The media has consistently been burdened with the responsibility to impart timely and relevant messages, especially amid rapid changes and demands. One would think that the noble undertaking of newsgathering and reportage should warrant respect, but this is simply far from reality.
While the media’s role and agenda has always been contentious, the flame of discourse does not cease fanning. More specifically, when journalists Zen Hernandez (ABS-CBN News), Mariz Umali (GMA Integrated News), and Gretchen Ho (OneNews) were criticized for their ‘bias[ed]’ reportage on the arrest and International Criminal Court (ICC) trial of former President Rodrigo Duterte at The Hague. Harmless as most labels can be, the stigma surrounding the grammatically incorrect appellation ‘bias’ has transformed it from a buzzword into a weapon, used to antagonize the press when they present news that happen to go against the audience’s political views.
Understanding media bias
According to independent journalist and professor Christian Esguerra, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the term media bias, as well as the connotation placed on it. For him, what we perceive as ‘bias’ is necessary for journalism to fulfill its function. But he poses a question: “Who is the media siding with? [Is it] the poor, the oppressed, the victims?” This bias comes with reliance on facts in every story as they are “the building blocks towards the truth.”
Ho follows a similar line of thought, but she emphasizes that hard-hitting stories must be written from a particular perspective. “People are inherently biased. Lahat tayo [mayroong] mga pinanggagalingan,” she says.
(We all have our roots.)
For Esguerra, objectivity balances out media bias. He defines objectivity as “the process through which we gather our facts and come to certain conclusions.” Esguerra emphasizes that objectivity only pertains to the process and that neutrality does not mean abandoning efforts to protect people’s inherent rights. Objectivity, as defined by Esguerra, should not be mistaken for neutrality, especially amid rampant disinformation; it is only a guiding principle through which journalists prioritize factuality and fairness.
In the age of disinformation, journalists have been maligned for reporting facts on the ground and pursuing the truth. They have been the bloodline that sheds light on the most pressing issues in the country, but where do these ‘biased’ accusations come from? And more importantly, how does this label affect journalism and our perception of the media?
Stifling press freedom
Filipino journalists face countless attacks both online and offline. The intensified political climate in the country has only aggravated the wanton violence toward reporters through media censorship and the active delegitimization of credible sources. An official report from UNESCO in 2024 wrote that 117 journalists were killed in the Philippines in the last 30 years, making the country one of the most dangerous places in the world for newspeople. In 2020, Duterte had a hand in influencing his allies in Congress to deny the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise, one of the biggest media outlets in the Philippines, which not only remains a pioneer of television broadcasting but also houses a storied newsroom that survived the oppressions of the Marcos dictatorship.
The shutdown of the company’s broadcasting operations has since then been one of the major assaults on press freedom in the Philippines. After Duterte criticized the network for being ‘biased’ during his presidential bid in 2016, he was prompted to shut down its operations. This move sets a precedent for journalists to be even more vulnerable to attacks and accusations. When Ho was asked about her initial expectations in covering Duterte’s ICC trials, she told The LaSallian that it was as if entering a minefield, as the Duterte bloc publicly portrayed the media as an enemy. And for her, it wasn’t a new thing: “It has been happening since 2016.”
Hosing down adversaries
Beyond managing newsrooms, journalists also play an important role in shaping and promoting literacy among media consumers. Further diving into his clamor for civic responsibility, Esguerra circles back to the question: “Do people really understand what media bias is all about?” To paint an image, he passionately describes his personal experience in covering three different presidencies as a political reporter, all of which included instances where he questioned the transparency and accountability of the government.
A common thread was found—regardless of who the head of state is or was, as a media practitioner, there is no escaping the tag ‘bias.’ Ho similarly holds the sentiment, “Nasa nature ng tao ‘yun eh, to move [toward] what affirms your own beliefs.” Clearly, labels can cause clouded perceptions, and they give greater significance as this information travels rapidly.
[It is in human nature.]
For Esguerra, accusations of being a biased journalist do not personally affect him because they come from “trolls and blind partisans.” To him, he sees this as an opportunity to enlighten others because “we’re degenerating” in public knowledge, referring to how journalists’ civic duty and active citizenship have, as of late, become more undermined. In response to this societal devaluation of his career, Esguerra accepts it as another role he is tasked with: filling in the institutional lapses of civic awareness.
Part of that challenge lies in confronting audiences that confuse validation with truth. The tendency to seek affirmation in information is deeply rooted in human nature. In today’s media landscape, this manifests not only in traditional journalism, but also in the rise of video bloggers (vloggers) who stake their claim as ‘unbiased truth tellers’ under the guise of lifestyle content.
There is a danger of ‘false balance’ to red alert on. However, both Ho and Esguerra share the viewpoint that vloggers continue to challenge the industry, recognizing their value for forcing newsrooms to “evolve and adapt, and be present on the digital landscape.” As two established names, both have witnessed such evolution. Ho, who has appeared on TV as a host since 2013, took a personal approach by joining the world of news in 2016. While Esguerra, who has tried multiple platforms of journalism, maximized current trends and internet culture by establishing his own podcast, which can be likened to the way he conducted interviews during his days in broadcasting.
Clearing the smoke
As much as the journalism industry is doing its best to evolve, it cannot reshape media literacy overnight. Piling on top of the general matters, Ho also specifies the need to address digital literacy, stressing how such platforms have been utilized as agents of disinformation. Media is so vast that it needs to consider external agencies’ aid in mitigating issues.
Journalist-driven initiatives such as the Media and Information Literacy Project and INQskwela have been conceived to combat concerns surrounding information use and discernment, but cooperation between the state’s education system and the willingness of consumers is vital.
It may seem as if the process may be arduous, but even so, the industry remains hopeful. With the media’s dynamic nature, Esguerra ardently shares, “Today’s the best and the worst of times to become a journalist. If this were the kind of media environment that we had when I entered journalism in 2000, I would have been very, very excited.” And throughout such evolution, the presence of traditional media will remain relevant because the silver lining that Ho found is, “People still look to news organizations to get their facts.” She firmly adds, “What is irreplaceable is credibility and integrity.”
Journalism as a field is considerably more important now than ever. To be able to tell a story with integrity, while maintaining a code of ethics and composure, amid difficult situations, is not for the faint of heart. For whatever label or accusation given, journalists stand firm in bias of the truth—to render their service to the people, as they always have, time and time again.
