I started this blog during the summer of 2009 when I had some time on my hands. I intended it to be my journal for my commentaries on various issues, current events, and policies I find relevant. However, due to my inability to regularly update it because of academic commitments, and upon realizing that my earlier posts did not emphasize the theses I would have wanted to convey, I decided to overhaul this blog and start anew.
Upon starting a blog on politics, government, and current events, I realize the responsibility that this entails as my perspectives will now be in public domain. Then I thought, the most timely topic for this blog's first post would be the media. Issues like irresponsible journalism and substandard quality of delivering the news arise when talking about the Philippine media as they have the potential to affect and shape public opinion. While this issue has been present throughout the history of the Philippine media, reforms have been evasive for what has once been called the "freest press in Asia." Selective coverage, sensationalism, and potentially libelous reports have been tied with the oligarchic ownership of the media and its commercialized nature that makes it vulnerable to populist sentiments.
A reform proposal that has been forwarded in the past is to liberalize the media. In a country where a rule that limits foreign ownership of enterprises to 40% is embedded in the Constitution, liberalization has a limited following amidst so-called nationalist sentiments and partisan interests of the dominant oligarchy. With these concerns in mind, I am posting my position paper on allowing foreign ownership of media outlets that I made for my English 10 class last year.
Liberalization has always been a contentious issue. With the pressure of globalization and its so-called neoliberal agenda, most states have started opening up their economies to integration with the global political economy. As the world diverged from the path of socialism, the trend towards liberalization has become pervasive and has been institutionalized with the Washington Consensus, a policy package that advocated liberalization, privatization, deregulation, and other measures that were branded as a neoliberal package by its critics in Latin America (Williamson 3-11). Despite the onslaught of criticisms from anti-Western ideologues, the trend turned into a norm in the global political economy.
The Philippines is one of the countries that adhered to the new norm of liberalization. Former President Fidel Ramos has made economic liberalization the cornerstone of his administrative platform. Subsequent administrations followed suit in following the established order. But the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land, has been considered as one of the impediments to globalization with its nationalist provisions. It requires the state “to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos” (Art. II, Sec. 19). Other similar provisions include: to protect Filipino enterprises from unfair foreign competition and trade practices (Art. XII, Sec. 1); to protect the abundant natural resources of the country for the benefit of the Filipinos and to reserve their exploitation to the state or to corporations at least 60 percent owned by Filipinos (Art. XII, Sec. 2); to reserve to citizens certain areas of investments (Art. XII, Sec. 10); to grant franchises for the operation of a public utility only to Filipinos (Art. XII, Sec. 11); to give preferential treatment to Filipino labor, domestic materials, and locally produced goods, and make them competitive (Art. XII, Sec. 12); and to limit the practice of professions to Filipinos, except in cases prescribed by the law (Art. XII, Sec.14). Such provisions mirror the nationalist stance of the Constitution as a whole. Since the Constitution serves as the legal framework that shapes government policies and other important decisions, the implications of this nationalist oriented framework on different sectors must be assessed.
For this paper, the media industry, which is one of the sectors where foreign ownership has been strongly repudiated, will be examined in relation to its ownership structures and the implications of the nationalist posture that the Constitution has imposed on it. This paper takes the position of allowing foreign ownership of media companies in the Philippines based on three arguments. The first disputes the so-called negative implications of foreign manipulation and will argue that framing the discourse of liberalization between foreign and national interests has resulted into an uneven playing field for advocates of liberalization. Furthermore, a critique of the current concept of nationalism with a focus on its economic variant will be presented. The second argument will point out how liberalization of ownership is tantamount to liberalization of the media from the iron hold of the national oligarchy, which has been one of the longest standing issues of the Philippine media. The third argument will forward the hypothesis that allowing foreign ownership can help improve the quality of news coverage and uplift the standards of journalism in the country.
Since the protectionist stance against foreign ownership of media outlets is embedded in the Constitution, it must be realized that the position of the paper can only be fully implemented with an amendment, a feat that all the post-Corazon Aquino administrations have failed to do. What this position paper can hope for is to contribute to the current discourse on the benefits and advantages of constitutional reform with more focus on the media sector and to open the discussion on liberalization against what has traditionally been dominated by its critics under the banner of nationalism.
