This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. VII, No. 10, April 15-21, 2007
Bourgeois Journalism
vs Alternative Journalism in the Philippines
There are two theories that
define the state of the Philippine press today – the bourgeois theory and the
progressive theory. The bourgeois theory of the press retains its domination of
the industry but with a new breed of owners and stockholders belonging to new
wealthy families. The author read this paper at a conference of the College
Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) in Dumaguete City on April 14.
By Bobby Tuazon Any discussion about the
theories of the press, to make them relevant to Philippine realities, should
always be taken in the context of the social, economic and political conditions
in a given historical period. Today, the continuing political crisis, armed
conflict and even the state of rebellion are also manifested or mirrored in the
state of the Philippine press. To my mind, there are two
theories that define the state of the Philippine press today. One is the
bourgeois or corporate theory of the press, which some progressive groups also
describe as reactionary. The other is the progressive theory, also referred to
as "advocacy" or "alternative" theory. Necessarily, the two theories contradict
each other, a situation that reflects the state of Philippine society as a
whole. The bourgeois theory traces
its historical roots to the U.S. colonization of the Philippines at the turn of
the 20th century. The U.S. colonialist conquest of the Philippines
that led to a protracted war resulting in the killing of more than one million
Filipinos, was fanned by U.S. newspapers particularly those owned by William
Randolph Hearst and the "yellow journalism" or sensationalism of Joseph Pulitzer
which circulated black propaganda about Filipino "savages," alleged brutalities
committed against U.S. troops and the need to Christianize and civilize the
Filipinos. Ironically, while a group of Americans also began to establish
newspapers in the Philippines, the U.S. colonial regime undertook a campaign of
censorship and anti-sedition laws that were designed to suppress struggles for
an end to colonial rule. In the long U.S. colonial rule of the Philippines, the
bourgeois press introduced by the Americans supported colonialist aggression and
the corporate interests of U.S. capitalism. Eventually, in the
post-independence period, the pro-imperialist, pro-corporate bourgeois press was
continued but even as wealthy Filipinos established newspapers and then, later,
radio and television stations, some Americans were still in control of a number
of media establishments. Filipino elite families who began to monopolize the
media industry considered their ownership of press establishments as a private
enterprise – indeed, along the lines of American capitalism – and appropriated
for themselves the civil libertarian doctrine of "freedom of the press" and
"freedom of expression." In fact, however, the elite ownership of major
newspapers, radio and TV networks basically had nothing to do with press
freedom. What they were after was to use media ownership to promote their
corporate interests as well as the vested interests of politicians or the
political elite. The Marcos dictatorship
(1972-1986) led to the monopolization of the media industry by the Marcos
families and their cronies. Under Marcos, the bourgeois press assumed an
authoritative streak supported no less by martial law censorship. Many
progressive journalists were arrested and held in military stockades,
anti-Marcos newspapers and broadcast stations were closed or taken over by
Marcos cronies. Newspapers, radio and TV networks run by Marcos cronies served
as mouthpieces of the dictatorship under supervision of the Department (later,
Ministry) of Public Information. The Marcos regime established the Kapisanan ng
mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP or Association of Broadcasters of the
Philippines) as a means of controlling the broadcast industry under the doctrine
of self-censorship. Today, more than 20 years
after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, the bourgeois theory of the press
retains its domination of the industry albeit with a new breed of owners and
stockholders belonging to new wealthy families, many of whom come from the
Filipino-Chinese elite. The bourgeois press, however, has a new dimension in the
sense that major media owners have extensive interlocking interests such as
chains of malls, hotels, real estate, food and beverages, construction, banking,
and so on. Globalization has transformed the media industry into conduits or
appendages of the so-called global media village of cable TV networks,
cyberspace, Hollywood movie industry, giant advertising corporations, and
sometimes even schools of mass communication. The bourgeois press promotes a
culture of consumerism and commercialism, generally toe the government line, and
shun investigative journalism or publicize issues of public concern. Consumerism
has given rise to the tabloidization or sensationalism of the press including
the TV news and public affairs. The bourgeois theory of the
press claims to represent balanced news, objectivity and neutrality. However,
what it practices is the reverse of what it preaches. For instance, the press in
the United States, from where the bourgeois or liberal theory of the press
originates, is monopolized by financial oligarchs and mergers of the likes of
CNN, Fox and other monopolies that are not necessarily the embodiment of fair
and true reporting. The liberal press in the U.S. features elements of
authoritarianism and censorship. The media monopolies promote not only decadent
consumerism and obesity in the American society but also support wars of
aggression, the trading of weapons of mass destruction and economic
globalization that has only resulted in the destruction of Third World economies
as well as in global unemployment, poverty and massive outmigration of skills. It is even worse in the
Philippines. Owners of media corporations pay lip service to freedom of the
press and balanced news when in fact what the Filipino media consumer receives
are stories slanted in favor of government or stories that glorify consumerism,
of mediocre actors and showbiz personalities so that people will patronize their
products and services. There is hardly any news about agrarian reform, human
rights, urban poor, the indigenous peoples, the threats of campus militarization
or suppression of the campus press, or about the social, economic and political
