How Rappler helped defeat Mar Roxas Posted by The Society of Honor on August 31, 2018 · 213 Comments

By JoeAm

When you spend your whole life in one city, you live the values and speak the language of that city.

When you live in one culture for your whole life, you live the values and speak the language of that culture.

When you are a reporter in one culture all your life, you do what comes naturally.

Unfortunately.

I was busy extolling the virtues of Rappler the other day on twitter. I was taken aback by a response that was hostile to Rappler, blaming the news organization of bias against Mar Roxas. “Now they are whining about Duterte?” He had no sympathy at all for Rappler and their problems. I objected. He persisted. I said “I’ll look into it.”

I did recall that Roxas did not get much news coverage from any outlets for the early part of the campaign.

The culture

The dominant Filipino culture is morally bent and self-punishing to observers schooled in modern Western traditions. The foundation of ‘goodness’ is not Christian principles of compassion and good works but tribal qualities of loyalty and respect for power.

There are many exceptions, so don’t get angry just yet. Read on.

Two facets of the dominant Filipino culture are emotionalized reasoning rather than analytical reasoning, and admiration of the powerful rather than admiration of the decent. Indeed, decency is seen as weakness. That was basically President Aquino’s problem. He was and is a decent man operating in a culture that admires power.

And then we have the enduring popularity of President Duterte who brutalizes his own citizens.

My premise in this article is that the Philippines is poor because of its cultural rejection of analytical reasoning, decency, and good works. Emotionalism and power-mongering lead to bad thinking, corruption, and bad works.

My method

For the subject at hand, I searched Rappler for ‘Features on Mar Roxas’ and then I searched Rappler news about ‘Mar Roxas’. In both searches, I focused on the weeks just prior to the May 2016 election. I’ve listed a lot (not all) of the articles at the end of this post so you, too, can get a sense of them.

I will discuss a few of the articles later on in this write-up.

Reading the beast or feeding the beast?

Does journalism in the Philippines ‘read the beast’ of a self-damaging culture and report on it, or does it ‘feed the beast’ by being emotional and favoring power over decency in its reporting? I believe it does both.

Damaging articles that fed the beast

My initial reaction in looking over the lists of articles was that Rappler was just doing its job of reporting on election activities. There were articles that favored Roxas and a few that did not. But two articles did pop out as particularly damaging. They fed into the idea that Roxas, a man of decency and rich experience, was failing. He was making mistakes. He was a flawed person. Other articles repeated the themes of these two articles.

What’s not working for Mar Roxas? – Run on Feb 9, by Glenda M. Gloria. The article said “Roxas’ messaging has been erratic at best – or a failure at worst – in the last two decades.”, said Roxas got himself into controversies he should avoid, and suggested Daang Matuwid was risky and Roxas needed to own the mistakes of the Aquino Administration to make it work (which, of course, would not exactly be steering clear of controversies). The article closed by citing how LP members were “jumping ship” for other candidates. (Note, this is a very important point: the author criticizes Roxas for the fact LP people shifted allegiance; she does not criticize the people jumping ship or the culture that promotes it. She does not consider that local politics in a tribal arena is more dominant than national politics.)

Mar Roxas: His own enemy by Bea Cupin who followed the Roxas campaign for three months. The article originally ran Nov 11, 2011 and was updated on Feb 26, 2016, prior to the campaign period. The article characterized Roxas as being detail oriented and not presidential, said he connected off-camera but not on-camera, said Daang Matuwid was a trap and Roxas needed to be smart about it, and implied Roxas did not have the “courage” needed where courage was somehow related to being bombastic. (A few weeks later, Rappler editors judged that Roxas delivered the best closing remarks of all debate contestants. On camera.)

Then there was the patterned approach to news followed by all Philippine media, the “He said”, “She said”, point and counterpoint articles run separately rather than put together to create a story of removed and balanced journalistic perspective.

But the most telling set of articles attempted to describe in human terms the three major candidates. All three were authored by Patricia Evangelista and Nicole Curato:

Think of what words mean, just looking at the titles. We draw from Roxas that he is not his own man, that Grace Poe is extending a living legend, and Rodrigo Duterte is angelic or godly. What a difference had the Roxas title been “The Experience of Mar Roxas”. One word completely shaded the takeaway by millions who got no further than the headline.

