Getting ‘Rapplered’
What befell Rappler can also happen to others similarly situated because Rappler’s case is far from being an isolated incident
Two variants of one strand of reasoning stood out amid reactions to the revocation of Rappler’s certificate of incorporation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). One, that it was merely regulatory action; the other, that it only affected the business side of Rappler; and both views argued that it did not constitute curtailment of press freedom. A subset of views argued that Rappler had it coming.
The range of what Rappler had done or not done to deserve “it” ranged from being overly critical of this administration and not being appreciative enough of its efforts, to because people associated with the outfit had said or done something that did not sit well with this audience.
Reviewing the paragraph above, I realized two things. One, that the perceived deeds/non-deeds are not inherently valid causes to conclude that Rappler has been remiss in its duties as a member of the media community writ large. This is lost though, on those conditioned to believe media’s role is to praise government, which indicates a problematic understanding of institutions in a democratic context. Two, the references to Rappler in the previous paragraph could easily be replaced with another individual’s or organization’s name.
It is not unreasonable to fear that what befell Rappler can also happen to others similarly situated because Rappler’s case is far from being an isolated incident. Rappler may be only one of thousands of media outfits in the Philippines but its situation has a demonstrative effect: you could get “Rapplered.”
The observation that government is going after media personages and institutions viewed as unfriendly is not baseless; there have been precedents. The Foundation for Media Alternatives pointed out that President Rodrigo Duterte threatened the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise and later dangled a compromise in exchange for support for federalism. He also had harsh words for the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Another context is that journalists endure pronounced occupational hazards in our country. They get harassed by interest groups who take issue with their reportage. Harassment can take different forms: from the outrightly violent to the more indirect and subtle ways referred to as panggigipit—being pressured. The intention is to limit, dissuade, or prevent journalists from effectively doing their work and for the status quo to remain unchallenged.
Those who insist that the Rappler case is about the law being enforced have to be reminded that the enforcement smacked of narrow interpretation of the law and had severe effects that only made the situation worse.
Around the same time, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives sought to amend Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, specifically proposing “responsible exercise” as qualifier for the rights to free expression, speech, and peaceful assembly. It was the only Bill of Rights provision they wanted changed.
In an irony-laced letter to Henry L. Pierce and others in 1859, Abraham Lincoln wrote “(t)his is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”
Never doubt that God is just.--
It has been proven that there are widespread violations by mall owners and high-rise building owners of the fire safety standards which compromises the safety of mall goers and highrise building occupants for bigger profit.
PB MEMBER THADEO JOVITO OUANO, IN HIS RESOLUTION SUGGESTING REGULAR FIRE SAFETY AUDITS