Unverified

Each day, in this age of intensive communications, we are bombarded with increasing volumes of unverified information from unidentifiable sources.

We get them in our mobile phones and in our inboxes. Some make strange claims. Others try to mislead us. Still others are obviously the handiwork of trolls and black propagandists trying to warp public opinion to the advantage of one political faction or another.

Those things that come to us through the new media are raw, unedited and unregulated. It is a fact of life that the we have not built the institutions nor evolved the ethical culture to manage information in the new media. Some might be inclined (as I am) to the proposition that regulating the new media might be more dangerous than whatever civic purpose there might be to such an attempt.

The new media is the wild, wild West of the communications universe, populated by characters hidden by pseudonyms. Unless the misuse of new media crosses into criminality, the misuse is generally allowed to pass. When something truly grievous happens, IP addresses may be traced and charges might be pressed. Recently, for instance, showbiz personalities exchanged libel charges for things said in Twitter or disseminated in email blasts.

In the old media, by contrast, there are institutions for either overt regulation or self-regulation. Because of that, the old media (print and broadcast) continue to remain references for fact-checking or for authoritative treatment of the news.

Advertising in the old media is regulated by industry-based institutions. This is to guarantee truthfulness, verifiability and accountability.

Still, given the fashion here of airing advocacies or making political statements by way of paid ads, large loopholes in regulation appeared.

We do have the Ad Standards Council Inc. (ASC), a non-stock, non-profit organization aiming to promote truth in advertising by way of self-regulation of ad content. Under Section 3a of the ASC code of standards, “an advertisement must not create confusion as to the identity of the advertiser or the source of a product or service.”

Notwithstanding, over the past few months we have noticed a large number of paid ads taken out in the name of a certain Concerned Entrepreneurs Against Monopoly. The ads purports to present arguments for the swift passage of House Bill 5727 proposing astronomical increases in excise taxes for so-called “sin products.”

No one knows who is behind these ads, even as the placements amount to over P3 million. It is not registered with the SEC. It offers no contact details, not even an email address. A Google search gives only two hits, both commentaries on the ads.

In a word, the contentious ads put out by this group (or individual) offer readers no means to demand accountability for whatever claims are made in these placements. It attacks existing corporations while hiding behind the cloak of a fake identity.

Concerned Entrepreneurs Against Monopoly, therefore, is no different from a troll sniping at real people without offering a verifiable identity. While this group guises itself as advocates for an “even playing field” in business, it cannot even offer an even playing field in communications as it hides behind anonymity.

If these “concerned entrepreneurs” are confident about the truth of their positions, why are they hiding behind a fictitious name? If the identity of the advocate is fake, could the advocacy be valid?

In one of the many ad placements in the name of these “concerned entrepreneurs”, perhaps as a requirement of the paper hosting the ad, the words “de Borja Law Office, counsel” appear at the bottom of the page in fine print as the entity that paid for the placement. Even that small piece of identification is incomplete. The online listing of law firms put out by the SEC indicates many firms with a “de Borja” as one of the partners. We are not sure which one of these firms is responsible for the ads.

At any rate, the content of the paid ads reflect the desires of a foreign tobacco company seeking to break into the local market — but only if the tax rules are rewritten in their favor.

Then again, why is this foreign company too shy to reveal its hand? Why is it trying to sway policy opinion behind nameless dummies?

Verified

This one is about real characters and verified proceedings.

A few months ago, one newspaper (not the STAR) played up all the lurid details contained in a suit filed relating to a marital dispute. The case was filed by Susana Madrigal Bayot against her husband of 43 years, Ambassador Francisco Ortigas III. Included in the suit for concubinage is Maria Antonia Legarda, executive assistant to Ortigas III.

The Pasig City prosecutor allowed the suit to prosper. The defendants asked the DOJ to review the prosecutor’s decision.

On July 25, 2012 the DOJ panel reviewing the case promulgated a resolution reversing the Pasig City prosecutor. Citing Supreme Court rulings in previous cases, the DOJ reminded the Pasig prosecutor that “the purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and protect him from open and public accusation…”

The DOJ resolution observes that the preliminary investigation undertaken by the Pasig prosecutor was done with undue haste and failed to give the accused enough opportunity to air his side. The prosecutor in this case was directed to withdraw the case filed against Ortigas III and Legarda and report his action to the DOJ within ten days. That deadline should be about now.

The DOJ resolution on this case is a blow struck in favor of due process.