Rappler has been if not
the most critical media outfit against the Duterte administration.
During the electoral
campaign of 2016, it was evident that Rappler was faoring one candidate over
the other…well it was not solely Rappler was at fault in this aspect. Its one
of those whoever has the most campaign money gets the much needed media mileage
that is what every politician running for national office wants.
Being loud as it is, the
Securities and Exchange Commission found out it was not 100% Filipino owned,
thus violating the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership and management of
mass media clause, which led to the restricting of its reporters in covering
certain activities in Malacañang. And taking all of this- Rappler cries foul, harassment
and persecution from the government. *
 |
| RAppler's CEO Maria Ressa( photo credit owner) |
In the article of Ms. Sass Rogando Sasot of the Manila Times
titled “Rappler’s grand deception” that was published last January 18, 2018 she
dissects what is Rappler doing and explains why SEC had put the hammer down
against it.
For the knowledge of our reading public we are quoting in full the
said article of Ms. Sasot.
IS Rappler engaged in mass media? No, if you are
going to believe Rappler. Indeed, an absurd claim. But it was Rappler’s get out
of constitutional responsibility card.
As a tactic to circumvent the constitutional
restriction on foreign ownership and management of mass media, Rappler Inc.
claimed that they are “not engaged in Mass Media.” That is what Rappler Inc.
asserted in their verified explanation filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on August 29, 2017. And in an absurd moment that lasted for
five pages, the SEC argued that Rappler Inc. is a mass media entity.
Rappler’s assertion does not only hoodwink our
Republic, it also insults their supporters. They claim to be a media entity in
order to be bearers of the freedom of the press, but at the same time denies it
in order to escape the long arm of the law. In other words, Rappler wants to
eat our Constitution and poop on it too. *
And that is what Rappler is teaching our young
generation: claim rights without responsibilities. As they make their debacle
all about freedom of the press, they shield themselves from discussing their
duty under our Constitution — that they must be 100 percent controlled by
Filipino citizens.
The SEC decision is clear about how Rappler is
not 100 percent controlled by locals. One of Rappler’s investors, Omidyar
Network, needs to be consulted and approve any changes in corporate policies
that could affect their interests. That is expressed in the infamous Paragraph
12.2.2 of the terms of the Philippine Depositary Receipt (PDR) of Omidyar
Network.
As the SEC found out, the Omidyar Network
“specifically negotiated with Rappler to insert Paragraph 12.2.2.” This
indicates that Rappler’s foreign investor “wanted to have some degree of
control over Rappler’s corporate policy”; and that only means Rappler is not
100 percent controlled by Filipino citizens, which is a violation of the
Constitution, the SEC argued.
Yet this discussion is lost when local and
foreign media discuss what happened to Rappler. They also did not pay attention
to Rappler’s deceptive claim that they are not a media entity. Perhaps our
media organizations think that Rappler’s deception is acceptable.
But what legitimate aim does Rappler’s lie
serve? Nothing. By claiming that it is not a media entity, Rappler is only
serving its own interests to circumvent our Constitution. And that deception
does not in anyway protect and advance press freedom in our country or
elsewhere. It trashes it. *
Fortunately, one media group did not get lost in
the hysteria that freedom of the press is under attack because of what happened
to Rappler.
On January 16, informed by their careful reading
of the SEC’s decision, the National Press Club (NPC) released a statement
declaring that “the exercise of press freedom in particular, and the freedom of
expression in general, have not been affected nor threatened with the finding
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that online news platform
Rappler, Inc., violated the strict constitutional provision on 100 percent
control and ownership of mass media and its decision to close down the media
outfit.”
In an apparent jab at the hysteria Rappler and
their allied political party, the Liberal Party (LP) of the Philippines, is
fomenting, NPC President Paul M. Gutierrez offered this sobering assessment:
“There are about 436 television broadcast
stations, 411 AM radio stations, over 1,000 FM radio stations and more than 400
newspapers today operating freely in the country besides those that now have
proliferated in social media and whose actual number no one really has any
idea.”
“To say that the fate of one media entity found
to have run afoul of the law translates to media repression in the country is
stretching the argument a bit too much” *
I could not agree more. Rappler violated the
law, tried to escape it by claiming that it is not a media entity, and now it
is insulting all of us by asserting that their freedom of the press is being
violated. But if Rappler is not a media entity, as it argued in its verified
explanation, then how is freedom of the press under attack?
0 Comments