VELASCO, Vincent L.

Objective News?

One of the best fruits of democracy is having a free press. A free press just means that

people can publish anything without the intervention of the government. Of course, this kind of

freedom has a price and that is, any article can be published as long as any article does not

trample on the rights of the people and the laws of the government. In that way, there is no

abuse of power of the government on information while the press cannot supersede the power

of the government - a win-win situation for these institutions of democracy. The significance of a

free press simply lies in the premise that it is a basic need for people to be informed. Information

is a broad concept that leaves much room for scholars to put a definition to it. For the interest of

this paper, the information produced by the free press is defined as truthful, accurate, and

value-free data or ideas about the world. It is the information about real-time events that enables

society to keep surviving and thriving. As Kaye (1995) puts it in the organizational context,

“Good information, it is believed, improves decision making, enhances efficiency and provides a

competitive edge to the organization which knows more than the opposition.” Receiving

information from the press would greatly influence the decisions of people and I can claim that

the right information can be life-changing. When society becomes informed, social, cultural,

political, ethnic, and religious barriers are less of a hindrance resulting in a society performing

efficiently and effectively. So it would be unimaginable if the world does not have the press and

the right information they produce for people.

As mentioned, there are laws that enable and restrict the free press. Internationally, it is a

basic human right for people to freely express themselves. Article 19 in the Universal

Declaration of Rights states that everyone is entitled to the right to access and exchange

information, the right to have an opinion, and the right to express one’s self through any media

(United Nations, n.d.) In the Philippines, the 1987 Constitution, in Article III Section 4, mentions

that there must be no law that will violate freedom of speech, self-expression, the free press, or
VELASCO, Vincent L.

the rights of the people (1987 Constitution). Now, these two laws are universally and nationally

recognized to be the foundation of the freedom of the press, information, and expression.

The significance of the information produced by the free press and the laws safeguarding

this human right would need to be contextualized in the digital age of information. The rapid

growth and development of technology over the past century upscaled the speed and volume of

information across all countries. The technology and information boom has allowed more people

to access and exchange information at a convenient press of buttons or tap of screens. As

much as this age helped the free press to spread news, the easy-to-access technology and

information allowed the entry of fabricated or false information and stealing and threatening

personal data for profit - creators of fake news. