To kill a journalist
IN my Nov. 18, 2022 column, I looked at news reports concerning the cases of journalists killed in the country in 2022 and found that not all of them were murdered because of their jobs.
Still, many journalists have been killed in the country over the years. How can this be explained?
As a trained historian, I approach questions like this using a vital and indispensable historiographic tool: (historical) context.
Context is valuable for its power to provide the appropriate setting for events to help ensure accuracy and minimize misrepresentations. For instance, Jose Rizal’s “Manifesto a algunos Filipinos” (Manifesto to Certain Filipinos) repudiated the Katipunan revolt of 1896, paving the way for Renato Constantino’s influential polemic against the national hero, Veneration Without Understanding.
Context is necessary to accurately read Rizal’s Manifesto, which Constantino disingenuously ignored. Spanish Judge Advocate General Nicolas de la Peña correctly read Rizal who did not repudiate the Revolution. Rizal simply questioned its timeliness and the Filipino people’s readiness for the consequences. Having been away from the Philippines for the better part of 15 years since 1881 and having been isolated in exile in Dapitan from 1892 to 1896, Rizal was not in a position to properly evaluate the questions he himself had about the Revolution, and consequently dismissed the Revolution as madness.
Going back to the question of journalist killings, context is necessary to properly situate the available information to make it easier for the public at large to accurately assess the issue. Without context, susceptibility to mis/disinformation is magnified.
The so-called Ampatuan or Maguindanao Massacre in 2009, where more than 30 journalists were killed, tremendously skews the statistics regarding journalist killings. Often, the context of the massacre is conveniently ignored.
The killings happened during the long election season and in a notorious hotspot for electionrelated violence. Furthermore, the journalists were killed as collateral damage, not as primary targets (who presumably were the members of the Mangudadatu political clan) of the attack. The journalists were included in the massacre because they joined the six-vehicle convoy of then-Buluan Vice Mayor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu, who sent members of his clan to file his certificate of candidacy for governor of then-undivided Maguindanao province on his behalf.
In fact, the female members of the Mangudadatu clan were sent instead of the candidate himself to dissuade the attackers from executing their plan. The journalists were also asked to accompany the convoy to conveniently serve as a shield to thwart the expected attack. From what I have observed, context has been conspicuously omitted in the discussion and assessment of the massacre vis-a-vis journalist killings in the country.
On the one hand, it is true that covering the filing of Mangudadatu’s certificate of candidacy is part of a journalist’s job. However, it is equally true that they were just collateral damage, not the principal target of the massacre. Thus, this case has an asterisk for me.
Another tool for mis/disinformation in the issue of journalist killings is the tacit absence of (or refusal to use?) better research methods to ferret out the truth before information is presented to the public. For instance, Redempto Anda claims that “each case of journalist-killing is unique but they share a common political landscape, one characterized by violence and a weak judicial system.” Indeed, political violence has beset the Philippines for decades and is often the context for many a journalist killing incidents.
However, strong evidence is needed before each killing can be classified as a consequence of the profession. I previously mentioned the recent cases of Jesus Malabanan (December 2021; Calbayog, Samar), Jaynard Angeles (January 2022; Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat), Federico Gempesaw (June 2022; Cagayan de Oro City), Renato Blanco (September 2022; Mabinay, Negros Oriental), Percival Mabasa (October 2022; Las Piñas). My basic research shows (see my Nov. 18, 2022 column) that not all cases were related to journalistic activities.
Thus, motives for the killings need to be uncovered. Research on this matter has to be intensified, instead of being waylaid on the roadside to allow certain parties to politicize each incident and case. Personally, I sense a very cavalier attitude by journalists toward unearthing the motives behind their colleagues’ death.
Journalists seem to be uninterested in digging up the truth.
Spatial analysis would yield meaningful information in the discourse of journalist killings. The cases of journalist killings ought to be plotted on a map to determine where the hotspots are, if any. It is necessary to corroborate the claim that the entire country is truly “unsafe for journalists.” It can also confirm that most of the cases are contained in traditional hotspots for political violence, especially during the election season.
From where I stand, many journalists seem averse to focused research, wary of the truth coming out, and are more disconcertingly comfortable with politicallycharged statements only.