Press freedom in Southeast Asia

THE international human rights group Article 19 which advocates freedom of expression and freedom of information recently released a series of baseline studies on the state of press freedom in seven Southeast Asian countries.

The seven countries are the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Timor Leste, Malaysia, Cambodia and Indonesia.

The studies, released online last month, provide a comprehensive look at the media situation and the laws as well as political and economic conditions that affect freedom of the press and free expression in these countries. The studies are helpful resources for media watchers, researchers, teachers and trainors, and students. The study on the Philippines, completed in December 2005, was written with the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

The 75-page Philippine report focused on “the characteristics, role and history of the mass media in the Philippines, the laws that have a bearing on media performance, media ownership, and how political developments, such as the focus on anti-terrorism and scandals involving successive presidents, tend to define the exercise of press freedom and free expression.”

The Philippine reports talks about two traditions in Philippine in Philippine journalism, one a “tradition of acquiescence” that supports the existing order, and the other tradition that has come to be known as the alternative press. It also talks of groups of “dissident practitioners” throughout the country who manage to daily deal with restrictions of all kinds to provide relevant journalism:

But even under these circumstances, and in response to them, a corps of dissident practitioners has developed. These practitioners see the limitations of their own coverage; they test the political, economic and ideological limits underpinned by the ownership system on a daily basis; and they desire a truly relevant journalism that owes its allegiance first and last to the people and a responsibility to impart accurate and balanced information. This was especially evident during the political crisis in 2001, when the dissidents resisted pressures by editors and owners to shape their coverage in favour of Estrada, as well as against efforts to buy them off.

These dissidents were widespread in Philippine newspapers — in Manila as well as in the communities, and included reporters, columnists and even editors. They sought the information that would help Filipinos understand their own society and its problems, and engaged newspaper decision-makers in daily struggles to get the news out to a people hungry for information, and equally important, interpretation. They are the reason why, despite the political economy of the Philippine press, critical articles and news vital to the public understanding of recent events still manage to be published, even in those newspapers whose policies, ideological inclinations and political acquiescence to those in power make them virtual government mouthpieces.

What is clear is that for all its problems, there are individual practitioners in the Philippine media, even in the most timid and most acquiescent of Philippine newspapers, who succeed in reporting the news accurately. For them, the task of gathering information and reporting is a day-to-day struggle with editors and even with owners, an ongoing conflict that is extremely complex, characterised by small victories, narrow escapes and many defeats.

The study also talks about the role of the new media:

In the 2005 political crisis which is threatening the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, blogging has played a significant part in providing the public with uncensored information they cannot get from the mainstream media. The PCIJ’s blog was the first to break the story on the existence of the recording of a conversation between the President and the official of the Electoral Commission, Virgilio Garcillano, allegedly proving that Garcillano had helped manipulate the 2004 general election results. Apart from PCIJ, some of the notable blogs are: MLQ3, The Sassy Lawyer, By Jove! and Tales from Disiniland.

In the section “The Latest Developments Toward a Freer and More Responsible Media,” the Philippine study states that:

“The most significant gain of Philippine journalism after 1986 has been the growth of investigative journalism in an environment still burdened from the martial-law period by the legacy of secrecy. The establishment of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in 1989 was the turning point in this rediscovery of a form that, whilst already in existence before 1972, was then largely limited to exposés andsensationalised articles.

Both media sectors, prior to and following 1972, lacked attention to rigorous research. This rediscovery of investigative journalism is crucial to the monitoring of governance, and has brought the watchdog function of journalism to a new level of professional commitment. It was a rejuvenation for print as well as broadcast.

These gains, however, whilst won, had to be sustained in conditions that were not necessarily ideal. By 1999, when the Estrada government completed its first year, it had become increasingly evident that these achievements were not lasting. Dedicated and honest media practitioners not only faced more than the usual difficulties in undertaking their work; they also had to contend with presidential bullying and actual as well as implied threats to their physical safety.