N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (February 1) where I write a column (Subtext).

An exasperated President Noynoy Aquino faced the media last Sunday (January 30). In not so many words, he asked: Why should media focus mainly on the so-called negative issues? Why can’t they leave his fascination for cars alone? Instead of reporting on alleged corruption in the military, why can’t there be front-page treatment of the so-called good news like the remittance of several government-owned and controlled corporations amounting to P29 billion?

The President’s exasperation is understandable, but only in the context of his misunderstanding of how the media work. After more than six months in office, he still thinks that media should provide mainly favorable treatment to an administration whose President, at least according to various surveys, still enjoys high approval ratings among majority of Filipinos. He should know by now that media do not work that way. There will always be criticism as government officials make mistakes in the exercise of their functions. And as media try to get all possible sides of the story, criticism is unavoidable as individuals and groups articulate opposing views.

Of course, it also works both ways: Journalists also deserve to be criticized for acts that are unethical and reports that are untruthful. When a news report engages in speculation about the President owning an armored Lexus (when in fact it had been lent by an unidentified brother-in-law), the concerned journalist should be held responsible for misleading the public. He or she should take responsibility for not checking the facts and allowing gossip and speculation to take the better of him or her.

President Aquino and other concerned government officials are more than welcome to criticize media, but it should be in the context of an informed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of media texts. Had President Aquino been properly advised by his media handlers who presumably know better, he would know that there is no such thing as “good news” or “bad news” in journalism as media are supposed to mirror social reality, bereft of subjective tendencies and focusing on objective analyses.

Based on the President’s recent peroration in the form of a misinformed exasperation, I am not at all surprised that his media handlers’ promise of a better public information system within the government bureaucracy remains unfulfilled. The issue here is quite fundamental: The current administration still believes that public information is synonymous with government propaganda where the only things worth highlighting are the ones favorable to the powers-that-be. In the process, the latter expect media organizations to do the same as government officials try to persuade people to appreciate reality through rose-colored glasses.