Korea’s Internet connections are a luxury not shared by most Asian countries.

Many Koreans perhaps do not realize that their Internet connections are the fastest in the world, and other Net-savvy Asians have every reason to be green with envy.

Coming from a country where dial-up connections and 56K modems are not yet a thing of the past, I am, not surprisingly, amazed by the lightning-speed Internet connections in Korea.

Since they are exposed to high technology in their everyday lives, some Koreans may not appreciate what they have until they travel to other less developed countries and see for themselves technology there that pales in comparison to theirs.

Some visiting Koreans I know have every reason to criticize the slow Internet connections in the Philippines, among other things. Internet surfing in my country, after all, requires patience and anger management given the sometimes intermittent signals. The current rotating brownouts make access to the Internet even worse even in the supposedly more developed cities like Manila.

From my experience, gigabyte-plus files that take minutes to download in Korea take days in the Philippines. Logging on to Web sites proves to be a breeze in Korea as they load almost instantly. For someone like me who enjoys watching high-definition streaming videos, Korea is indeed an online paradise!

And take it from someone who has executed online remittances from Korea several times: Internet banking in Korea is safe and secure, not to mention quick and efficient. Aside from the security plug-ins automatically installed in one’s Internet browser, my bank (Nonghyup) requires the use of two passwords (one for logging in, the other for money transfers), a digital certificate (normally stored on a flash drive) and a card with numbered codes.

Of course, the downside here is the bank charge in Korea ($20, as of my last transaction) which is expensive by Philippine standards. Then again, who says that high-technology security and convenience are cheap?

I take consolation in the fact that I only paid a fixed monthly fee of 20,000 won ($18) for the Internet connection in the apartment I occupied on campus when I was still a visiting professor at Hannam University in Daejeon.

At our house in the Philippines, I am currently paying 999 Philippine pesos ($22) monthly. Needless to say, my Internet connection in the Philippines is very slow by Korean standards.

In a study by Akamai Technologies, a U.S.-based network provider, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan are said to be “the best wired in the world with the highest number of fast broadband connections to the Internet.”

According to a news article published on Inquirer.net, “South Korea boasts the world’s highest average connection speed at 14.6 Megabytes per second (Mbps) and also has six of Asia’s 10 cities with the fastest link-ups, all with average speeds above 15 Mbps.” Akamai’s study also showed that 74 percent of Internet connections in Korea are classified as “high broadband,” which means speeds of 5 Mbps or above.

For a webmaster like me who uses search engine optimization tactics to drive traffic to my Web site (www.dannyarao.com), Internet speed is necessary to conduct experiments with codes, plug-ins, widgets and other content written in static HTML pages and database PHP files.

Modesty aside, the “techie evidence” of my stay in Korea is the boost in my Web site’s global traffic rank in Alexa (www.alexa.com), currently a major indicator of a Web site’s influence online. Thanks to Korea’s lightning-speed Internet connections, my Web site was, at one time, ranked second in Alexa’s “Journalists” category.

Of course, the celebration was short-lived as my return to the Philippines late last year resulted in my Web site eventually losing its high traffic rank. As of this writing, its global traffic rank has fallen to 411,668. When I was still in Korea last year, its global traffic rank reached as high as 68,952.

Indeed, there is reason to be envious of the technological infrastructure in Korea. Data from Internet World Stats (http://internetworldstats.com) show that in Korea, the Internet penetration rate is 77.3 percent, while in the Philippines, it’s 24.5 percent. This means that almost eight out of 10 Koreans use the Internet, but only two out of 10 Filipinos.

Korea has the highest Internet penetration rate in Asia, followed by Japan (75.5 percent), Singapore (72.4 percent), Hong Kong (69.2 percent) and Taiwan (65.9 percent). Those with the lowest Internet penetration rates in Asia are Timor-Leste (0.2 percent), Myanmar (0.2 percent), Bangladesh (0.4 percent), Cambodia (0.5 percent) and Turkmenistan (1.5 percent).

In the context of the entire continent, only 114.3 million out of all 3.8 billion Asians use the Internet, which translates to a low penetration rate of 19.4 percent for Asia, a figure that is slightly below the Philippines’.

Aside from Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, two other Asian countries have more than half of their citizens as Internet users: Malaysia (65.7 percent) and Brunei Darussalam (55.9 percent). Their virtual paradise is obviously not shared by most countries in Asia.

One can easily understand the digital divide among different countries, but it takes an actual visit to developed ones like Korea to realize the magnitude of the disparity. Just like other returning professionals whose line of work requires everyday access to the Internet, I had my reality check, as I now readjust to an Internet speed in the Philippines that, by Korean standards, is Jurassic to say the least.

By Danilo A. Arao

Tungkulin kong magbigay ng opinyon, pero bakit hanggang ngayo’y wala pa akong posisyon? Huwag mo munang itanong kung sino ang nararapat na iboto. Tulad ng marami pang Pilipino, hindi pa po ako desidido.

Ayaw kong magpadala sa ganda ng mga political advertisement. Ayaw kong maniwala sa mga campaign slogan. Ayaw kong maengganyo dahil sa husay ng mga campaign jingle. Ayaw kong pumili ng kandidato batay sa dami’t kalidad ng mga artistang nag-eendorso. Ayaw kong iboto ang isang tumatakbo dahil lang sa galing niyang magsalita sa publiko. Aanhin mo nga naman ang magagandang pangako kung alam mong mapapako lang ang mga ito?

