Let's Just Admit It: All Forms of Journalism, Have Their BIASES (and Citizens MUST Partake in Fact-Checking)

I confess that I'm no fact-checker or journalist. I wanted to take AB Mass Communications, but I didn't find a better school. Instead, I took BS Business Administration (general) all before the course was declared obsolete. There have been crazy claims online, such as fetus soup from China. I went to China and realized it was a sham. In fact, it turned out to be a sham and that the "fetus soup" pictures were more than what I'd call, a distasteful performance art. I wasn't too happy about ABS-CBN's role in promoting anti-charter change ads. However, I believe that no one is free from biases. 

Jeff Canoy of ABS-CBN admits a truth we all need to hear:

In a forum titled “Campus Patrol,” ABS-CBN News chief of reporters Jeff Canoy said journalists are “biased” as their values protrude from the way they craft their stories, but objectivity would come into play when they verify information.

“Actually, all [forms of] journalism [are] biased because the way I would describe this room would be very different from how someone else describes this room. We all have different historicities that will dictate how we view the world—the way we select words, pick sound bites, the way we structure our story,” Canoy said on March 21 at the UST Buenaventura Garcia Paredes, O.P. (BGPOP) building.

“Those are all influences of our own biases but again, what matters is the process [of gathering and verifying data],” he added.

I confess this blog has its biases. In fact, this is something I dare to agree as I'm writing on this blog:

“We can only fact-check so much but at the end of the day, it really goes back to education. It is difficult to explain to people what fake news is if they don’t understand the news to begin with,” he said.

In the same event, Bayan Mo, i-Patrol Mo campaign and training officer Dabet Panelo said fact-checking should be a “way of life” as it is a shared obligation between the media and its audience. 

In short, it means that no news organization or any organization, has a monopoly in fact-checking. No fact-checking institution should be deemed infallible. For example, Fact Check Philippines makes this claim, which is ridiculous when you know more facts, beyond fact-checkers. I've decided to share the post in English because I'm also sharing this to non-Tagalog speakers:

Does the 1987 Constitution protect oligarchs?

FALSE! The 1987 Constitution does not protect oligarchs, but rather states that lawmakers must enact a law to prohibit political dynasties, a type of oligarchy.

Lawmakers have attempted several times to pass a bill to prohibit political dynasties, but it has not become a law due to the opposition of a few politicians.

During the Marcos dictatorship, oligarchies did not disappear. Rather, a few powerful families prevailed in business and politics because of their closeness to the Marcos government. People close to Marcos and who benefited from his dictatorship were called cronies.

When the Marcos government had projects, the cronies were the ones who benefited from the contracts. In the cases filed against the Marcoses, cronies were included for those who were responsible for the widespread theft of the nation's wealth. This 2021, the letters of gratitude written by Ricardo Silverio to Marcos prove that there were people who benefited and became rich because of Marcos' dictatorship.

As said, I'm not going to dismiss where Fact Check Philippines is right. However, I must beg to differ (and exercise my duty to also do some fact-checking) because this is very wrong. Unfortunately, Andrew James Masigan also said the following in the Philippine Star:

I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful.

The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples. But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted.

So despite the Constitution’s patriotic bravado, reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or a Filipino majority) worked to our peril. It deprived the nation of valuable foreign investments, technology transfers, tax revenues, export earnings and jobs.

The Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions stunted our development for 36 years. From 1987 to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand leapfrogged in development on the back of a deluge of foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines’ share of regional FDIs lagged at a pitiful 3 percent in good years and 2 percent in normal years.

From the year 2000 up to the present, Vietnam and Indonesia took their fair share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines further behind. The country’s intake of foreign investments is less than half of what Vietnam and Indonesia realize. No surprise, our exports have also been the lowest among our peers. The lack of investments in manufacturing capacities have left us no choice but to export our own people.

Imbedded in the Constitution are industries in which foreigners are precluded. These include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, education, among others. Further, the Constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40 percent equity in corporations. Foreigners are barred from owning land too. These provisions caused us to lose out on many investments which would have generated jobs, exports and taxes. Not too long ago, we lost a multibillion-dollar investment from an American auto manufacturing company that chose to invest in Thailand instead. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung, who located in Vietnam.

Sure, the Public Service, Foreign Investment and Trade Liberalization Acts were recently amended, allowing foreigners to participate in a wider berth of industries with less rigid conditions. But it is still not enough. The Philippines remains the least preferred investment destination among our peers.

Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is also why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards are among the lowest in the world. It is why many industries are oligopolies owned by only a handful of families.

As for the form of government, I am willing to give the federal system a chance. Let’s face it, the current presidential system fails to provide the checks and balances for which it was intended. Senators and congressmen still vote according to party lines, albeit in a much slower legislative process. So yes, I am willing to try a new form of government because 36 years of insisting on a flawed system is insanity.

The world has changed since 1987. Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive. This is why I support Charter change, except in the extension of term limits of public officials.

Granted, Fact Check Philippines partnered with the Philippine Star. Masigan gave what I'd call badly needed criticism. What I like about Masigan is that he stated the good and the bad. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines indeed restored democracy. However, the problem lies with its flawed economic laws, which are hard to change.

The same may be why I wrote against Raissa Espinosa-Robles' claim of a "parliamentary Philippines". I find it irresponsible that Mrs. Robles should say that the Philippines had a parliamentary form of government. In truth, there was a parliament but not a parliamentary form of government. It's not "as long as there's a prime minister, therefore it must be a parliamentary form of government." Was Singapore "just lucky" to have the late Lee Kuan Yew? 