The conclusions of the three articles completed the destruction job on Roxas. Here are the three endings to the articles, verbatim, with Poe and Duterte first, then Roxas:

Grace Poe

Those who choose Grace Poe have made that calculation. Her claim to authenticity may have already been diminished, but she remains a possible contender to the looming behemoth that is Rodrigo Duterte.

Here is the national sweetheart poised for the presidency. She is as pleasant as she is predictable, the tailored white dress for the big events, the buttoned white shirt and faded jeans for the sorties. Always the sleek ponytail, the ever-present pearls, the thin watch, the ready handshake, the welcoming smile. She is gracious with her time. She seeks advice from experts. She may occasionally walk out in a pique when questioned by reporters, but when the lights flash on, she will be ready.

In a field populated by political veterans, Grace Poe remains a hypothetical. This is how she will act if China invades. This is how she will respond to a massacre in Mindanao. This is how she promises to hold cabinet officials accountable. See her denounce corruption, promise education, offer irrigation, deny allegations, ask questions, demand answers, assume this, concede that. A vote for Grace Poe is an article of faith. By her saving, so too are we all saved.

Once upon a time, there was a foundling. Pure of heart, vast of purpose, wielding a sword once carried by a martyr-king. It is a story of epic proportions, but it is, in the end, only a story.

Rodrigo Duterte

Who is the man we are electing? Is it the leering misogynist, or the advocate for women? Is it the defender of the law or the gun-toting bully? Is it the man who will give voice to the south or exploit their vulnerability? Is his promise of ending crime and corruption and drugs in 3-6 months a legitimate plan, or will he pass it off as yet another joke when he fails to get it done?

This has been a story that has been told many times before. It begins with a suffering people, vulnerable to the rabble rouser standing on a soapbox. It comes with fear-mongering, with urgency, with slogans and promises. A line is drawn, us versus them. Cull all the critics, watch out for the outspoken, lynch the detractors – Dear Leader will save us, if only we let him. Some liberties can be given up, for the sake of order. The Nazis began with the burning of books – they ended with a holocaust that annihilated at least 15 million.

Thirty years ago, the Philippines put behind martial law, imposed by a man who turned into a dictator after his first taste of power. Today, Rodrigo Duterte is at the top of the polls. If he wins, his dictatorship will not be thrust upon us. It will be one we will have chosen for ourselves. Every progressive step society has made has been diminished by his presence. Duterte’s contempt for human rights, due process, and equal protection is legitimized by the applause at the end of every speech.

We write this as a warning. The streets will run red if Rodrigo Duterte keeps his promise. Take him at his word – and know you could be next.

We write this as a warning. We hope to be proven wrong.

Mar Roxas

In spite of this, Roxas remains what the Liberal Party touts “the only decent choice.” The choice is black and white. The binaries have been laid out: the decent versus the barbarians, the decent versus the immoral, the decent versus those who would push the country down to hell on a handcart. This is the dangerous territory of exclusionary elitism, of claiming moral high ground without actually listening to why voters have become so desperate to place their bets on other candidates.

And yet is a young teacher in the conflict zones of Lanao del Sur to be blamed for choosing the Mindanao-born Rodrigo Duterte? Can a taxi driver be called a barbarian for wanting a president who can put a stop to corrupt traffic cops? Is it not reasonable for a starving farmer to protest against the yellow army when the drought kills his bananas and the governor says he doesn’t deserve help?

In the last months of the campaign, the mayor of Davao has cast himself as the antithesis of everything Mar Roxas has become in the public imagination – bumbling and slow, charmless and dull, reduced to a whipping boy by the howling denizens of social media. Roxas is the man with the winding sentences and the semi-colons. Duterte is the gunslinging 70-year-old with 140-character smackdowns.

Roxas greets the veterans of Zamboanga siege a happy anniversary, and forgets the displaced victims who died in the heat of temporary shanties. He sees the dead farmers who marched for rice in Kidapawan, and asks who funded the protests.

“If we compare choosing a president to choosing who will drive our children every day,” Roxas asked, “whom will we choose? To whom will we trust the safety of our children?”

Here is a candidate so out of touch with his own constituency that he is unable to grasp that the majority of parents in the Philippines do not own cars, cannot afford private school buses, and consider themselves lucky when their children can go to school at all, even when they are forced to wade barefoot through rivers or risk getting run over by trucks thundering down the highways.