roots of the armed conflict. In other words, the bourgeois press does not mirror
the harsh realities of Philippine society. Right within their own
media enterprises, owners and publishers violate the rights of their own
employees by preventing the formation of unions and imposing self-censorship
among their rank-and-file journalists. How many of them have lent any support to
the families of over a hundred of journalists who have been killed since the
Marcos years – 50 of them under Arroyo alone – by suspected police officers,
hired goons and corrupt politicians? How many of them have protested against the
enactment of the Human Security Act of 2007 which essentially violates the
people's bill of rights and civil liberties, including the freedom of the press
and free expression? On the other hand, the
alternative or progressive theory has a rich revolutionary, radical and critical
tradition that dates back to the reformist and revolutionary propaganda
movements in the 19 th century struggle against Spanish colonial rule
and, in the first part of the 20th century, in the armed resistance
against U.S. imperialism and Japanese fascist occupation and, thereafter, in the
radical and underground press of the 1970s and until today. Indeed, according to
Luis V. Teodoro, former editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian and
former dean of University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication, the
Filipino press was born during the reformist and revolutionary movements, first
with Marcelo H. Del Pilar's Diariong Tagalog (Tagalog Newspaper) and
later with La Solidaridad (Solidarity), Ang Kalayaan (Freedom),
La Independencia (The Independence), El Renacimiento (The
Renaissance) and the guerilla and underground press of the Japanese and martial
law periods. "The Filipino press was an alternative first to the Spanish
colonial press, then to the pro-American press that the U.S. colonial government
encouraged, the Japanese controlled press, and the government-regulated press of
the martial law period," Teodoro writes. (Teodoro, "Philippine
Media: Two streams, one tradition," Bulatlat Online Magazine, August 5-11,
2001) The progressive press
therefore has a rich legacy of resisting foreign domination and fighting for
independence, opposing fascist dictatorial rule and continuing attempts at
reinstituting an authoritarian regime. Illustrative of this in the contemporary
period of the Philippine press is during the martial law regime when writers,
journalists and artists put up underground revolutionary newspapers and operated
what was described as "xerox journalism" as part of the struggle against the
dictatorship. They were soon to be joined by what was to become the alternative
press, including the Signs of the Times which became the Philippine News
and Features, the Media Mindanao News Service, the Cordillera News and Features,
Cobra-Ans as well as other anti-Marcos newspapers like Malaya and the
Philippine Daily Inquirer. On the other hand, the
campus press represented by such school organs as the Philippine Collegian,
braved the militarization of their campuses by rallying the youth and students
for the anti-dictatorship struggle even as they fought for the restoration of
student councils and the reopening of school newspapers that were silenced by
martial law. These alternative and
radical publications defied the repressive measures of the regime and played a
key role in the events that led to the ouster of Marcos during EDSA I in 1986. The alternative and
advocacy press today can be seen in the proliferation of small publications in
some parts of the country that were put up by people's organizations, party-list
groups and a number of non-profit institutions. Despite a limitation in
resources, the alternative press has flourished over the past 20 years with the
opening of alternative radio programs and online publications such as Davao
Today, Bulatlat, Mindanao Press, and newspapers like Pinoy
Weekly. Campus newspapers that classify themselves as progressive or
militant also belong to the alternative press. In contrast to the
bourgeois theory, the alternative press sustains the tradition began by the
revolutionary press during the period of colonialism by publishing critical and
investigative reports on poverty, social injustice, political repression and
human rights violations, and other sectoral and multisectoral issues. Moreover,
the alternative press is born out of a society that is torn by social conflicts
between the rich and poor, between those struggling for change and a few small
elite resisting social transformation in all its aspects. The alternative press
is alternative because it reports on issues and people who have been
consistently ignored, nay, rejected by the bourgeois press and articulates the
sentiments and aspirations of the poor; it is radical because it commits itself
to social change and social responsibility. In a sense, it continues the
revolutionary tradition of the Filipino press by its constant search and
struggle for change and for siding with the voiceless and powerless majority.
Because it advocates the
theory of social change and is committed to exposing the truth, the alternative
press is often the victim of political repression. Too many journalists have
sacrificed their lives or have become martyrs because of their patriotism,
resistance to foreign domination as well as for fighting for truth, freedom and
justice. Among them are Marcelo H. del Pilar, Emilio Jacinto, Isabelo delos
Reyes, Amado V. Hernandez and, in more recent times, Antonio Tagamolila,
Emmanuel Lacaba, Henry Romero, Abraham Sarmiento III, Enrique Voltaire Garcia,
Armando Malay, Antonio Zumel, Beng Hernandez and countless others who gave up
their lives or who continue to hold the torch of the advocacy press.
(Incidentally, it would be good for CEGP to publish a book or CD compiling
selected writings of these martyrs as a contribution toward continuing and
practicing this rich legacy of the progressive and revolutionary press.) Let us emulate the heroism
shown by these martyrs and eminent persons of the Philippine press. Let us
continue to read and learn from the works and biographies of these martyrs.
Above all, let us continue and develop further the alternative press – which
some journalists actually call the real mainstream press – and continue to fight
for press freedom in the light of what is happening to our country today. Let us
continue to stand for a committed press and use it responsibly as a catalyst for
social change. Bulatlat © 2007 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Bulatlat