“Pursuing struggle to upheld Press Freedom amidst threats,
And the desire to Seek Truth from Facts amidst danger”
(Or “Again, notes on Rappler and the system’s politico-technical response”)
It makes one would think that as time goes by and there are those who rather treat the press as a stumbling block to their agendas, be it on the basis of technicality or not to silencing them, the message is clear: they are trampling press freedom.
Citing the example of the online media entity “Rappler” and the response from the governmetnt on the basis of technicality, it seems that people from all walks of life hath created a series of commentaries be it favouring the government’s response or Rappler’s defiance and its insistence as a Filipino-owned media entity. And from there Groups like the National Press Club as well as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines submitted statements which obviously clashes one another on the status of that media entity and how the state acted over that matter.
Citing the example of the online media entity “Rappler” and the response from the governmetnt on the basis of technicality, it seems that people from all walks of life hath created a series of commentaries be it favouring the government’s response or Rappler’s defiance and its insistence as a Filipino-owned media entity. And from there Groups like the National Press Club as well as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines submitted statements which obviously clashes one another on the status of that media entity and how the state acted over that matter.
However, there are those who treat the matter practically- one example would be from James Vellipa’s comment, in which he stated that the government's "Securities and Exchange Commission" should rather ordered the latter to divest the shares of its “foreign investors” or “funders” instead of revoking its license to operate. Sounds reasonable if not right especially that if the basis of Rappler’s possible demise is on technicality, and therefore why not let it be divested to Filipinos? In fairness, since the system did it to Rappler in revoking its license to operate, then why there is CNN Philippines in the first place? Time Warner also has its share in spite that the late Antonio Cabangon Chua had the privilege to operate CNN Philippines in RPN9!
And to think of that, since the system afforded to babble removing economic provisions be it in the existing law or its attempt to create another, and suddenly assuming to act “patriotic” (as a “reason” to remove an oppositionist mouthpiece), then how hypocritical it is!
Admittingly speaking, this person is patriotic, if not a nationalist, and therefore emphasising that Filipinos should control its own patrimony and from there each and every Filipino should contribute for the country's welfare; and that includes media entities. The issue on Rappler may have been quietly resolved through Vellipa’s statement, but, since the intention is actually “more than just technicality”, then sorry to say but it makes an impression that the system is creating an example other than killing the one who is providing the message.
And from there perhaps this person also sought how people are accustomed to see the president as the “pangulo”- the chieftain, the paramount head who has to be obeyed right or wrong- and some of them are also insisting that there is no press freedom being trampled, if so, then did they attain justice on those who are being killed for seeking truth from facts? Or how come there are those who justify the need to imprison them "simply because of disrespect"?
Admittingly speaking, this person is patriotic, if not a nationalist, and therefore emphasising that Filipinos should control its own patrimony and from there each and every Filipino should contribute for the country's welfare; and that includes media entities. The issue on Rappler may have been quietly resolved through Vellipa’s statement, but, since the intention is actually “more than just technicality”, then sorry to say but it makes an impression that the system is creating an example other than killing the one who is providing the message.
And from there perhaps this person also sought how people are accustomed to see the president as the “pangulo”- the chieftain, the paramount head who has to be obeyed right or wrong- and some of them are also insisting that there is no press freedom being trampled, if so, then did they attain justice on those who are being killed for seeking truth from facts? Or how come there are those who justify the need to imprison them "simply because of disrespect"?
Just like these comments from social media, and from there as if they’re stating that they favoured "lese majeste” laws even in this assuming “democratic” society such as the Philippines- in which contradicts the idea such as freedom of the press as well as expression. One would even babble the examples of India and Singapore, or any other country whose leaders are to be venerated "right or wrong" or forcing newsmakers to cherrypick which is to be publicized; if these apologists truly care about their government, and at the same time thinking that seeking truth from facts may hamper the so-called “development”, sorry to say but as a sovereign it is the duty of the government to rectify it the way that they are truly putting their faith in the people!
But anyway, the media, being a part of the civil society, carries its task. True that in the Philippines reporting such controversial reports is dangerous, but it is the duty of every newsmaker to seek truth from facts that in turn compels each an every concerned to understand, and willing to help in transforming societies.
And from this intent it is worthy to say that the media must, and will never and ever yield to their interests. To trample press freedom as well as those of expression using the pretense of order and discipline is but mocking the idea of the latter two.
And from this intent it is worthy to say that the media must, and will never and ever yield to their interests. To trample press freedom as well as those of expression using the pretense of order and discipline is but mocking the idea of the latter two.