengthening this advocacy/strategy since it will complement Aquino’s clean and good guy image. And they did. 

So now, as a result of Aquino’s need to keep his lead in the surveys against then presidential candidate Manny Villar, the LP team strengthened their anti-corruption stance (which did not seem to be their primary advocacy/strategy at first) to clean up the Aquino-Roxas campaign and came up with “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” It is true, up to some extent, that corruption causes poverty in this nation. But it’s sad that media framed it in favor of Aquino, who merely saw this view, at first, as a way to further his campaign after his mother’s magic became unsustainable.

Since then, journalists have focused on to this great and noble advocacy pushed by Noynoy and his party. During campaigns, he would refer to the horrors of the very corrupt Arroyo years and contrasted himself from Arroyo and other candidates. By other candidates, that refers to Senator Manny Villar, whom the Aquino camp accused of allegedly being the secret candidate of Mrs. Arroyo and to whom the orange-colored ‘CORRUPT’ in his slogan was alluded to.

(http://beta.taopo.org/isyu/11/11/2011/puro-corrupt-puro-mahirap)

Villaroyo and the C-5 scandal

Manny Villar was Noynoy’s closest rival during the early days of the campaign period. Both candidates were topping (or at times, tied) in various surveys conducted by Social Weather Stations (SWS) and PulseAsia. His numbers in the surveys started to dwindle after the Aquino camp alleged that he is Arroyo’s ‘secret candidate’ and not administration standard bearer Gibo Teodoro and for alleged corruption issues regarding the C-5 Extension project. Although it was Jamby Madrigal who first exposed the C-5 issue in the Senate, the Aquino camp highlighted the issue in order to create a huge contrast between Noynoy and Villar. Villar’s camp denied the allegation of Villaroyo and even boasted that Villar “opened the investigation on various cases against the president, like the NBN-ZTE Broadband deal... His actions alone, prove that he is very independent and he does not tolerate all the shenanigans of the Arroyo administration.³”

News organizations picked up the issue and became the headline of every primetime newscast, editorial and banner story of broadsheets and tabloids. The issue was all over. The media attention was all on Villar. But he was put in bad light. The media attention on him and his vast fortune and his alleged influence on the said road project benefited Noynoy Aquino alone. It was a political stunt that the media portrayed to be for the nation’s interest. Why was it a political stunt that the media had wrongly bitten? It’s because after Noynoy assumed the presidency, he did not pursue investigations about their allegations of Villar’s corruption/conflict of interest in the C-5 project. Up to now, there’s no clear answer on what was Villar’s participation and assuming that it was true, how much did he pocket. 

It was this aspect of the campaign where we can see how media reacted to certain issues and where they stood. Some may have just thought that it is the right of the people to know about these ‘issues.’ But there are some who were like members of the media bureau of the Aquino campaign. The latter was heavily alluded by some observers to ABS-CBN.

The ABS-CBN connection

(Source: ABS-CBN's Wikipedia page)

Media conglomerate ABS-CBN was accused by political observers and some parties that its News and Current Affairs Division (NCAD) was delivering “news that were slanted in favor of President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III”⁴ during the 2010 campaign. Many people say that the Lopez-owned station did such was due to their indebtedness (utang na loob) to Noynoy’s mother for returning the station to them, which was sequestered during the Martial Law years. Most of the news reports favoring Aquino during the campaign were packaged to be ‘fair and objective’ up to some extent. But it is very obvious, even if they tried so hard to hide the bias for Aquino. Maria Ressa, the NCAD head of ABS-CBN during that time, defended the station’s news department from the accusations. “People have said we're biased, and I always answer back, 'Bias is in the eyes of the beholder,'” Ressa said in a press conference she called for, a day after Aquino took office in 2010. But in the same conference, she admitted that they really tried to push aside vested interests.⁵ With this statement, their defense that bias is relative doesn’t stand because Ressa knew about vested interests by some members (if not all) within the news organization. They should have instituted processes to further filter the bias that were incorporated into the news by their reporters. And this should not only apply to ABS-CBN, but also to other news institutions that are accused of bias for Aquino during and after the elections.

Media and elections: True colors show up

The best time to test the media institutions’ objectivity and fairness is during election period. It is during this time when the mileage provided by journalists towards a person or a certain issue is important and critical. That mileage can be used either to inform the people of what they deserve to know or to subjectively influence their mindsets to favor or contradict a personality or an idea. Journalists in the Philippines should always be reminded of the great power that they carry. With their words, they can make or break a person and even the future of a nation. The 2010 elections may have shown us what colors our journalists/media institutions have, but I still believe that it can still change. The media can still be color-less. It can still be transparent. And its bias is not for any politician/group, but solely for their audience, the Filipino people.

Note: This article was written/published in this blog in fulfillment of course requirements in Journalism 101 class at the College of Mass Communication, UP Diliman.

