What ‘special treatment’?

Press Secretary Toting Bunye opened an enormous can of gigantic worms when he reportedly declared that "we"– meaning, I take it, the government he serves – "do not believe in special treatment of media practitioners who run afoul of the law." He also urged media outfits to "police" their ranks and not allow interest groups to abuse the freedom of the press for their own personal gain.

With these remarks, Toting may have irreparably damaged whatever credibility he has left with his colleagues in media. Some say his statements are also positive proof that he has precious little understanding of what media do, and the sacrifices media practitioners make in the exercise of a most difficult profession.

These sacrifices have not been made lighter by the curiously aggressive and antagonistic posture the government has taken in regard to all media, with the possible exception of those whom they regard as "supportive" of the government and its dubious interpretation of the so-called "rule of law."

When certain "media outfits," to use the Press Secretary’s term, are looked upon with favor these days by GMA, when she compliments them for their "professionalism," that is not a badge of honor, but a reason for suspicion that those "flavors of the month" are avid practitioners of "praise freedom."

In a sense, that’s unfortunate. Perhaps the President only means to give her own personal evaluation of the media outlet’s credibility, which is of course her right, just as any citizen has the right to criticize media. However, the way media look at it, if you’re going to hold media to perfectly legitimate standards of truth, accuracy and fairness, you’d better be damn ready to be gauged by the very same standards yourself.

I think it’s time media came right out with it. The problem with the GMA administration, despite the concededly long list of achievements it can tout, especially with the undeniable progress in the economy, is that it has failed in having itself seen as being open and transparent in its official actions.

While people can accept that national security and the protection of democracy might require government to occasionally take actions which may seem excessively secretive, this government has applied this prerogative to several actions which cannot even remotely be regarded as in the national, as opposed to individual, interest.

Take Garci, Venable and Joc-Joc. Please, take them! The national interest is that the truth be told, and that the guilty or the venal, if any, be punished. Instead, all these unresolved issues remain in limbo and are officially labeled as mere ploys of a political opposition which cannot take electoral defeat and a nasty Senate bent on staving off its inevitable institutional demise. I got news for our overworked government spin doctors: No one believes you. Or maybe you knew that, in your heart of hearts.

Special treatment? Give us a break. What kind of special treatment is that, when under the mantle of a proclamation of a national emergency, which is patently not a declaration of martial law, media outlets like The Daily Tribune and Newsbreak are raided and/or threatened with search and seizure orders, their editors, reporters and opinion writers are included in a possible arrest list, and no less than the Secretary of Justice talks openly of prosecutions for inciting to sedition.

Media does not expect, nor have they ever demanded, any special treatment. The only thing special about the treatment they tend to get from government is that journalists are always blamed, along with the political opposition and frustrated coup plotters, for everything that goes wrong with this country, be it political instability, economic paralysis or cultural decline.

Government tends to harp on corruption within media, aside from the supposed naivete or outright stupidity of journalists in allowing themselves to be "used" by destablizers of the state. But on closer analysis, it usually turns out that media are often considered by the voiceless and the powerless as their last recourse for the public airing of views against which the full power of the state or the political and financial elite has been marshaled.

Today there are momentous debates in which the government either refuses to participate or resorts to coercive tactics to block competing, if somewhat inconvenient, facts and ideas. This is as true of alleged uncontrolled corruption in government and supposed pervasive corruption within the armed forces, as it is of claims of stolen mandates and "military adventurists," to name a few of our current national controversies.

Moreover, while media do not shy away from claims of corruption within their ranks, the same can hardly be said of government, even as it claims that its own anti-corruption efforts and "lifestyle checks" are proceeding apace. Again, there is a vast chasm of credibility which attends this issue.

The antidote to all this, of course, is the facts. In answer to all allegations regarding corruption, stolen mandates and destabilization, the government can simply be forthcoming with the facts. It can take the lead in opening records, in allowing its leading lights to answer pesky and perhaps intrusive, but nonetheless valid, questions from media or legislative investigating committees. Instead, the perception is that it stonewalls, it covers up, it dissembles, it misleads.

Current – ok, bad! – text joke: There is a reward of P 8 million for info leading to the arrest of Gringo Honasan and his alleged fellow coup plotters. How much is the reward for the arrest of Joc-Joc Bolante? Hmm, come to think of it…

All this, I believe, validates the wisdom of watching what government does, not what it says. Government, not only this one, pays homage to freedom of the press – it wouldn’t be caught dead suppressing that freedom – but winds up doing everything it can to subvert it.

Our Constitution expressly states that ours is a democratic state, but I wouldn’t be the first to assert that we have the trappings of democracy, not its substance, much less its fruits.