Ipagpaumanhin po ang aking pagiging negatibo. Nagsimulo akong bumoto noon pang 1987. Mula noon, marami nang eleksiyon ang nagdaan. Kitang kita natin ngayon ang resulta ng pag-angat ng iilang indibidwal sa posisyon ng kapangyarihan: Mayroon mang mangilan-ngilang bukal sa kaloobang magsilbi sa publiko, patuloy silang nilulunod ng isang panlipunang sistemang patuloy na nagpapahirap sa nakararami. Sa pangkalahatan, ang mga pulitiko’y pansariling interes lang ang iniisip. Ang mga polisiya’t programa’y ipinapatupad batay sa ikabubuti ng iilan, hindi ng karamihan.

Sa ganitong konteksto, maiintindihan mo kung bakit wala akong mapili sa mga kandidato, lalo na sa puwesto ng Pangulo. Tulad ng argumento ng nakatatanda, totoong pare-pareho lang ang mga iyan. Ang tukso ng lalo pang pagpapayaman kapag nanalo ay nariyan. Madaling sabihing magiging mabuti silang Pangulo kung sakaling manalo, pero ano ba ang ating garantiya? Kung ngayon pa lang ay pabago-bago na ang kanilang paninindigan, paano pa kaya kung lapitan na sila ng iba’t ibang grupo na kung anu-ano ang inilalako?

Hindi naman absolutong garantiya ang aking hinahanap dahil alam kong imposible ito. May kasabihang hindi tayo nakasisiguro sa buhay, at hindi natin kailanman malalaman ang ating hinaharap. Pero imposible rin bang hilingin sa mga kandidatong maging malinaw sa kanilang paninindigan? Hindi ba nila kayang pataasin ang antas ng diskurso para mabawasan, kung hindi man tuluyang mawala, ang mga walang-lamang islogan at walang-katuturang patalastas?

Kung nais nilang gumastos nang milyun-milyon o bilyun-bilyon sa kampanya, sana’y gamitin nila ang kanilang pera para ipalaganap ang mensahe ng makabuluhang pagbabago.

Kahit na sabihing 30 segundo lang ang isang patalastas sa radyo o telebisyon, makakaya pa ring ipaliwanag sa paraang maiintindihan ng publiko kung ano ang posisyon ng isang kandidato.

• “Nais ko pong ibasura ang Oil Deregulation Law dahil kailangan nating wakasan ang monopolyo ng mga kompanya ng langis.
• “Hindi po nagsisilbi sa interes ng nakararaming Pilipino ang Visiting Forces Agreement kaya dapat lang na ibasura ito, kasama ng iba pang kasunduang militar sa Estados Unidos.
• “Susuportahan ko po ang Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) dahil sinusunod nito ang land-to-the-tiller principle na hindi makikita sa Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) at iba pang nagdaang programa.
• “Nararapat lang na itaas ang suweldo ng mga manggagawa sa pribado’t publikong sektor kaya hihikayatin ko po ang Senado’t Kamara na ipasa na ang mga matagal nang nabinbing panukalang batas hinggil sa mga ito.
• “Lalabanan ko po ang polisiyang globalisasyon na nagbubunga hindi lang ng pagtataas ng presyo ng mga bilihin kundi ng pagkamatay ng maraming lokal na negosyo.”

Sa pamamagitan ng mga inorganisang debate, nagkakaroon ako ng ideya kung ano ang kanilang paninindigan pero limitado lang ang oras na kayang ibigay dahil sa sobrang dami ng mga tumatakbo. Mahirap magpalalim sa mga isyu dahil kailangang maging matipid sa oras.

Ang ipinagtataka ko lang ay kung bakit hindi ginagamit ang mga pulitikal na patalastas bilang tuntungan ng pagpapaliwanag ng plataporma ang mga kandidato. Ito kaya ay dahil wala silang aktuwal na programang kayang ibahagi sa publiko, at ang tanging mayroon sila’y walang-lamang retorika ng pag-unlad, pagbabago at pag-angat sa kahirapan?

Kahit sino’y kayang pag-isipan at gumawa ng magagandang political ad, campaign slogan at campaign jingle. Kung susuriin ang mga natutunghayan ngayon sa midya, halatang halatang pinaghandaan at ginastusan ang mga ito. Ano naman kaya ang epekto nito sa publiko?

Sa pagbalandra ng niretokeng mukha sa telebisyon, binabaha ang publiko ng mga pangakong hindi malinaw kung paano matutupad. Sa saliw ng musikang pamilyar sa maraming tao na binago ang liriko, ipinapakita ang galing ng kandidato sa pagkanta’t pagsayaw. Hindi ko alam kung anong mensahe ang nais iparating ng mga ngiting nagmumula sa labi ng mga kandidato, na halatang inensayo’t peke.

Sa ngayon, huwag mo munang itanong kung sino’ng dapat iboto. Hamunin na lang natin ang lahat ng mga kandidato: Kung hindi n’yo kayang pataasin ang antas ng diskurso, hinding hindi n’yo makukuha ang aming boto!

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

Sa panahon ng eleksiyon, nararapat bang mag-endorso ang isang organisasyong pang-midya ng kandidatong dapat iboto?

Walang pumipigil sa isang diyaryo o magasing maglabas ng editoryal tungkol dito. Puwede ring mag-ere ng isang PSA (public service announcement) ang istasyon ng radyo o telebisyon para linawin ang dahilan ng pag-eendorso kung sakali.

Kung titingnan ang karanasan sa ibang bansa tulad ng Estados Unidos, nakagawian na ng maraming organisasyong pang-midya ang pagpili ng sa tingin nila’y dapat iboto ng kanilang tagasubaybay. Para sa kanila, bahagi ito ng gawain nilang paghuhubog ng opinyong pampubliko.

