Media Killings Prompt Journalists to Become
Activists
The burning of an ABS-CBN
van last January 11 reflects the state of Philippine mass media. Various
interest groups try to harass and intimidate journalists, even to the
point of silencing them forever. It is important at this point to
reiterate the importance of social involvement among journalists in order
to not only stop the killings but also to effect social change. (This is a
shortened version of the author’s paper presented at the faculty
colloquium of the University of the Philippines College of Mass
Communication last January 12.)
BY DANILO ARAŃA ARAO
Bulatlat
Are journalists
becoming activists? One may say that they have already assumed that role,
judging by the various media groups’ decision to take to the streets the
issue of the killing of journalists. Just like activists, however, a
deeper understanding of the media situation is important to know what must
be done to nip in the bud the culture of impunity.
The statistics on
the killing of journalists are alarming. Data from the Philippine Movement
for Press Freedom (PMPF) show that 34 journalists were killed from 1972 to
1986 during the Marcos dictatorship. The succeeding administrations of
Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
saw the number rising to 62 (i.e., as of December 1, 2004), according to
the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). It is
interesting to note that since Macapagal-Arroyo became president in 2001,
26 journalists have been killed, 13 of them in 2004 alone.
In its pooled media
statement last December 9, the NUJP argued, “There has been no single
conviction for a journalist's murder since 1986. And the killers of our
colleagues are getting bolder. In at least three recent killings – that of
Bombo anchor Herson Hinolan in Kalibo, Aklan; of Freeman reporter Allan
Dizon of Cebu, and of Guru Press reporter Stephen Omaois in Kalinga – the
dastardly acts were followed by gloating calls and more death threats to
the newsrooms. The climate of impunity is such that murder of a
journalist also sparks a rash of death threats in other regions.”
According to the
U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the Philippines has the
second highest number of journalists killed in 2004. Iraq has the highest
number with 25 journalists killed, two of them for still unconfirmed
motives. (See Table 1)
Table 1
Journalists Killed in 2004 |
Country |
Confirmed |
Motive
Unconfirmed |
Total |
Bangladesh |
3 |
1 |
4 |
Belarus |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Brazil |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Colombia |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Dominican
Republic |
1 |
0 |
1 |
The Gambia |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Haiti |
1 |
0 |
1 |
India |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Iraq |
23 |
2 |
25 |
Israel
and the Occupied Territories |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Ivory Coast |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Kazakhstan |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Mexico |
2 |
2 |
4 |
Nepal |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Nicaragua |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Pakistan |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Peru |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Philippines |
8 |
3 |
11 |
Russia |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Saudi Arabia |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Serbia
and Montenegro |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Sri Lanka |
3 |
0 |
3 |
Ukraine |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Venezuela |
0 |
1 |
1 |
TOTAL |
56 |
17 |
73 |
Source:
Committee to Protect Journalists, retrieved on January 4, 2005 from
URL http://www.cpj.org/killed/killed04.html.
Note from CPJ:
CPJ research indicates that the following individuals have been
killed in 2004 because of their work as journalists. They either
died in the line of duty or were deliberately targeted for
assassination because of their reporting or their affiliation with a
news organization.
Author’s Note:
Jonathan Abayon and Michael Llorin were not included in the list of
Filipino journalists killed in 2004. |
This has been the
case in 2004, despite a discrepancy in the number of journalists killed in
the Philippines as documented by CPJ and NUJP. The CPJ listed only 8
Filipino journalists confirmed killed, with another three journalists
killed for unconfirmed motives, for a total of 11. The NUJP, on the other
hand, had 13.
The slight difference
in the number may be explained by the CPJ’s policy of listing only
journalists who “either died in the line of duty or were deliberately
targeted for assassination because of their reporting or their affiliation
with a news organization.” The NUJP’s list, on the other hand, contains
journalists “who were killed – or were most likely killed – because
of their journalism work.” (italics mine) The NUJP qualifies further, “In
cases where it is not clear whether the death was work-related, or when
the authorities could not ascertain the motives behind the killing, NUJP
shall assume that the killing was work-related, unless future evidence
points to the contrary.”
The NUJP’s data show
that 62 journalists were killed from 1986 to 2004, or more than three
deaths yearly over the said period. During the administration of Corazon
Aquino (1986 to 1992), the journalists killed numbered 17. The
administration of Fidel Ramos (1992 to 1998) saw the number slightly
decreasing to 14. During the shortened regime under Joseph Estrada (1998
to 2001), the journalists killed were 5. From President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo’s ascension to power in January 2001 until December 2004, the
number of journalists killed rose to 26. (See Table 2)
Table 2
Filipino Journalists Killed
According to Administration
(1986 to 2004) |
|
Total |
Yearly Average |
Corazon C.