References:

¹ Yap, D., Lopez, A., Andrade, J., Alave, K. (2009, August 4). Cory Aquino magic is back.

          Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/
          20090804218648/Cory-Aquino-magic-is-back

² Fonbuena, C. (2010, Feb. 5). ‘Cory magic’ wearing off on Noynoy? ABS-CBN News.
          http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/03/10/cory-magic-wearing-noynoy

³ Lardizabal-Dado, N. (2010, March 28). Villarroyo, black propaganda and negative
          campaigning. http://www.thepoc.net/commentaries/5384-villarroyo-black-propaganda
          -and-negative-campaigning.html
⁴ Sanchez, R. (2010, July 1). Maria Ressa: ‘We are not an Aquino station’. Manila Bulletin.
            http://www.mb.com.ph/node/264654/maria-re
⁵ Sanchez, R. (2010, July 1). Maria Ressa: ‘We are not an Aquino station’. Manila Bulletin.
            http://www.mb.com.ph/node/264654/maria-re

PH Journalism: The Impeachment Watchdog/Attack Dog (Role of Journalism in the Impeachment of CJ Renato Corona)

Two weeks before Christmas 2011, allies of President Benigno Aquino III in the House of Representatives impeached Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona for alleged betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution, anchored on 8 different grounds. Days before the speedy impeachment of 188 congressmen, President Aquino already gave somewhat a forewarning to the former Chief Justice when Aquino lambasted Corona during a Criminal Justice Summit, which was attended by hundreds of judges and lawyers who treats the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice with the highest regards, being the repository of the judicial system and law profession in the country. Come January 2012, the whole nation awaited the first impeachment trial of a sitting SC Chief Justice. As all of these things happened, where was PH journalism standing and how did it handle it?

House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, House Justice Committee Chair and Lead Prosecutor Niel Tupas and other congressmen who impeached former Chief Justice Corona last December 2011 present the Articles of Impeachment. (Photo from congress.gov.ph)

As everything unfolded: from the filing of impeachment complaint to the former CJ’s removal from office, journalism played a big role in keeping the public informed and interested to what some observers call as “Coronavela” (contraction of Corona and ‘telenovela’) and acting like members of the sloppy Prosecution Team led by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas (who, unfortunately, is a product of UP CSSP and College of Law).  Journalism outfits in the Philippines took both the traditional and new media to deliver pertinent news regarding the historic impeachment, how key political and social players react, and interpret the legalese into a more conversational and less formal language that Juan and Juana dela Cruz understands.

Live coverage and the legalese

Senator-judges vote on a pending motion. Standing on the left, in white,
is former SC justice and lead counsel Serafin Cuevas. (Photo by Alex
Nueva España, Senate Pool/abs-cbnnews.com)

Huge TV networks (Channels 2, 5 and 7) together with their counterpart radio stations, newspaper and new media outfits (i.e Inquirer, Star, Rappler, etc.) provided the public an extensive coverage of the Senate impeachment court’s proceedings. For broadcast outfits, they provided live, uninterrupted coverage on television and radio of the impeachment trial. While for newspapers and new media like Rappler, they provided live coverage through live blogs and live streaming of the proceedings in the Senate. These media institutions also provided analyses of the day-to-day proceedings of the court, the highy-technical legal language that Senate President Enrile uses, especially when discoursing with the lead Defense counsel and former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas. TV and radio coverages incorporated the analyses of the proceedings and its implications to the fate of Corona before, in between recesses, and after the proceedings. ABS-CBN and TV5 had their respective ‘resident legal analyst’ that pretty much provided ‘translation’ of the proceedings and its legal terms that sounded Greek to the ordinary Filipino household following the trial, like what subpoena duces tecum is and how it differs with subpoena ad testificandum. With the extensive coverage and the attempt of journalists to simplify the complicated trial, the position of being a Chief Justice and the process of impeachment as the best means of unseating a President/impeachable official gained relevance to the ordinary Pinoy who rarely gives time about these things unless it’s election period. But, that’s just one part of the story. On the other hand, PH media somewhat seemed to be reporting ‘very critically’ against Corona, to the effect that as if all media outfits were mouthpieces of the Malacanang’s Communications Team and the House Prosecution Team.

Objective, fair reportage?

Journalism outfits (whether traditional or new media) may deny this but many people, including myself, believed that up to some extent, PH media has been biased and unfair against ex-Chief Justice Corona. Netizens and bloggers took note and offense from the purported bias of online journalism outfit Rappler and broadsheet Philippine Daily Inquirer. One blogger even wrote:

While we do not begrudge them of their right to take editorial positions, methinks both Rappler and the Inquirer should be more fair. It is quite obvious to the readers that they are supportive of the Corona impeachment, whatever their motives may be.¹

Most of the news reports, whether in print or broadcast media, treaded a very thin line of objective news and its opposite. I can fully understand how hard it is to remain objective and balanced in terms of reporting news, especially when you are reporting about an issue/s intertwined to your own beliefs, ideologies and advocacies. But as journalists, they should keep in mind the power that they have. They have the power to influence the mindset of their audience and shape the society’s views and judgments about certain aspects. One wrong information or even framing of information, it would be catastrophic to the society. That’s why a netizen/blogger said that the trial imposed a stiff requirement to journalists that warned it from making hasty conclusions, otherwise, they could be wiling or unwilling agents provocateurs, in the sense that they are directly or indirectly fanning unnecessary and uncalled for premature public perceptions.² In this case, impeaching a high official based on correctable inaccuracies in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) should have been weighed properly and this could be done primarily with the help of balanced,  objective and well-explained delivery of the news.