Dito sa Pilipinas, ano ang pangunahing salik sa pananahimik? Madalas na argumento ang pangangailangang maging neutral sa pagbabalita, kaya hindi raw dapat pumanig sa isang kandidato o partidong pulitikal. Nawawala raw ang obhetibidad (objectivity) sa pag-uulat kung magkakaroon ng isang editoryal, halimbawa, na maglalahad ng bukas na pag-eendorso sa isang partikular na kandidato o partido.

Dalawang bagay ang dapat linawin sa puntong ito.

Una, walang lugar ang sinasabing neutrality sa pagbabalita dahil ang peryodismo ay hindi lang simpleng paglalahad ng datos kundi pagbibigay ng impormasyon. Para magkaroon ng huli, kailangan ang pagsusuri ng mga datos batay sa piniling balangkas (framework) ng isang peryodista. Sadyang hindi maiiwasan ang pagpanig sa paggamit ng balangkas. Sa isang banda, paano epektibong mailalahad ng isang peryodista ang nangyayari sa lipunan kung hindi niya kritikal na susuriin ang lahat ng datos na nakuha niya? Kailangan ding tandaang ang simpleng pagpili ng mga datos na iuulat, pati na ang pagkakasunud-sunod ng mga ito, ay nagpapakita ng pagsusuri (intensiyonal man o hindi) ng isang peryodista.

Ikalawa, ang pagiging obhetibo ay nangangahulugan lang ng pagkuha ng iba’t ibang argumento tungkol sa isyung nais ibalita. Para sa isang peryodista, kailangang maglaan ng kaukulang espasyo para malaman ng tagasubaybay ang iba’t ibang panig. Sa konteksto ng pagbibigay ng komentaryo, maaaring maglahad ng paninindigan hindi lang ang peryodista kundi ang buong organisasyong pang-midya (sa pamamagitan ng editoryal). Ang pagbibigay ng paninindigan, indibidwal man o organisasyonal, ay pangunahing katangian ng pahinang Op-Ed (opinion-editorial) ng isang diyaryo.

Sa madaling salita, may karapatan ang publikong malaman ang paninindigan ng kanilang sinusubaybayang organisasyong pang-midya. Kung walang pumipigil sa huling mag-endorso ng isang kandidato sa pamamagitan ng editoryal, halimbawa, bakit hindi pa rin nangyayari ito?

Dahil kaya ito sa kawalan ng pagkakaintindi ng maraming opisyal ng organisasyong pang-midya sa responsibilidad nila sa publiko? Ayaw kong isiping ito ang dahilan. Sa aking paminsan-minsang pakikipag-ugnayan sa ilan sa kanila, masasabi kong alam ng mga kakilala ko ang katangian ng editoryal, halimbawa, at ang kahalagahan ng komentaryo sa paghuhubog ng opinyong pampubliko.

Pero siyempre, nariyan ang pag-aagam-agam nila sa bukas na pag-endorso sa isang kandidato.

Ang simpleng dahilan ay ang kawalan ng mapagpipilian dahil na rin sa katangian ng mga partidong pulitikal. Para sa mga organisasyong pang-midya ng iba pang bansa, malinaw ang pagkakaiba ng plataporma ng mga partido. Sa Estados Unidos, may malaking kaibahan sa paninindigan ng Democrats at Republicans. Gayundin ang kaso sa Gran Britanya kung susuriin ang plataporma ng mga partidong Tory at Labour. Para sa mga bansang ito, malaking iskandalo kung magpalit ng partido ang isang pulitiko.

Kakaiba ang kaso ng mga partidong pulitikal sa Pilipinas dahil mas mapagpasya ang mga personalidad kaysa mga prinsipyo. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit ang mga pulitiko ay tila paru-parong palipat-lipat ng partido. Kahit na sinusubukan ng mga progresibong party-list group ang pagkakaroon ng isang kampanyang nakatutok sa mga isyu, patuloy pa rin ang dominasyon ng mga tradisyunal na partidong pinangungunahan ng mga tradisyunal na pulitiko.

Sa konteksto ng traditional at personality politics, mahihirapan talaga ang mga organisasyong pang-midya sa pag-endorso ng isang kandidato.

Pero may praktikal silang dahilan sa hindi pagpanig sa sinumang kandidato: Noong 2001, tinanggal na ang political ad ban. Magmula noon, naging malaking pinagkukunan ng kita ang eleksiyon dahil sa ad spots na ibinebenta ng mga organisasyong pang-midya sa mga kandidato’t partidong pulitikal. Hindi man nila tuwirang aminin, masayang-masaya ang mga may-ari ng organisasyong pang-midya tuwing may eleksiyon dahil sigurado silang kikita mula rito.

Kung magdesisyon ang isang organisasyong pang-midyang mag-endorso ng isang kandidato, malamang na makokompromiso ang potensiyal nilang kikitain. Bakit nga naman maglalagay ng mga pulitikal na patalastas ang mga katunggali kung alam nilang hindi sila ang ineendorso?

Sa puntong ito, malinaw na ang usapin sa maraming organisasyong pang-midya ay ”pera-pera,” isang sitwasyong hindi kakaiba sa kasalukuyang kampanyang sinasabing pinakamagastos sa kasaysayan ng eleksiyon sa Pilipinas. Malinaw na ang pangunahing gastusin ng mga kandidato’t partido ay ang mga pulitikal na patalastas na kung saan ang bayad ay direktang napupunta sa mga organisasyong pang-midya.

Walang masama kung kumita sila mula sa mga patalastas (pulitikal man o komersiyal) pero huwag naman sanang makompromiso ang responsibilidad nila sa paghuhubog ng opinyong pampubliko. Para mapataas ang antas ng diskurso, dapat silang maging bukas sa pag-eendorso.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

Is it ethical for a journalist to run for public office?