Foreign Ownership vs. Nationalism
The Constitution has made it clear that the media industry is to be limited to Filipino owners in Section 11 under Article XVI where it states that “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.” Attempts to revise the Constitution to free it from what are considered constraints have been met with much opposition, nationalist rhetoric, and the so-called dangers of foreign manipulation. Little attention has been given on the effects of ownership structures on the media and how it has shaped media practices and dissemination of information. The reason behind the restriction on foreign ownership on mass media has been based on the “public interest,” a concept frequently cited but often unsubstantiated:
“The reason behind the provision is obvious. Mass media are clothed with public interest. They play a vital role in the national life, directly influencing the way people think and act. The Constitution seeks to ensure that these institutions are free from foreign influence. Press freedom would indeed be meaningless to Filipinos if those who exercise it are aliens, owing loyalty to a foreign government” (De Leon 729).
By framing the liberalization discourse between foreign and national interests, liberalization is automatically put at a disadvantage. The colonial history of the Philippines has made it wary of international economic relations (Carino et. al. 180). Post-colonial mindsets have spurred narratives with themes of foreign exploitation of the country’s natural resources and subjugation of the natives by intrusive outsiders. Such images evoke nationalist sentiments and contribute to the tendency of repudiating the possible entry of foreigners in the economic arena for fear of their advantages over fledgling local industries. By turning the discourse as a battleground between foreign investors and national interests, anything foreign is given a pejorative connotation and in turn, the prospects for foreign ownership are demonized without a fair hearing. It has almost become conventional wisdom that foreign ownership will be disadvantageous to local interests. It is the preponderance of this hegemonic idea that raises the concern of whether a serious and impartial inquiry on the pros and cons of liberalization has been conducted by the local media.
The question of letting foreign entities take over the task of being the “voice of the people” has been asked by critics of media liberalization (Duran par. 20). Since the Philippine media has taken great pride in its self-proclaimed title as “the watchdog of Philippine democracy,” it has taken a social-activist stance that supposedly looks out for the interests of “the people.” These interests are usually under the umbrella term of nationalism especially since prolific writers like Renato Constantino and I.P. Soliongco have fervently campaigned for the nationalization of business firms in the country since the late 1940s (Coronel 7-8). This implies that the national media should have the exclusive function of serving as representatives of the people. But in romanticizing their roles, the media forgets that it is not their core function to represent the so-called “voices of the people.” Using this argument against foreign ownership in the media does not hold water since representation is the primary reason why legislatures in democratic states exist (Hague and Harrop 309-310). This shows that foreign ownership will not completely impinge on the territory of the national media since the competition is not on representation of Filipino perspectives but on the free flow of information. Indeed, if a purely Filipino mass media is the target of the Philippine state because of the assumption that foreign content can manipulate and corrupt the population, then the framers of the constitution, as well as the legislature, should have banned all access to foreign media such as the ones from television, the World Wide Web and newspapers.
Behind the usual rhetoric of nationalism, there is no empirical support for the claim that foreign-owned media companies can produce negative effects on how a Filipino audience perceives information. Nor is there any empirical data supporting a linkage between increasing Filipino media shares in the market and foreign ownership restrictions (Desierto 4). In short, the arguments of liberalization critics of foreign ownership in the media are grounded on hypotheses with no empirical support or research data. Most are constructs from a post-colonial reading of Philippine history where foreigners were traditionally cast in villainous roles.