Some even went to the extent of looking like members of the Prosecution Panel coming up with possible links and evidences that would strengthen the case against Corona, like the undeclared Basa-Guidote money and the family dispute between the ex-CJ’s wife Cristina and her estranged cousins from the Basa clan over the family business. But such actions by some journalists were tried to be justified by one veteran journalist:

According to Chay Hofileña, Director of “citizen journalism” for “social news network” site Rappler.com journalists are “neither lawyers nor judges” and are, from the depths of their DNA she claims, hardwired to “look for patterns, inconsistencies and lies, and to point those out”. This, it seems, forms the kernel around which she launches into a mini tome on her view of how the role of the media in society in general is to “connect the dots”.³

But Ms. Hofilena’s statement that journalists aren’t lawyers nor judges is somehow contradicted by her subsequent words that “attribute to “journalists” what are really things that judges and lawyers do do as part of a system that governs just that (impeachment)”⁴ If we’re to follow this line of logic coming from someone who was drawn to journalism because it allowed her to write about stories that had the potential to make a difference⁵ and actually taught Media Ethics, then maybe media outfits should start recruiting lawyers to become journalists because they have the professional training in ‘connecting the dots’ in various political and social issues.

Selective watchdog function

In the process of watching and criticizing the unpreparedness of the prosecution and the hasty crafting of the Articles of Impeachment, some journalists come out with news reports of other issues and possible evidences against Corona that the public prosecutors (the congressmen) may have overlooked or were unable to look for. Through those reports that tend to pin down Corona on other charges and the absence of media reports about the administration’s claims that Corona was “a stumbling block to the prosecution of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,”⁶ the public was deprived of the right to further know and analyze the main reason why P-Noy was hell bent on removing Corona. How did this deprivation happen? Well, it’s because most journalists’ chose to undertake a selective ‘watchdog function’ and only focused on Corona and his responses to the allegations against him, while simply assuming that the Aquino administration’s main contention against Corona, as previously mentioned above, is actually true and supported by concrete facts. As a result, most journalists covering and reporting the Corona impeachment trial became, up to some extent, ‘attack dogs’ by Malacanang.

I believe that inasmuch as the media having the watchdog function, especially in these controversial matters, there should ALWAYS be room for fairness and objectivity for the parties involved, especially in the news. This fairness should not only be manifested through interviewing both sides, but also by publishing or delivering news reports that does not slant or favor a particular party to the case. Also, the media being a watchdog should not be selective and targetive. It should be a watchdog whether towards the opposition or administration. 

But putting aside the purported bias of major journalism outfits, PH journalism has done the public a great service for informing the public about the intricacies of an impeachment, the importance of a Chief Justice, and highlighting the need for the citizenry to be a participative and vigilant one.

Note: This article was written/published in this blog in fulfillment of course requirements in Journalism 101 class at the College of Mass Communication, UP Diliman.

References:

¹ Cruz, Tonyo. (2012, Jan. 20). Opinion: Rappler, Inquirer coverage lets Aquino off the hook.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/74234/rappler-inquirer-coverage-letting-aquino-off-the-hook/

² Flores, Megan. (2012, Jan. 28). Corona Impeachment Trial: media's hasty conclusions

http://www.thepoc.net/poc-presents/blog-watch/360-impeachment-watch/14674-corona-impeachment-trial-medias-hasty-conclusions.html

³ Cruz, Tonyo. (2012, Jan. 20). Opinion: Rappler, Inquirer coverage lets Aquino off the hook.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/74234/rappler-inquirer-coverage-letting-aquino-off-the-hook/

⁴ Cruz, Tonyo. (2012, Jan. 20). Opinion: Rappler, Inquirer coverage lets Aquino off the hook.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/74234/rappler-inquirer-coverage-letting-aquino-off-the-hook/

⁵ Rappler.com. (2012, Jan. 1). Chay F. Hofileña. http://www.rappler.com/staff-profiles/2516-

chay-f- hofile%C3%B1a

⁶ Cruz, Tonyo. (2012, Jan. 20). Opinion: Rappler, Inquirer coverage lets Aquino off the hook.

                http://asiancorrespondent.com/74234/rappler-inquirer-coverage-letting-aquino-off-the-hook/