Legally, nothing prevents journalists from getting a seat in government as long as they meet the required citizenship, age and residency requirements.

Ethically, however, journalists should be reminded of what’s written in the Filipino Journalist’s Code of Ethics: “I shall accept only such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of my profession, invoking the ‘conscience clause’ when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience.” (emphasis mine)

A journalist who becomes a candidate for whatever position will have a difficult time performing his or her task of reporting the news. For example, how could media audiences believe his or her election analyses if they know that the journalist has a vested interest to win? A candidate-journalist is therefore put in a difficult situation where he or she cannot be seen as objective and fair, no matter how well he or she adheres to the highest professional standards of the profession.

Reading the list of 79 candidates for national positions (President, Vice President and Senator), one realizes that a handful of them used to be professional journalists. Two of them are running for Vice President (Loren Legarda and Jay Sonza) and four of them for Senator (Kata Inocencio, Rey Langit, Gilbert Remulla and Alex Tinsay).

Of course, these numbers may be considered inconsequential if one were to look at the total number of candidates for national office. There are 10 people running for President, 8 for Vice President and 61 for Senator. But just like journalists, most of those running for national positions have been in the public eye for some time either as celebrities or high-ranking government officials.

Even before the official start of the election campaign last February 9, most of them have been constantly seen on television. And even if they can hardly be called professional journalists, some politicians have actually acted as hosts or guest news anchors of selected television news and public affairs programs. There are also those who agreed to write newspaper columns to make themselves visible.

Some media organizations have a lot of explaining to do for allowing politicians (especially the inarticulate and incoherent ones) to help shape public opinion by actively taking part in the delivery of news. Theoretically, after all, politicians should be mere sources of information who are interviewed periodically by the media, given their lack of training in news gathering, writing and production.

But with this kind of arrangement where media audiences are introduced to “politician-journalists,” there are questions that need to be asked: Instead of media organizations paying politicians professional fees for their services, were the former the ones who got paid instead? Why did media organizations agree to such an arrangement even if there are journalists who are obviously more qualified to handle tasks like hosting a talk show and anchoring a news program?

The existence of “politician-journalists” is no different from “candidate-journalists” where media audiences fail to know for sure where their interests and loyalties lie.

At least for those running for national positions, there is no such creature as “candidate-journalists” as they have, rightfully so, taken a leave of absence hosting public affairs programs or reporting the news. However, the same cannot be said yet for journalists aspiring for local positions as the official campaign at the local level starts only on March 26.

Just as entertainment personalities are decisive in the shaping of Filipino values, journalists have a serious responsibility of shaping public opinion by providing meaningful information. Should journalists decide to embark on a different kind of public service, they should be willing to give up their professions, either temporarily or permanently.

Actively campaigning while doing journalistic work does not help any in the shaping of public opinion. In the final analysis, “candidate-journalists” would do more harm than good in building up the credibility of the journalism profession in the eyes of media audiences, most especially the electorate. And with credibility put into question, it would be hard for the other well-meaning journalists to perform their watchdog function.

Crisis in the University

The media are invited to a press conference on March 3 (Wednesday), 10:00 am at the Bulwagang Tandang Sora, 3rd Floor, College of Social Work and Community Development (CSWCD), UP Diliman, Quezon City.

Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, Student Regent Charisse Banez, Staff Regent Buboy Cabrera, Dr. Jose Gonzales of the PGH, concerned University of the Philippines (UP) faculty and students will be speaking on the continuing problem of undemocratic governance and crisis in the UP System.

• For the first time in UP’s history, students were stripped of their representation from the UP Board of Regents (BOR) as the current student regent was prevented from attending the board meeting and removed from her position due a technicality.
• For the first time in UP’s history, three regents overstayed their temporary designations to the BOR which lapsed in 2009.
• For the first time in UP’s history, the appointment of a University official was revoked without due cause. In UP Manila, the sitting PGH director was removed from his post a month after he was appointed by the board and sworn in as director.
• For the first time in UP’s history, classes as large as 300 will be the norm at UP Los Baños.

These are but a few of the problems faced by the UP community which undermine the mission of the University to serve the large majority of the people. Hear about the PGH Directorship, large classes in UPLB, protests in UP Mindanao on the reappointment of their Chancellor, impunity, undemocratic governance and the crisis in the University.

Your media coverage is requested.

For more details, please contact Prof. Danilo Arao (Department of Journalism) at (0908) 866-ARAO.

References:

Dr. Jose Gonzales, (0917) 541-3020
Dr. Judy Taguiwalo, Faculty Regent, (0916) 782-9666
Mr. Buboy Cabrera, Staff Regent, (0919) 598-3351
Ms. Charisse Bañez, Student Regent, (0927) 658-3115

Mainam na alalahanin ang diwa ng EDSA 1 noong 1986. Pero hindi dapat mabaon sa limot ang malagim na nangyari noong Pebrero 24, 2006.

Pinatalsik ang diktador sa pamamagitan ng sama-samang pagkilos mula Pebrero 22 hanggang 25, 1986. At sa pag-alala sa ika-20 anibersaryo ng nangyaring people power sa EDSA, ipinailalim naman ng administrasyong Macapagal-Arroyo ang buong bansa sa state of national emergency.

Ang dapat ay selebrasyon ng kapayapaan ay nauwi sa hindi-masukat na kaguluhan. Natatandaan mo pa ba ang nakaraan?

Malinaw ang nakasaad sa Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) na mabilisang ipinatupad ng Malakanyang noong Pebrero 24, 2006: “(C)onspirators have repeatedly tried to bring down the President, (and) claims of these elements have been recklessly magnified by certain segments of the national media.”