Aquino
(February 1986 to June 1992) |
17 |
2.65 |
Fidel V. Ramos
(July 1992 to June 1998) |
14 |
2.33 |
Joseph E.
Estrada
(July 1998 to January 2001) a/ |
5 |
1.94 |
Gloria M.
Arroyo
(January 2001 to June 2004) b/ |
15 |
4.29 |
Gloria M.
Arroyo
(July 2004 to present) |
11 |
n.a. |
TOTAL |
62 |
3.26 |
Author’s
computation based on NUJP data
Notes:
a/ shortened term due to the people’s uprising in January 2001
popularly known as “EDSA Dos”
b/ Arroyo merely finished the remainder of Estrada’s term |
Based on NUJP data,
28 out of 62 journalists killed from 1986 to 2004 came from Mindanao,
with Luzon a close second with 27.
(See Table 3) Eighty-seven percent of those killed were based outside the
National Capital Region (NCR).
Table 3
Filipino Journalists Killed According to
Area |
LUZON |
27 |
Manila |
8 |
Laguna |
3 |
Bataan |
2 |
Olongapo City |
2 |
Legazpi City |
2 |
Others |
10 |
|
VISAYAS |
7 |
Kalibo, Aklan |
2 |
Iloilo |
2 |
Others |
3 |
|
MINDANAO |
28 |
General Santos
City |
6 |
Davao City |
5 |
Zamboanga City |
4 |
Cotabato |
3 |
Pagadian City |
3 |
Others |
7 |
|
TOTAL |
62 |
Author’s computation based on NUJP data |
According to form of
media, around 52 percent of journalists killed were radio journalists.
Print and TV journalists, meanwhile, comprised roughly 39 percent and five
percent respectively. There was one online journalist and two journalists
straddling both print and radio. (See Table 4)
Table 4
Filipino Journalists Killed
According to Form of Media |
Form of Media |
Number |
% share |
Print |
24 |
38.71 |
Radio |
32 |
51.61 |
Television |
3 |
4.84 |
New Media
(i.e., online) |
1 |
1.61 |
Print and Radio
|
2 |
3.23 |
TOTAL |
62 |
100.00 |
Author’s
computation based on NUJP data |
An Alternative Framework
It is important to
have an alternative framework in analyzing violence against media, a
departure from the perception that these are merely incidental occurrences
and the claim that some journalists were murdered due to their corrupt
practices.
In his analysis of
the rising trend of killing of journalists, PNP Director General Edgar
Aglipay was quoted as saying that journalists must practice responsible
journalism in order to protect themselves. This statement implies that
most, if not all, journalists killed were irresponsible and thus caught
the ire of the people or groups that they may have offended in their
reportage.
Such an opinion which
could be shared by other media consumers is reflective of the general
public’s indifference to the plight of journalists. There are those who
think that they deserve to die anyway for their disservice to the readers.
In other words, they had it coming.
This does not mean
that one should turn a blind eye to the lapses of journalists in the
performance of their work. While an eroded credibility in the eyes of
their peers and, more importantly, their readers is a punishment by
itself, an appropriate sanction could be either suspension or dismissal
from the media organization they work for, depending on the gravity and
frequency of the offense. Indeed, erring journalists deserve to be
penalized but not with death.
The PNP has also
suggested two remedies to put a stop to the killing of journalists: the
arming of threatened journalists with weapons for self-defense and the
institution of a national ID system. These, however, were criticized by
the NUJP for failing to address the fundamental problem of bringing the
perpetrators to justice. In its various statements, the NUJP stressed that
journalists are not asking for special treatment. They are merely asking
the PNP to do its job in investigating, arresting and detaining those
responsible for the killing of journalists.
There are other
recommendations made by concerned groups. Among these are the institution
of field survival courses and the licensing of journalists. The first is
meant to prepare journalists for any eventuality as they go about the
practice of their profession while the second aims to professionalize
media.
Of course, the first
suggestion is well-taken, as groups like the NUJP and the Center for Media
Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) have taken steps to provide appropriate
training programs which include media ethics, as well as hotlines where
journalists can immediately communicate threats they receive.