Using nationalism as the basis for formulating different legislative policies is not new in the Philippines. However, nationalism is a concept that may be politically powerful but philosophically impoverished (Anderson 5). The concept has been under-theorized and it has traditionally been difficult to define, let alone analyze. Despite this, nationalism has been continuously used in justifying protectionist economic policies. The problem in here is that economic nationalism has been misconstrued to denote a preference for autarkies or close economic models that give absolute preferences to citizens of the state. It can be argued in here that a different concept of economic nationalism can mean the opposite. Nationalist policies are not necessarily protectionist nor do they have to adhere to the rigid definition of being a sentiment amongst an exclusive group of people living in the same polity. Hence, “nationalism is not equivalent to statism and economic nationalism is not equivalent to mercantilism” (Helleiner and Pickel 220-222). Due to the demands of globalization, it may be time to free the concept of nationalism from its rigid and conventional definitions. Nationalism could serve as a framework for economic policy-makers who wish to realize sustainable growth and economic development for the country by taking advantage of liberalization and capital mobility that globalization presents. The investments brought about by foreign investments present large opportunities that the state cannot afford to forego. The main task then is to strengthen the regulatory and legal frameworks governing the media industry to help in maintaining a fair competition rather than to block the entire array of opportunities that liberalization brings in, along with the effort to avert its threats.
Oligarchic Control of the Philippine Media
The Philippine media has historically been dominated by members of the national oligarchy who had no qualms on using their family-owned media to propagate business and policy interests (Coronel 8). Research shows that the business interests of the owners of the media company are more likely to be reflected in the number of editorials it publishes and the positions taken in these editorials (Hollifield 1). This oligarchic hold has been further institutionalized by the constitutional ban on foreign ownership as non-oligarchic entrants find it hard to penetrate the market since they lack financial capital and network resources (Desierto 9).
Media laws and regulations are scarce since any attempt to regulate the media is seen as an infringement of press freedom, a value jealously guarded by media practitioners after the Philippine media was once hailed as the “freest press in Asia” (Salonga 3). In fact, Bayan Muna Representatives Teddy Casino and Neil Colmenares re-filed House Bill 1009 that seeks to decriminalize libel (Pinoy Press par. 2). With the current regulatory and legal framework governing media laws, it is no longer surprising that the oligarchic ownership structure in the Philippines has remained entrenched in the system (Desierto 11).
The concept of nationalism played into the hands of the oligarchy in preventing the entry of new competitors that would challenge their hold on the market. By maintaining the status quo of oligarchic dominance in the media, the Constitution inadvertently aids in the perpetuation of elite-driven politics where oligarchs have used direct ownership or indirect connections to the media companies in the country to help manipulate public perception, ensure electoral victories for favoured candidates, and push political legislations that would help maintain their oligopolistic hold on the market. Not surprisingly, the oligarchic-owned press have consistently framed the debates on foreign economic competition based on national patrimony. By parroting “Filipino interests,” foreign liberalization issues are not given an impartial coverage by the press since the business interests of the national oligarchy will be negatively affected by the influx of foreign competition. Thus, as long as the Philippine media remains in the hands of the national oligarchy, no substantive debate on foreign liberalization that includes all its pros and cons, can take place since the locus of information remains under the control of media proprietors. In sum, the constitutional prohibition on media ownership in the Philippines plays a pivotal role in precluding a levelled playing field for a capitalist economy to function at its optimal level.
By allowing foreign ownership of media outlets, capital accumulation can help new players in the media industry and break the monopoly in the telecommunications market. In doing so, liberalization of ownership can lead to liberalization from the traditional structures of ownership that permeate inequality in Philippine society. Hence, liberalization can be considered a tool of emancipation from the inherited economic disadvantages of not belonging to the national oligarchy (23).
Improving the Quality of Media Content and Raising Standards of Journalism
Partnership with international media networks can also raise journalistic benchmarks (Magno Media par. 20). One implication of the continuing hold of oligarchic control on the media is the tendency towards sensationalism in an attempt to maintain dominance in the market. Since the competition is between major media outlets on the same issues, different media companies are forced to resort to sensationalism to maintain their market shares and attract a wider audience (Magno Media par. 18). The line between entertainment and political news becomes blurred. Complex issues and policy questions are sometimes oversimplified due to their complicated and highly technical nature by reporters who are not trained to handle such issues. This often results in a he-said, she-said reporting style where the reporter merely quotes authoritative figures as well as random people for public opinion. As such, no analytical insights are added to the public discourse (Magno Personal Interview).