May sabwatan diumano ang Kanan at Kaliwa, pati na rin ang ilang organisasyong pang-midya, para pabagsakin ang gobyerno. Hindi nakakagulat na sa mga sumunod na araw, inaresto ang ilang kilalang personalidad ng oposisyon tulad ng namayapang si Rep. Crispin Beltran (AnakPawis). Ang diyaryong The Daily Tribune ay ni-raid ng pulisya at ang iba pang organisasyong pang-midya ay nakaranas ng pagmamanman ng mga awtoridad.

Sa larangan ng alternatibong midya, ang blocktimer sa DZRJ (AM station) na Ngayon Na, Bayan! ay kinansela sa mismong araw ng imposisyon ng PP 1017. Kahit na sabihing pribadong pag-aari ang istasyon ng radyo, hindi maikakaila ang malapit na relasyon ng may-ari sa pamilyang Arroyo. Sa katunayan, may mga mapagkakatiwalaang impormanteng nagsabing tumawag ang Malakanyang sa may-ari ng DZRJ para kanselahin na ang programang ito.

Alam ko ang nangyari sa Ngayon Na, Bayan! dahil isa ako sa mga co-host nito. Ako po ang nakatakdang mag-board work sa mismong araw ng imposisyon ng PP 1017 na pumatak sa Biyernes. Mula sa aking opisina sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas (UP), papunta na ako sa istasyon ng DZRJ sa Makati Avenue nang makakuha ng notipikasyon mula sa Kodao Productions (prodyuser ng nasabing programa) na kami ay hindi pinayagang mag-ere ng management ng DZRJ.

Maraming tumuligsa sa desisyon ng pamahalaang ipatupad ang PP 1017. Isa raw itong mapanlikhang paraan para magkaroon ng batas militar. Oo nga’t tumagal lang ito hanggang Marso 3, 2006 (o pitong araw), pero damang dama pa rin ang epekto ng PP 1017 sa mga sumunod na araw.

Labing-isang araw pagkatapos na ipawalang-bisa ng pamahalaan ang PP 1017, napilitang magpatawag ng isang press conference ang Kodao para ilantad ang kasinungalingang binanggit ng isang testigong iniharap ng Philippine National Police (PNP) na nagngangalang Jaime Fuentes (na hindi nagpakita ng kanyang mukha sa midya). Sinabi niya sa kanyang affidavit na nagtrabaho siya sa Kodao Productions noong 1987. Alam daw niyang ang Kodao ay isang propaganda unit ng Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Idinagdag pa niyang ang programang Ngayon Na, Bayan! ay bahagi ng kampanyang destabilisasyon ng CPP para pabagsakin ang gobyerno dahil sa pag-interbyu nito sa isang rebelde.

Sa isang pahayag, pinabulaanan ng Kodao na may naging kawani ito na nagngangalang Jaime Fuentes. Isa pa, binuo ang Kodao noong 2001, o 14 na taon bago ang sinabing pagtatrabaho diumano ni Fuentes sa Kodao. Bagama’t nainterbyu ng Ngayon Na, Bayan! si Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal na mataas na opisyal ng New Peoples Army (NPA), ito ay sa konteksto ng pagbabalita, tulad ng ginagawa ng iba pang organisasyong pang-midya.

Dahil ang Ngayon Na, Bayan! ay isang news and public affairs program, iba’t ibang tao ang naging bahagi ng programa nito – bukod kay Ka Roger na nainterbyu sa pamamagitan ng phone patch, nariyan ang isang ambassador, opisyal ng gobyerno, doktor, inhinyero, estudyante, maralitang tagalungsod, manggagawa, magsasaka at marami pang iba.

Ang akusasyong instrumento ng mga komunista ang aming programa sa radyo ay malinaw na walang batayan (lalo na’t kung iisiping umani ito ng maraming parangal mula nang magsimulang mag-ere noong 2001). Pero sa pamantayan ng mga nasa kapangyarihan, ang sinumang kritikal sa nangyayari sa lipunan ay tinitingnang subersibo. Para sa kanila, hindi dapat bigyan ng espasyo sa midya ang kanilang pahayag.

Nagsisilbing ebidensiya ang PP 1017 sa pagsupil ng pamahalaan sa batayang kalayaan ng mamamayan. Nagsisilbi rin itong babala sa ating lahat – kung walang makabuluhang pagbabagong mangyayari sa hinaharap, magkakaroon at magkakaroon ng mapanlikhang paraan ang pamahalaan para manatili sa kapangyarihan!

Ang mga nasa kapangyarihan ay patuloy na gagawa ng paraan para makinabang sa kanilang puwesto. Kasama na rito ang pagpapatupad ng mga polisiya tulad ng PP 1017 na kunwari’y naglalayong iligtas sa kapahamakan ang estado. Pero malinaw sa ating lahat na sarili lamang nila ang kanilang planong iligtas. Kailanman ay hindi nila iniisip ang abang kalagayan ng nakararami.

Sa ating pag-alala sa nangyari apat na taon na ang nakaraan, tunay na hindi na dapat maulit ang imposisyon ng PP 1017. Hindi dapat payagang manumbalik ang batas militar sa Pilipinas. Hindi dapat hayaang manatili sa puwesto ang mga hindi karapat-dapat.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

It is easy for all Philippine presidential candidates to claim that they are advocates of press freedom. Who would dare impose restrictions on media whose favorable coverage they are trying to court? Why would candidates repress media and at the same time promise to protect and uphold democracy?

The political rhetoric, however, is oftentimes the opposite of what is actually done. What comes from the mouth does not necessarily originate from a well-meaning heart but from a sinister mind.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for example, had repeatedly claimed her alliance with the media in the struggle for press freedom. She argued in the past that the people’s uprising in 2001 called EDSA Dos ushered in a new administration, a direct opposite of the one under her predecessor Joseph Estrada. One of her promises, quite predictably, is to uphold the constitutional guarantee of press freedom.

