SHOULD bloggers be held to the same standards as professional journalists? Should the State compel bloggers to identify themselves and if so, why? Should our representatives attempt to legislate against fake news? My answers to those questions are no, no, and probably not. I did have a fourth question while listening to parts of the inquiry last Wednesday by the Senate committee on public information and mass media, but it’s more cynical than those three. Will this hearing lead to useful legislation, or is it mainly a venue for senators to vent about what they believe is unfair or unflattering coverage? I hope it’s not the latter, because what a waste of taxpayer funds that would be.
The first question dates back to the late Nineties, when the bloggers-versus-mainstream media debates first surfaced. This has always smacked of mutual condescension. Yes, bloggers can learn from some of the mainstream’s better traditions, especially verification. I won’t forget a panel discussion more than 10 years ago, where one of Cebu’s veteran newspapermen asked if any of the bloggers present had ever read a Commission on Audit report, then wrote something useful based on it. Since most of those present were lifestyle bloggers, no one took him up on that challenge, their priorities and focus being elsewhere.
But to ask bloggers to conduct themselves like journalists is to misunderstand their role and potential influence. It also glosses over the fact that, alas, some mainstream journalists sometimes fall short of these standards ourselves. What’s the difference between a “digital influencer” who won’t reveal if he or she has ever worked for a political candidate, and a mainstream commentator who gets paid by a patron for every column or broadcast that either praises him or attacks his rivals? In an ideal world, every communicator should practice the norms of fairness and transparency, should use their influence for public good. We have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to get there.
Should bloggers be compelled to use their real names? Cocoy Dayao, the man linked to several blogs or social media pages critical of the current administration, has denied ownership and authorship of these sites. These include Silent No More, which published a post critical of seven senators who did not sign a resolution expressing concern over extrajudicial killings. (The senators said they were not given the opportunity.) Because Dayao skipped last week’s hearing, he lost an opportunity to demonstrate good faith. Then again, if some senators do intend to hold him accountable for his supposed connection to some anti-administration sites, they should do so in court and remember that the burden of proof is on them.
But anonymity, in itself, remains an important component of free speech. Some of the most incisive commentary on social media today comes from anonymous accounts. And one point of encouraging bloggers and social media influencers is to draw out sources of information who may be less held back by the “constraints of ownership, organization, market, and political power,” constraints that Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky first explained nearly 30 years ago. Some of them may feel they need to stay anonymous for safety’s sake.
Finally, are there legislative solutions to the problem of disinformation? This question came up, as some of the senators and resource persons said that they, too, had suffered from fake news. Yet there are already enough laws that can be applied on those who create or distribute disinformation, whether they are private citizens or public officials. Perhaps one of the better legislative solutions would be to provide support for media literacy training, especially for educators. Civility in public debates can’t be legislated, but more sustained efforts to teach critical thinking might help.
(@isoldeamante)