One lasting and important legacy of the 50 years of American colonialism is the privately owned mass media forms competing in a free market. After the proclamation of independence and the establishment of a democratic government, a free press patterned after that of the United States was manipulated by competing business and political groups to advance their interests and ideologies.

Media ownership poses real constraints on the freedom of journalists to report freely and responsibly. Most media owners are business tycoons who operate interlocking corporate concerns and who use newspapers to promote their business interests and to influence a society where, in doing business, whom you know often counts more than entrepreneurial expertise.

In October 1995, the Manila Bulletin ran daily news stories and opinion articles criticizing the sale of the Manila Hotel to a Malaysian consortium. The paper asserted that the hotel was part of the national patrimony and should be sold to a Filipino company. As a result, former President Fidel V Ramos intervened by asking his aides to work out a compromise with the Malaysians, and the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in a controversial decision, decided in favor of the owner of the newspaper, Don Emilio Yap.

This case demonstrates how press proprietors have abused their powers, setting aside the canons of good journalism, by using the news and opinion pages of their newspapers to campaign for their business interest. Media owners have put the profitability of their business enterprise over that of their newspapers’ duty to report without fear and favor. It would be simpler, however, to say that newspapers are merely mouthpieces of their owners.

On the other hand, some editors manage to strike out a relationship where media owners have a hand in drafting editorial policies but leave the newsroom decisions to professional journalists. In other newspapers, editors unquestioningly accept the rules set by owners and dutifully execute orders to highlight or stop a news story. Sometimes, no rules are laid down, but there is an unspoken understanding that critical stories about the owners and their friends will be toned down, buried in the inside pages, or not printed at all.

In March 1999, former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada filed a libel case against the Manila Times, then owned by the industrial complex of the Gokongweis. Estrada accused that the morning daily was a part of an orchestrated effort to discredit him. He asked the respondents to pay PhP101 million for exemplary damages.

Estrada had taken indignation on an article published in the Feb. 16, 1999 issue of the Manila Times stating that he was made an unwitting ninong to a controversial PhP17 billion power contract between an Argentine firm and the National Power Corporation.

The story angered Estrada, compelling him to mouth a witless unpresidential insult on the ownership of the paper. The libel suit was not pursued but only after the Manila Times owner made a public apology and after the controlling interest of the Manila Times had passed on the hands of an alleged presidential crony.

Since the re-establishment of democracy in 1986, Estrada is the first Philippine president to employ non-state mechanism to clamp down on a critical press. In addition to putting pressure on the business of media proprietors, Estrada’s open encouragement of an advertising boycott of the Philippine Daily Inquirer was decried by media groups as a threat to press freedom.

Estrada, who was a former action film star and movie producer, encouraged movie producers in July 1999 not to place advertisements in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which he said was unfairly critical of his administration. In addition, big companies with huge advertising budgets and sympathetic to Estrada have also withdrawn advertisements from the newspaper. Malacañang denied it had anything to do with the move and that it was certainly not a persuaded reaction from its sympathizers.

Estrada’s action reflected a lack of comprehension of the role of a free press in a democratic society, which the presidency has the obligation to preserve and uphold. At its best, it displayed the bad temper of a distressed individual who assumed that the President deserves acceptance without difference of opinion and not the intellectual sobriety of leaders who recognizes the valuable contribution of a critical comment.

Perceptive politicians have noted the increasing influence and power of the media in the making and unmaking of public figures. Bad publicity makes politicians quake and can mean death to a promising political career. Good publicity, on the other hand, can throw a relative unknown into the dizzying heights of media stardom.

To a man, politicians agree that the three requisites for a successful campaign are money, media, and machinery. Gone are the days of guns, goons, and golds. As Philippine society becomes more exposed to newspapers, periodicals, radio, television, and online publications, a politician’s fate often hangs on how well he is treated by the media.

Unfortunately, the media war is being fought increasingly through the power of the politician’s purse. With the advertising ban imposed on candidates, politicians cannot buy space or time to propagate their ideologies. Instead, they buy journalists. The battle is no longer over advertising space or time. It is over the news pages of newspapers and periodicals and the news hours on radio and television.

A 1998 survey of 100 beat reporters conducted by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism showed that 71 had been offered money by their news sources. Of these, 33 percent admitted that they took the money, with 22 percent keeping the cash themselves, and 11 percent turning it over to their editors.

The generally low pay of journalists in comparison to other professions is partly responsible for this situation. However, other factors, including the reluctance of editors and publishers to enforce ethical standards should also be cited.

As the 1990s end, the media are still troubled by old problems. The Committee to Protect Journalist based in New York puts the number of Filipino journalists killed since 1986 at 39. Some of them were killed not because of their job, but were likely casualties of the waves of criminality that have swept the country.

After 1986, nongovernmental organizations led by journalists themselves have launched programs and projects to address the issues of press development. These include the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, and the Policy Review and Editorial Support Services.

On the other hand, the National Press Club formed an ethics committee to probe charges of payoffs to its members, but its recommendations have been largely ignored. The Philippine Press Institute promoted a system of ombudsmen, but these press officers have little influence in their media organizations.

However, press developments will be limited if the readers do not demand more than sensationalized news stories. Newspaper publishers are aware that readers neither read news stories critically nor write to complain about inaccuracies and false reports. Outside of the efforts of the media organizations to raise the quality of their services, media literacy training and newspaper campaigns would promote a more demanding and thoughtful readership. With consumer pressure, newspapers will be forced to create a better mass media product.

Lastly, journalists can rely on a strong public support to defend a free press, but they must exercise greater responsibility, if they want a continuing public sympathy. There have been some attempts to address the problems of ethics and professionalism through the drawing up of Codes of Ethics and through training programs that hone investigative reporting skills. However, most observers of the Philippine media think these efforts do not suffice. After 16 years of democracy, they realize that it takes time – and great effort – to build a truly professional corps of journalists and that professional journalism is possible only if the press is free.