It was under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration, however, that the biggest number of journalists was killed. Who could forget the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao last November 23 where at least 30 journalists were murdered with impunity and whose primary suspects were administration allies? Who wouldn’t see the irony of imposing a state of national emergency in February 2006 (the 20th anniversary of the people’s uprising in 1986) which resulted in the repression of an opposition newspaper and the cancellation of an award-winning radio program?

Even if the presidential candidates are expected to make general statements pertaining to press freedom, it is still best to ask them probing (and even confrontational) questions. Through such queries, could all have an idea of where they stand and how much they know about the workings of the press.

1. Do you think the constitutional guarantee of press freedom requires an enabling law? If so, what would be its salient points?
2. Where do you attribute the unabated killings of journalists? What do you think of empirical evidence proving that the most number of journalists killed since 1986 was under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration?
3. If elected President, how could you help bring the perpetrators to justice? How could you help solve the culture of impunity that gives rise to the killings of journalists?
4. What is your concept of public information? What is its role in your presidency? What do you think are the necessary reforms in the current public information system of the government?
5. In relation to the previous question, what will happen to NBN, IBC and RPN under your presidency? What changes in management, if any, will you do to NBN? Will you continue the government’s control of IBC and RPN especially with regard to their news and public affairs programs?
6. What will happen to Executive Order No. 464 if you become President? Will you continue to implement it even if there are criticisms that it deprives the journalists in particular and the public in general of important information?
7. Do you think the proposed Freedom of Information Act will benefit journalists? Please explain your answer.
8. What is your stand on the proposed Right of Reply law? Do you think this compromises freedom of the press? Please explain your answer.
9. How could you help ensure self-regulation in journalism and media work? Will your adherence to media self-regulation go to the extent of abolishing the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)? Please explain your answer.
10. Assuming that you are in favor of media self-regulation, what would you do to government officials who are found guilty of violating press freedom (e.g., depriving journalists of publicly available information, harassing and intimidating journalists and media workers).

These are questions that require direct answers from all presidential candidates. Indeed, the challenge for them is to present a comprehensive media agenda which should include specific policy measures on how they could fulfill the general promise of what they would claim to do.

JAKARTA, Indonesia (February 15) — An interesting development in the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao (Philippines) which claimed the lives of at least 30 Filipino journalists is the decision of the widows to bring the case to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) whose secretariat is based in this city.

In early February, lawyers Harry Roque and Pete Principe who represent the 14 widows of the journalists killed last November 23 said that they already filed a complaint at the newly-established ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).

While the ASEAN was established in August 1967, it was only in December 2008 that its charter took effect. Article 14.1 of the ASEAN Charter states: “In conformity with the purposes and principles of the ASEAN Charter relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, ASEAN shall establish an ASEAN human rights body.”

The terms of reference of the AICHR clearly state that it is a consultative body. As regards its relations with other human rights bodies in the ASEAN, the AICHR is said to be “the overarching human rights institution in ASEAN with overall responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights in ASEAN.”

Whether or not the AICHR could help shed light on cases of human rights violations like the Ampatuan massacre remains to be seen. The ASEAN could help make other member-countries aware of the sorry state of human rights in the Philippines. But is it be possible for the ASEAN to help in the attainment of justice which remains elusive to the human rights victims through the years?

To be fair, the ASEAN has facilitated some degree of unity and solidarity among the 10 member-countries. It has also given those aware of the ASEAN’s existence a “regional identity” which is important in the formation and development of their national identity. There exists a sense of belonging as an ASEAN member, at least in the context of being Asian. Interestingly, the name of the association is very close to the name of the continent where the 10 member-countries belong.

Part of the ASEAN’s plan is to fully establish the three pillars (security, economic and socio-cultural) of its community by 2015. Given the uneven level of development among the ASEAN member-countries and the unresolved border disputes among some of them, the plan may be impossible to achieve.

Just like other international organizations, the ASEAN has also had its share of missteps. For one, the thrust towards economic integration via globalization has proven to be detrimental to underdeveloped countries like the Philippines. Initiatives like the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN Investment Agreement (AIA) are essentially meant to fast-track the processes of liberalization, deregulation and privatization ahead of most deadlines imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It must be stressed that even if it is not explicit in the policy pronouncements of the ASEAN, the latter is biased for globalization as economic thrust. The kind of integration it wants is removal of protection and other trade barriers which may be necessary for underdeveloped countries like Myanmar and the Philippines to industrialize.

Indeed, the ASEAN should reorient itself in a way that would protect instead of “globalize” the region. It should protect the 10 member-countries from the onslaught of globalization.

As founding member, the Philippines should take the lead in promoting self-sufficiency and sustainable development but its credibility in doing so can only be apparent with a change in administration and even economic direction. In the context of protectionism, the Philippines could present itself as a case study of wanton globalization and the consequent underdevelopment due to such economic thrust. Even if it is currently “championing” human rights in the region, there are issues about its moral ascendancy owing to the culture of impunity prevalent in the country.

It is indeed hypocritical for the Philippines to take a leading role in the creation of the ASEAN human rights body. The current administration under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is notorious for rampant human rights violations, even exceeding the number of those who were killed and abducted during the dark days of martial law. Even journalists have been targeted by the powers-that-be since 1986 when democracy was supposedly restored through a people’s uprising.

