BBC’s yellow journalism
HE President’s rule is increasingly authoritarian. With four more years in power, the future of democracy here is looking bleak,” concluded Howard Johnson, BBC’s Philippine correspondent, in his apocalyptic documentary on the current and future state of our country’s democracy.
Employing yellow journalism tactics, Johnson, just like another BBC correspondent, Jonathan Head, doesn’t report facts but fully engages in partisan politics. Titled “Philippines: Democracy in Danger?,” Johnson’s 23-minute documentary is nothing but an extension of the Liberal Party of the Philippines’ black propaganda against President Rodrigo Duterte.
BBC has always been biased against Duterte, and Johnson is simply toeing his company’s established narrative about the state of Philippine politics.
In November 2017, as my confrontation with Head became viral, one of my readers sent to me the BBC’s response to her complaint about Head’s biased article on Sen. Leila de Lima on Dec. 28, 2016. In “Leila de Lima: The woman dares to defy Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte,” Head wrote a
De Lima was portrayed as a help-
his supporters. “She has few allies in mainstream politics,” Head deceptively claimed, “and none that can help her take on the Duterte roller-coaster.” That of course is wrong. Head must have missed the fact that mainstream media, the Vice President of the Philippines, and the well-oiled, well-funded Liberal Party have been defending de Lima.
BBC’s Complaints Team responded to the complaint of my reader (Reference CAS-4155404HQFQQ6): “I understand you felt the article lacked details regarding Ms. de Lima which resulted in the article being biased.”
“It is not always possible or practi
- ions or details on a subject within individual articles…The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather
to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.”
But Johnson’s documentary didn’t do that rigorous test of views. He continued the exoneration of de Lima. No indication that Johnson examined the evidence against her at all. For him, de Lima was locked up for criticizing Duterte.
In one cinematic scene, while de Lima was descending the stairs with her police escorts, Johnson asked her, “Senator, BBC, are you innocent?” De Lima looked up in the direction of the BBC’s camera and said: “I am innocent. The world knows I am innocent.”
Johnson then described Camp Crame, where de Lima is detained, as “infamous under the Marcos regime for disappearances and torture.” That’s of course meant to heighten the emotional manipulation of his narrative, which is often accompanied by an ominous soundtrack and peppered with decontextualized quotes from Duterte.
To further the drama, Johnson shows the handwritten letter de Lima sent to him from prison. A female voiceover reads it, accompanied by dark and gloomy music.
Next scene: Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th’s accusation that Duterte’s son, Paolo Duterte, is involved in drug
Trillanes’ accusation isn’t important for Johnson at all.
What he found interesting was what Paolo said, “Every dog has his day. The law of karma will operate, especially to those with evil intent.” It’s a “chilling warning,” Johnson said. How? He never explained. And I’m sure he never understood the cultural meaning of Paolo’s statement.
Trillanes got interviewed. Not really an interview but a chance for him to say that Duterte wants to perpetuate himself in power. Johnson accepted without question.
The same uncritical attitude was given to ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. Johnson claimed that, “In May, she was unceremoniously removed from office.” How? Johnson didn’t clarify. The Supreme Court decision on the
case against Sereno is publicly available. It’s in English. No indication Johnson read them. Perhaps BBC doesn’t require their journalists to do this?
Instead of persuasively arguing his claim that Sereno was “uncer-
Johnson just gave her a platform to claim that she got ousted because she criticized Duterte.
The same uncritical attitude was shown to Rappler. For BBC, Maria Ressa’s view on her case is the only thing relevant. Johnson never consulted the publicly available documents. No comment at all about Rappler’s claim under oath that they are not engaged in the business of mass media.
But wait. Johnson did verify one thing in his documentary: the claim of former presidential spokesman Harry Roque Jr. that Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, completely cleared Duterte of liability in the so-called “Davao Death Squad.”
So, if he could test the claim of Roque, how come Johnson couldn’t test the claims of de Lima, Trillanes, Sereno and Ressa? Perhaps this is BBC’s way of demonstrating how they don’t “promote any view” and how they “test [views] rigorously and fairly.”
In September 2018, the polling organization Social Weather Stations found that 84 percent of Fili
- racy works. It was the second highest satisfaction rating on democracy since SWS conducted the survey in 1991. The highest also happened under the leadership that Johnson called “authoritarian” — 86 percent in September 2016.
But this doesn’t matter to the BBC. What’s important is the perpetuation of their narrative. Perhaps Johnson should advocate that the United Kingdom send a civilizing mission to save us from ourselves.