Investigative or Propaganda?

It seems that the heat is on between traditional and social media. And by any accounts, today, shots have been fired.

An online publication today took to task Sec. Martin Andanar for interviewing in a podcast Sass Rogando Sasot and Rey Joseph Nieto, also known as Thinking Pinoy, two of the country’s top bloggers.

Since many fellow writers have already fired their salvos, I would like to point out one thing today. That the article describes itself as “investigative” but has made too many shortcuts to qualify as such.

Exhibit A is this paragraph:

“Early on, after Duterte won as president, the first thing that Andanar asked the Malacañang Press Corps (MPC) officers was if bloggers like "Thinking Pinoy" could be accredited as members of the press corps. Clear about the distinction between the role of the press and that of pro-Duterte bloggers, the officers said no.”

One cannot help but notice the lack of parallelism or equity between the two entities that are being compared. It says that the MPC officers are clear about the distinction between two roles: the press and pro-Duterte bloggers. The lack of qualification on the “press” and the blatant description attached to the word “blogger” puts us on guard. The distinction is not between traditional media, that is the “press” and social media, exemplified by “bloggers”, but between the press and PRO-DUTERTE bloggers. In card games, that is called a “stacked deck.” If that were a question posed on direct examination, it would be called a leading one.

Logically then the article’s author indicates that the choice that was made by the MPC officers was no choice at all because… well, do Pro-Duterte bloggers even have a role?

Exhibit B:

The article describes Sasot as having cursed the same publications’ reporter for the latter’s story o #LeniLeaks. Then it describes Nieto as having cursed Malacanang Press Corp (MPC) members for not interviewing Cabinet officials in the recent presidential visit to Singapore. It concludes by saying:

“It is these types of disseminators of information whom Andanar, the President’s communications secretary, has chosen to promote.”

Yet if we look closely, it is not clear whether the two bloggers are taken to task for their intemperate language, or for their intemperate language directed at the two entities: the publication itself which ran this article and the MPC. Even more, is intemperate language ipso facto indicative of a lack of qualifications on the part of the two?

Ms. Sasot, an MA student in Leiden University in the Hague taking International Relations was the first to clarify the issues surrounding the West Philippine Sea, presenting them in a manner easily understood by many of Facebook’s netizens. It was her presentation adhering to diplomacy rather than law that simplified the matter for many supporters of the President, making Duterte’s policy acceptable to many. Mr. Nieto, on the other hand, has always provided links to facts that he cites in his blogs, making all inputs easily accessible and verifiable.

That the two use a less formal language in their discussions is of no moment, but rather acceptable on blogs which do not demand the same kind of formality traditional publications require.

Exhibit C:

“In his January 24 Facebook Live interview with Duterte supporter "Maharlika" in Los Angeles, Andanar said the possibility of bloggers being accredited to cover the Palace is "very bright." The unspoken rule is that they should support the Duterte presidency and dish out only "constructive information."

“In that interview, Andanar said a certain Carlos Munda, who runs the pro-Duterte MindaVote page, has already been given access by the PCO to its newsfeed. He said it's really a matter of creating a "new system" to include bloggers in the news feed of the Palace.”

The sentence that stands out is the one that says the unspoken rule is that accreditation will be given only to Pro-Duterte bloggers. Yet what is missing is Sec. Andanar’s side. The article, which claims to be “investigative” has not asked the Press Secretary if other bloggers will be allowed. In lieu of this and to tone down the conclusion, it describes the rule as “unspoken” indicating that no one really says this. But then no one has really been asked.

Furthermore, it seems to imply a negative connotation to the fact that Carlos Munda of MindaNation has been given access to the PCO newsfeed. In the age of FOI, the idea is to make information accessible. Yet it appears from the construction of these two paragraphs, that the publication that ran this article begrudges the information delivered to bloggers.

We suspect they would rationalize that the information will be used as propaganda. This is strange because the freedom of information does not indicate that it can be curtailed because of the possible uses of information. It does not distinguish who gets the data. The right exists no matter how the fruits of the request are used.

Finally, it appears that what the author begrudges is not that the newsfeed access has been granted, but that it has been granted to a blogger. Interestingly, she does not say if the said access has been denied to them.

Exhibit D:

“For Andanar, whether in Malacañang or in his man cave, the distinction between journalists and bloggers, as well as news and propaganda, are all a blur.”

And this is where it returns. At the start of the article, the author indicates that MPC is clear about the roles of the press and of Pro-Duterte bloggers. At the end, she sums up that making no distinction is a terrible thing and takes Sec. Andanar to task for it. Yet nothing in the article discusses the difference. The article only indicates that the Sasot and Nieto both curse and therefore implies that they are not deserving to be disseminators of information.

The remaining question now therefore is, what do we make of the article? Is it “investigative” or “propaganda?"