In the context of human rights, the ASEAN’s principle of non-interference could render useless ASEAN bodies like the AICHR. The best that the ASEAN could do at present is to lend a voice in the protection and upholding, for example, of human rights. Indeed, it has become hard for the ASEAN through the years to hold member-countries accountable for not adhering to various regional agreements.

Despite the socio-political and cultural differences of ASEAN countries, the 10 member-countries adhere to the definition of human rights as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if the protection of human rights leaves much to be desired (as in the case of Philippines and Burma), the ASEAN and the international community could take erring countries to task through legal courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT).

The ASEAN’s principles of non-interference and mutual respect are good on paper but these make the ASEAN practically helpless in imposing sanctions. While there are dispute settlement mechanisms, these are seldom resorted to as even the ASEAN encourages bilateral settlement. Reading the pertinent provisions of the ASEAN human rights body in the new ASEAN charter, the terms are vague in terms of ensuring the protection and upholding of human rights in the ASEAN region.

The AICHR should have a clear mandate to take the member-countries to task for violating human rights and should serve as an intermediary in filing cases before international courts. It is only by actively monitoring and filing the appropriate cases that it can make itself relevant.

And now that 14 widows of the murdered Filipino journalists have filed a complaint at the AICHR, the ASEAN is now given an opportunity to prove that its claim of promoting and upholding human rights is not empty rhetoric.

Sipag at tiyaga, galing at talino, diyos at bayan – para sa kalikasan, kontra sa kahirapan, tungo sa kaunlaran.

Sa Pebrero 9 pa ang simula ng kampanya ng mga tumatakbo para Presidente, Bise Presidente at Senador. Pero mula pa noong nakaraang taon, may ideya na tayo sa mga nagnanais na kumandidato. May mga umamin, may mga nagpahaging, may mga nagpakipot. Matipid man ang sagot sa kanilang pinaplano noon, kitang-kita naman ang kanilang pagnanasang tumakbo.

Salamat sa telebisyon (at sa kaakibat na teknolohiyang nagbigay ng kulay sa ating natutunghayan), halatang-halata natin ngayon kung sino ang berde, dilaw at kahel. Sadyang makulay ang pulitika sa ating bayan at ang iba’t ibang matitingkad na kulay ay unti-unti nang naiuugnay sa pangalang isusulat sa balota kung sakali.

Tulad ng bahaghari, iba’t ibang kulay ang nakikita at napakaraming mapanlikhang paraan para magbigay ng iisang patagong mensahe: ”Ako ang inyong iboto! Ako ang karapat-dapat kumpara sa iba!”

Iisang hangarin, iba’t ibang pangako. Dahil sa biswal na katangian ng telebisyon, mas binibigyang-diin ng mga kandidato ang porma kaysa nilalaman ng mensahe. May isang kandidatong sinindak ang bayan sa dami ng artistang sumusuporta sa kanya; may isa pang ipinakita ang kanyang pagiging mahirap noon para mapalapit sa masa; at may isang nahuhuli sa mga survey na nagpakita ng isang kakayahang hindi kaya ng iba pa niyang katunggali, ang magpalipad ng eroplano!

Sa pamamagitan ng iba’t ibang debate at porum, pinipilit na tugunan ang kakulangan ng mga pulitikal na patalastas (political ads) para makuha ang paninindigan ng mga kandidato sa mga isyung kinakaharap ng lipunan. Makakaapekto kaya ang pinagsasabi ng mga kandidato sa mga nasabing pagtitipon sa kanilang katayuan sa mata ng publiko? Kung tatanungin ang mga nasa likod ng kampanya ng mga pulitiko, tila mas mahalaga ang patalastas kaysa debate.

Para sa kampo ni Noynoy Aquino, halimbawa, mahalagang magkaroon ng political ads na katulad ng mga inilalabas ni Manny Villar. “Why is Senator Villar going up and Senator Aquino going down? We can say it’s the frequency of Senator Villar’s ads. That’s one. Secondly, it’s time to also reassess the messaging of Senator Noy. Maybe it’s not resonating. We have to look also if there is a need to adjust our campaign strategy,” sabi ni Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, tagapagsalita ng Liberal Party (LP), ang partido ni Aquino.

Dito natin makikita ang kapangyarihan ng telebisyon, lalo na ng political ads. Kahit noong 2004, lumalabas sa pag-aaral ng Pulse Asia na 67% ng populasyon ay nagsabing may kredibilidad ang kanilang napapanood sa telebisyon at ito ang kanilang pangunahing batayan ng pagboto.

Ito ang dahilan kung bakit si Villar ay gumastos diumano ng P543 milyon mula Oktubre hanggang Disyembre 2009 para sa mga patalastas. Sa pagsisimula ng kampanya sa Pebrero 9, makakaasa tayo ng mas madalas na pagpapakita ng political ads. Ayon kay Margot Torres, pangulo ng Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA), “[We will see] advertising spending increase this year because advertisers will continue to advertise and political candidates will as well.”

Saan naman kaya sila magbubuhos ng pera? Kung pagbabatayan ang datos ng pinaghalong komersiyal at pulitikal na patalastas mula Oktubre hanggang Disyembre 2009, ang kabuuang gastusin sa iba’t ibang porma ng midya ay P52.2 bilyon. Umabot sa P38.9 bilyon (o halos 75% ng kabuuan) ay napunta sa telebisyon, P10.1 bilyon (o 19%) sa radyo at P3.1 bilyon (o 6%) sa print.

Bagama’t malinaw na pinakamalakas ang impluwensiya ng telebisyon, kailangan pa ring isakonteksto ang kapangyarihang ito sa kompetisyong namamagitan sa iba’t ibang istasyon.