Salary rates of reporters in the Philippines prove to be so low despite being given up to four beats a day (Magno Personal Interview). As a result, “pack journalism” ensues in which reporters from different companies arrive at a consensus regarding a headline and a roster of topics to report in order to scrimp on logistic costs, resulting in the same news across different media outlets the next day (Magno Personal Interview). The quality of news and plurality of views are compromised as news reporting becomes homogeneous as a result of this pack journalism.
Another implication of low salary rates in the media industry is another depreciatory variant of reporting called “envelopmental journalism.” This is when reporters receive pay-offs enclosed in envelopes in exchange for writing favourable reports for a partisan interest or for destroying the credibility of a political or business opponent (Seneviratne 32). Uncompetitive salary rates in the industry have been used to justify this corruption.
Allowing the entry of foreign players in the media industry can translate to technological transfers and passing of techniques from foreign media industries that the Philippine media can use to develop the national industry. With a more professional media culture that can insulate itself from public pressure to do away with sensationalist topics, media practitioners can afford to explore new areas that are often marginalized due to their “lack of market appeal.” Aside from veering away from the trap of sensationalism, the diverse core competencies of different media companies can help improve reporting of technical policies which reporters are usually not qualified to report. Finally, with more players in the industry, dependent relationships between politicians and journalists can be broken down and can reduce partisan reporting and low-quality content.
With the entry of more media companies, salary rates for reporters can be raised to competitive levels as companies try to win over the best graduates from mass communication colleges. With such competitive rates, the inducement for corruption is abated. The media can also start investing in training journalists for more professional reporting skills and can address the issue of pack journalism.
In this respect, allowing foreign ownership of media outlets promises to be one of the main reforms for the media industry. By disentangling the discourse from the constraining dichotomy between foreign and national interests and from the rigid but under-theorized concept of nationalism, the prospects of allowing foreign ownership actually presents a bright blueprint for the state’s political, social and economic standing. The longstanding issue of oligarchic control on media and its subsequent effects on politics and policy issues can be addressed with the entry of new players that can pose as genuine competitors for the established family-owned media outfits in the country. Lastly, media content can be expanded to include more topics that are less susceptible to sensationalist demands while technology and techniques from foreign media can help impart ways to improve existing media practices and equip reporters with the skill to handle highly technical policy issues. In sum, allowing foreign ownership presents a very promising scenario that should guide constitutional reforms in the future.
Works Cited:
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991.
Carino, Ledevinia, et. al. “Reinventing Philippine Governance for Globalization.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration 49 (2005): 150-204.
Coronel, Sheila. “Lords of the Press.” From Loren to Marimar: The Philippine Media in the 1990s. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, 1999.
De Leon, Hector. Philippine Constitutional Law: Principles and Cases. Rex Book Store Inc., 1991.
Desierto, Diane Alferez, Restriction and Rhetoric: A Critique of the Constitutional Prohibition Against Foreign Ownership in Philippine Mass Media (October 8, 2009). The Journal of Applied Economy, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1485587
Duran, Roanne. “Liberalization of the Philippine Media: Pros and Cons.” Bulatlat 6-9 Sept. 2006. Web. 13 Mar 2011.
Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Helleiner, Eric and Pickel, Andreas. Economic Nationalism in a Globalizing World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.
Hollifield, Ann. “Effects of Media Ownership on Media Content: Thomson Papers’ Coverage of Quebec Independence Role.” Newspaper Research Journal (1999):1-13
Magno, Alexander. “Media.” Philippine Star. 26 Aug 2006.
______________. Personal Interview. 12 Jan 2011.
Pinoy Press. “Bill Seeks to Decriminalize Libel in the Philippines.” Pinoy Press 21 July 2010. Web. 31 March 2011.
Salonga Jovito. “Keynote Address.” In Carolina Hernandez and Werner Pfennig. Media and Politics in Asia: Trends, Problems and Prospects. Quezon City: UP CIDS, 1991.
Seneviratne, Kalinga. “Journalism, For Whom, By Whom,” in Cherian George. Free Markets, Free Media: Reflections in the Political Economy of the Press in Asia. Singapore: Asian Media Information and Communication Centre, 2008.
Williamson, John. “The Washington Consensus as Policy Prescription for Development.” Lecture delivered in the series “Practitioners of Development” at the World Bank. 13 Jan. 2004.