The licensing of
journalists, however, does not help professionalize media practice or, for
that matter, deter the killing of journalists. In the final analysis, the
government can use this to harass and intimidate journalists who write
critical articles about the powers-that-be. Instead of promoting press
freedom, the licensing of journalists can end up compromising it.
Breakdown of Peace and Order
The establishment of
the PNP’s Task Force Newsman in the wake of the spate of the killing of
journalists in 2004 was welcomed by various media groups. The task force,
after all, seeks to monitor the progress of the investigation and
regularly coordinates with media groups like the NUJP.
Even then, the move
of the PNP reflects its inherent weakness to solve crimes and bring those
responsible to justice. Under ordinary circumstances, there is no need for
the police to set up a task force specific to the cases of killed
journalists.
The situation of
journalists, after all, is no different from that of mass leaders and
community organizers who are said to be victims of state repression.
Just like the killing
of journalists, the state of human rights violation in the country is
alarming to say the least. Partial data compiled by the human rights
alliance Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights) in
its 2004 Report on the Philippine Human Rights Situation show that there
were 570 documented cases of human rights violations from January to
November 2004 involving 9,924 individuals, 441 families, 476 households,
and 42 communities.
Since Macapagal-Arroyo
assumed office in January 2001, Karapatan documented 3,488 cases of human
rights violations. These violations affected 193,871 individuals, 18,942
families, 608 households and 106 communities.
Evidences of Fascism
A deeper analysis of
the facts surrounding the killing of journalists shows that, on a broader
scale, fascism is quite evident in the ongoing violence against media.
According to initial
investigations into the murder of selected journalists, the suspects
occupy positions of power and influence. For example, police officers
allegedly killed Edgar Damalerio and Roger Mariano in 2002 and 2004,
respectively. Last year, barangay captains of their respective residences
were suspected to have killed Arnnel Manalo and Ely Binoya.
Fascism refers to the
use of brute force in quelling social unrest. The killing of journalists
is the more glaring manifestations of the use of such force, but other
forms of violence like harassment and intimidation by the powers-that-be
must also be considered in analyzing the extent of fascism in the
Philippines.
In his book
Philippine Society and Revolution, Amado Guerrero stressed that the
rise of fascism cannot be considered a sign of strength of a government.
According to him, “It is in essence a show of despair and weakness…It
shows that they have ceased to fool the people with words.”
This then relates to
the social problem of bureaucrat capitalism in the Philippines which is
said to be the basis of local fascism. To the uninitiated, bureaucrat
capitalists build up or expand their wealth through the exercise of
political power. In other words, it is in their interest to maintain the
status quo and any attempt to threaten the existing social structures –
say, reportage on graft and corruption which some of the killed
journalists were doing at the time of their untimely death – must be
stopped no matter what.
Reflective of National Situation
The current trend of
violence against media shows that the plight of journalists is symptomatic
of the national situation. That most of those killed were from the
provinces only shows that the prevailing feudal and semi-feudal relations
in the countryside are contributory to the fate of some provincial
journalists there, particularly radio broadcasters who have caught the ire
of certain members of the local elite.
It is necessary to
stress at this point that there is no reason to believe the existence of a
grand conspiracy to rid the country of critical journalists. At present,
there is no evidence to prove that a single group or individual is behind
all the murders.
However, this should
not mean that they are totally unrelated occurrences. The cases, after
all, have obviously something in common: They occurred in a situation
where democracy was supposed to have been restored in 1986. However, the
objective conditions that gave rise to human rights violations since time
immemorial still remains despite the ouster of Marcos from power.
Clearly, the killing
of journalists has both historical and material bases and should be
analyzed in the context of the social turmoil. It does not come as a
surprise that in recent years, various media groups have decided to
undertake joint campaigns with cause-oriented groups in seeking justice
for those who were subjected to various forms of violence against media.
Contexts and Contradictions
A clear understanding
of the global, national and local situations demands the identification of
the various contexts and contradictions happening in society. The
challenge for journalists at this point is not just to expose the nuances
of Philippine reality, but also to oppose any form of media repression if
necessary.
The signs of the
times are clear, and the contradictions are glaring. This is now the time
where one’s nationalism is measured not only by how much he or she loves
the country, but how much he or she despises government. One’s commitment
is seen along the lines of how much he or she will do to challenge
existing social structures. In this light, the journalist, in unity with
his or her peers, should assume an activist’s role in opposing
exploitation and oppression in the mass media.
Only then can
violence against media be deterred, and only then can he or she find
meaning in the chosen profession. Bulatlat
BACK TO TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified. |