‘Liberty and Prosperity’

(Part 2)

The particular tack I took in participating in the Supreme Court’s national forum on liberty and prosperity was the impact of the questions raised on media, since I represented media as an "affected constituency." Thus, when the forum suggested a possible "lopsided emphasis on political rights and a subordination of economic concerns," my special concerns had to do with media.

The main subjects of the forum seemed to indicate two main themes vis a vis media: One was the familiar area of press freedom. The other had to do with the less-traveled route of media’s role, if any, in economic development.

At the outset, I said that for purposes of that forum, I did not want to dwell too much on press freedom. The sanctity of that Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom seemed to me to be well-entrenched in law and jurisprudence. Not that the freedom itself is never tested, as shown in that recent SC decision which, while upholding a part of Proclamation 1017, condemned the raids on the Daily Tribune offices as violative of the Constitution.

Numerous journalists have endured great risks or given their lives in defense of that freedom. In the present controversy over "political killings," for instance, critical journalists are allegedly among the victims. However, questions linger over whether the victims were legitimate journalists, or whether the basic causes of the disputes were business dealings or local politics.

Still, my point is that where press freedom is concerned, our collective instincts have developed to the point where we have learned to be very protective of that freedom, even as complaints are constantly heard about abuses committed by media, and libel laws which are allegedly skewed in favor of media. But the debate never gets to the point that someone suggests a restriction of that freedom, much less government regulation or laws prescribing "standards" for entry into the media profession.

On the other hand, the role of media in economic development is still in my view a hot-button issue. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo triggered this debate in October 2004 when, in an address before the National Press Club, she appealed for "a modicum of fairness, a nudge in the angle of the news, an ounce of objectivity in the run of opinion, to reflect the larger truth – that of a nation, despite its failings, winning the battle of crisis and poverty, that of a people valiantly fighting for change and beating the odds."

GMA asked media to be "a harbinger of hope, rather than a purveyor of despair."

This speech was interpreted in many ways, particularly since its context was the spirited debate then raging on the fiscal crisis, what caused it, and what would be done about it. But among the questions the debate raised was the role of media in economic development. In martial law years, this suggested role was called "developmental journalism,’ but the critics immediately dismissed it as "envelopmental journalism," the term used today to deride corrupt media practitioners.

In a conference organized by the De la Salle University-Angelo King Institute for Economic and Business Studies in November 2004, I had occasion to advance some thoughts on the matter. I reiterated those thoughts at the Supreme Court forum. I believe them to be as relevant now as they were almost two years ago. Hereunder is a summary:

In matters of economic development, the technical analysis laid out in business pages aside, the sore point between media and government is the atmosphere of hopelessness and of continuing crisis which media allegedly help to engender. But, while GMA has asked media to be a "harbinger of hope, rather than a purveyor of despair," I do not believe media can be a harbinger of anything.

All media need do is stick to the truth, even if the truth is painful to a government that drags its feet in responding to the crisis of poverty. When government turns to spin and tells people that things are not that bad, media must check the veracity of those claims and tell it like it is, even at the risk of being called a "purveyor of despair."

Poverty brings down terrible consequences on people. When their suffering and desperation are not only persistent, but increasing, media cannot be complicit in any government "feel-good" undertaking which seeks to convince them that they should be grateful for what they have.

One thing seems clear: Public support is essential to government’s efforts to overcome poverty and achieve prosperity. Any prospect of success will require the broad support of society. How does the government get this broad support? I don’t have all the answers. But I do know it won’t be by telling people that the nation is winning our wars against poverty when the battles have just begun. And, in fact, we are nowhere near winning those wars, anytime soon.

Media thrive on facts, the specific evidence that government efforts have borne fruit. Media cannot be faulted for not following government’s wish that "good news" be disseminated if the "good news" turns out to be more plans and projections, more proposed laws, or more new government offices. Nor can media be too impressed when the government spends too much time on fiddling with process, and too little on achieving results.

Political scientists tell us that government is the embodiment of a social contract between the leaders and the governed. People surrender certain liberties in exchange for social order and economic opportunity, which in turn are essential to political stability.

Media have a stake in political stability and democracy because it is these conditions that guarantee the freedoms that enable a free press to thrive. Instability and authoritarianism are inhospitable environments for free and independent journalists.

In "telling it like it is," media help promote the goals of good governance and prosperity for all. By constantly towing the government line, and being part of institutionalized deception and disinformation, media frustrate the attainment of these goals.

The bottom line to all this is people. Government’s part of that social contract, that bargain, is to both secure fundamental liberties and achieve prosperity, so that the benefits of democracy are not merely theoretical, but actual. Far too many years have already been wasted in talking about eliminating poverty, without achieving enough. There is no fundamental conflict between liberty and prosperity. Our history has abundantly shown that such a false conflict is raised only by governments that need excuses for their own incompetence and inaction.