Sa datos ng AGB Nielsen Media Research noong 2006, malinaw na ang ABS-CBN at GMA ay may pinagsamang audience share na 84.8% tuwing noonprime (12:00 p.m. hanggang 1:59 p.m.) at 80.9% tuwing primetime (6:00 p.m. hanggang 7:59 p.m.). Patuloy ang kanilang dominasyon sa ratings mula 6:00 a.m. hanggang 11:59 p.m.

Sadyang napakalayo ng audience share ng TV5 (dating ABC), RPN, IBC at NBN, pati na rin ang iba pang UHF at cable channels. Kahit na sabihing ang RPN, IBC at NBN ay pinapatakbo mismo ng pamahalaan, limitado pa rin ang kanilang impluwensiya kumpara sa mga higanteng istasyon. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit kahit si Gilbert Teodoro, kandidato ng administrasyon, ay nag-eere din ng political ads sa ABS-CBN at GMA at hindi lang basta-basta umaasa sa anumang bentaheng makukuha niya mula sa mga istasyong pinapatakbo ng pamahalaan.

Kung may patuloy na nakikinabang sa pagtatanggal ng political ad ban mula noong eleksiyon ng 2001, ito ay walang iba kundi ang ABS-CBN at GMA. Anumang istasyon ang manguna’t pumangalawa, hindi maikakaila ang kanilang parehong pagtaas ng kita mula sa political ads ng mga kandidato.

Sa puntong ito’y mainam na pakiusapan ang mga istasyong ito na pataasin ang antas ng diskurso ngayong eleksiyon. Sa isang banda, malaking tulong ang pag-oorganisa ng mga debateng napapanood ng sambayanan, gayundin ang patuloy na pag-uulat sa mga nangyayari sa kampanya ng mga kandidato. Dapat lang na purihin ang ABS-CBN at GMA sa mga inisyatibang tulad nito, bukod pa sa pagiging bukas nito sa feedback na nagmumula sa mga tagasubaybay nila.

Pero kailangang idiing may malaking magagawa ang ABS-CBN at GMA sa klase ng political ads na ipapalabas sa kanilang mga programa. Nasa kapangyarihan nila ang hindi pag-eere ng political ads na sa tingin nila’y hindi makakatulong sa paghuhubog ng pampublikong opinyon. Kailangang busisiin hindi lang ang porma kundi ang aktuwal na nilalaman ng political ads.

Mainam na magkaroon ng sariling pagkukusa ang dalawang istasyon, pero may malaking magagawa rin ang mga tagasubaybay ng ABS-CBN at GMA para pakiusapan silang bigyan tayong lahat ng makabuluhang political ads na direktang naglalahad ng paninindigan ng mga kandidato sa mga importanteng isyu.

Simpleng pakiusap lang naman ito sa ABS-CBN at GMA, lalo na’t makakaasa tayo ng pagbaha ng mga walang-katuturang patalastas sa pagsisimula ng kampanya sa Pebrero 9.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

What do you think is the impact of Internet on journalism over the next five years in the Philippines? Will it be helpful or detrimental?

Notwithstanding the current limited reach of the Internet, we expect the number of active Internet users in the Philippines to exponentially increase (as it did in the past) even if the Internet will not likely reach half of the population. Social networking sites like Facebook will remain to be popular. Internet access through mobile phones will become more popular, although this will be confined to those with high purchasing power. In this context, the practice of journalism will still incorporate the opportunities provided by the new media either as one of the tools of the trade (e.g., mobile phone, digital camera), sources of information, or tips for potential stories (relevant status updates or tweets).

In a sense, the Internet will be helpful because it facilitates faster communication. The downside is the reliability of information shared on the Net which can be easily solved by the journalists’ constant checking of its provenance and accuracy.

Do you think it will affect how journalists go about with their jobs? How?

Journalists will be all the more challenged to straddle the different forms of media. In the same way that the new media cannot be dismissed as just a passing fancy of the youth, the traditional media still have their own functions in reaching out to various audiences. Of course, it’s also necessary to maintain the same high professional and ethical standards because of the temptation provided by the new media like immediate uploading of stories even if the data are not yet verified. Only an ethical journalist would know the mistake of doing so since he or she does not have a “scoop” mentality (i.e., in the context of new media, “commit mistake now, correct later.”)

Will it change how Filipinos get their news? How?

I sincerely doubt that print journalism will die in the next five years as a result of new media. In the case of traditional broadcast journalism (radio and television), we are seeing its integration with the new media as the term “broadcast” is being re-defined to include webcasting (streaming audio and video). As stated previously, there still exists a limited reach of the Internet though it is possible that the Internet-savvy generation of the youth would start depending on getting information from the Web, either through the websites of media organizations, aggregates, or social networking sites.

In your opinion, will it affect how media outfits get revenue? In what ways?

Media organizations are now changing their strategies in generating profits. If Rupert Murdoch were to have his way, he would charge fees for content that online visitors want to read in his news media websites. We might see the prevalence of stealth advertising or product placement on the Net in the next few years, a situation that is already happening on radio and television.

Finally, compared to other countries, how well do you think will Philippine journalism be able to adapt to the Internet age?

The presence of mainstream and alternative media is already evident in the new media, and the Philippines proves to be an interesting case study. The country’s history helped shape the media into what they are right now, as EDSA 2, for example, gave rise to alternative publications like Kodao Productions, Bulatlat and Pinoy Weekly.

Just like their counterparts in other countries, Filipino journalists generally seem to adapt very well to the Net as blogs, social networking sites and most other features of the Web are user-friendly. They, along with other computer-literate Filipinos, therefore find it easy to use new media. Whether or not journalists can effectively use new media, however, in their profession is another matter. But it is good to know that there is an increasing number of journalists who maintain blogs, for example, to reach out to a wider audience.