His name is Manuel Araneta Roxas II. Son of a senator, grandson to a president, anointed heir of two dynasties, and the last living hope of a dream that was born in the sugar plantations of Negros. He is the second choice, but we are told second is the best we deserve. Under his reign, the chandeliers will burn white in a city where the sky glows ultramarine.

Light, airy and undefined for Grace Poe, powerful and foreboding for Rodrego Duterte, and a candidate “out of touch” in Mar Roxas. The Roxas dedication to civility (and democracy) was termed “exclusive elitism”.

Did the authors read the beast, or feed the beast?

Perhaps we need to reflect on what journalism “ought” to be doing.

What is journalism’s role as a “Fourth Estate”?

These days, Rappler and executive editor Maria Ressa are under considerable pressure from the Duterte Administration. Well, they’ve done some critical articles and the Administration is of the mindset that criticism of the President is unpatriotic. So Rappler’s reporter has been kicked out of the Palace, the SEC has filed what appear to be politically motivated cases against Rappler (‘foreign ownership’), and Maria Ressa defends Rappler with the argument that its purpose is to defend democracy, freedom of the press, and other virtues. That is what it has done in the past and would continue doing.

That’s admirable because that is what a Fourth Estate of journalism does. It is the unbiased intermediary between the people and the government, and vice versa. Journalism provides the objective reporting that makes democracy work.

In theory.

Missing the forest of democracy for the trees of circulation

Rappler emotionalizes the news in major way; it does not simply objectify the news. It is of the Philippine culture, deep and true. The on-line publication even runs a “mood meter” so readers can vent on each story. It’s news stories are often editorialized and set up to emotionalize issues (he said, she said). I once took them to task with a complaint for referring to President Aquino as “boneheaded” in a news report. And, of course, the examples I have given above are more personal and emotionally analytical than objective.

Rappler is not the only Philippine news outlet that does this. It is the culture, after all. And the publishers have to sell advertising. They appeal to what the public wants. The public wants sizzle, not steak, and personal controversy, not dry facts.

Nothing works better for Philippine media than a good man being deep fried.

The major media appear not to grasp the concept that democracy in the Philippines can thrive only if they are teachers of principle rather than parrots of popular ignorance and emotional immaturity.

The election of 2016 should have been simple. Two candidates, Binay and Duterte, were known to have bad character. One was corrupt, the other a murderer. The third, Poe, was a school teacher who headed a movie ratings board and was of questionable allegiance to the Philippines. The fourth was a man of impeccable character, rich experience, and generous patriotic service:

Elected to House at age 36. Chosen as House Majority Leader.

Secretary of Trade and Industry under President Estrada Chairman of the Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Council

Secretary of Trade and Industry under President Arroyo Named “Father of the BPO industry”

Elected to the Senate in 2004

Secretary of Transportation and Communications under President Aquino

Secretary of Interior and Local Government under President Aquino

What Board of Directors or business executive hiring a top executive or an associate would require more than 15 minutes to make this selection? How did it come to be that the most critical evaluations of character and competence were set aside in favor of the trivialities of personality?

Well, it’s the culture. Gossip is profound news. Facts are irrelevant. Good is weak and bad is strong and ever will be until the politicians and the journalists develop a different set of standards for examining the qualifications of candidates. As long as journalism seeks to be emotionally resonant instead of rational, then the discussion will miss the mark entirely.

Conclusion

Rappler helped destroy Mar Roxas, without question. Good became bad, in their analysis. The bad became enchanting.

Rappler was not alone. This examination could be applied to any of the major dailies and television news programs. The journalists did not defend democracy. They were ‘all in’ to emotions, trivia, and sensationalism. They went for ratings. If there was a flaw in their eyes (“Mar Roxas obsessed over details”), they refused to see the STRENGTH of the eccentricity . . . because it was not how they would do it . . . they saw it as weakness.

They joined the club of people who demand that, unless the candidate is just like me . . . or more powerful and dynamic than me in some way . . . he is not qualified. In this need for microscopic perfection, they lost sight of the simplest measures of a candidate. Character and competence, where competence embraces knowledge, intelligence, experience, and ability.

They found the trees. They missed the forest.

………………….

Appendix

Features Stories on Mar Roxas