To fact-check, Alex Magno of the Philippine Star noted the following to prove that it's not a matter of luck, but of the system that governs the country:

One keen observer of the sometimes bizarre conduct of our national affairs is former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Although retired from government, Mahathir keeps tabs with unfolding events in the region. Revered by his countrymen for the great economic achievements of his period of rule, he keeps office at the penthouse of the Petronas Towers – the highest edifice in the region and probably the world. From there, he observes his bustling capital and contemplates regional developments.

Last week, House Speaker Jose de Venecia called on Mahathir in the course of a five-day visit to Malaysia, swinging across from Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak and Sabah. The visit was primarily intended to conduct consultations with Malaysian foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar on the future of the envisioned ASEAN Community and on de Venecia’s proposal to create an ASEAN Parliamentary Council.

Always forthright in his views, Mahathir was not shy about his opinions on the Philippines, even as he qualified those views with a polite disclaimer about non-interference in our internal affairs.

He bluntly told de Venecia that the "Filipino people need a break."

In the context of their conversation, that "break" is understood as a respite from the hyper-politicking that has plagued our country of late. That hyper-politicking has gotten in the way of our efforts to improve our economy, raise productivity and build a better future for our people.

Hyper-politicking has produced gridlock, endless bickering and neglect of urgent policy actions. It has undermined investor confidence in our economy and prevented willful leadership from being exercised – the same sort of leadership that Mahathir himself deployed in bringing Malaysia up from backwater economy status to that of an "Asian tiger."

Mahathir agreed with de Venecia that a parliamentary system of government could work better in the Philippines because it ensures "continuity in policy and the faster pace of approvals of development programs."

A major factor explaining Malaysia’s success story under Mahathir’s leadership is a responsive government enabled by the fusion of legislative and executive powers in a parliamentary system of government. The dominant role played by the major party UMNO ensured continuity of policy perspectives independent of the fates of individual power-wielders.

When Mahathir retired from politics, there was no uncertainty about the policy architecture that brought Malaysia to tiger-economy status. That policy architecture is not a personal legacy of Mahathir. It is the fighting faith of his party, UMNO, which continues to command the support of the Malaysian people.

If Malaysia had a presidential system of government, Mahathir might have never become its leader. Tough-talking, brutally frank and often abrasive, this man could not win a popularity contest.

Even if, hypothetically, Mahathir was elected president of a Malaysia under a presidential system, the man might not have accomplished what he did in a parliamentary setting. The legislature would have obstructed his most dramatic innovations. His team might have spent precious time and energy attending endless congressional investigations. Other aspirants to the top-post might have constantly conspired to cause his failure or smear him in the public eye as a means to undercut his base of public support.

The phenomenon of a Mahathir – or a Lee Kuan Yew, for that matter – would be difficult to imagine outside the framework of a parliamentary system of government. That system of government encouraged the full development of political parties that, in turn, built public support for innovative policies. The parliamentary form, along with the strong party system it fosters, ensure the cultivation of an ample supply of prospective leaders ready to take over and provide a consistent and reliable quality of leadership,

After all, the emergence of strong nations and strong economies is a process that requires generations of leaders. It is a process that takes longer than a single political lifetime.

It is, likewise, a process that requires the reliable institutionalization of political commitment to a strategy for progress. A national project of achieving a modern economy is, after all, a task that is too large even for the greatest of leaders to undertake singularly. It is a task that requires the sustained effort that only a committed party can ensure.

Without diminishing the personal qualities of great Asian leaders such as Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew, it remains that their feats of statesmanship could not have been done without the strong network that only a stable political party could provide. The parliamentary form of government ensures superior conditions for evolving that stable network.

When Lee Kuan Yew, and later, Mahathir Mohamad, reached the point when it was best to withdraw from their leadership roles, the transition was never traumatic. The process was never uncertain. The continuity of the policy architecture was never in doubt.

When Mahathir endorses the parliamentary form for us, he is not offering an opinion from the ivory tower. He is speaking from the vantage point of a successful leadership episode. He is speaking with the richness of experience of what this form of government has made possible for him to accomplish despite the adversities his people had to face.

Great leaders do not fall from the heavens and perform overnight miracles of national development without a stable governmental platform.

At the risk of sounding tautological: great leaders can only emerge from political and institutional conditions that make great leadership possible. The most important characteristic of those conditions is that they do not rely on the mysticism of leadership and do not fall prey to the destructive tide of personal ambitions as well as personal jealousies – both of which are in abundance in our politics today.

In checking things out, one needs to do research. Maybe, pay for some articles if need be. Do some research because some institutions require heavy payments to do quality research. Right now, I even wonder what paywall subscriptions are worth paying for, and what aren't. Should I subscribe to The Diplomat, or should I just pay for articles?  

In fact, the same could go with Richard Heydarian's statement of "Sub-Saharan Philippines". People in Mindanao should refute that claim. I found Heydarian's claims biased and unsubstantiated. I did some simple research to refute Heydarian's claims (read here). Sooner or later, I may have to pay for research. It's never easy to set up a study site, especially with server payment, fee for the academe, and all necessary expenses. Fortunately, some professors make their findings available online, for free. 

As a Filipino of Chinese descent, I believe that citizenship fact-checking is needed. Some can be highly biased and least biased. There's no such thing as zero biases. This article will have its biases. I prefer GMA-7 over ABS-CBN when it comes to the news. However, I have no guarantee GMA-7 doesn't have its biases. Disinformation is deadly. Fact-checking can be misused and abused, to the point fact-checkers become agents of disinformation. It's necessary that citizens need to do research, not just leave it to some experts. 

As always, remember to focus on the arguments, not the person! Just because I'm not a reporter, doesn't mean that I'm always wrong and the mass media organization, is always right!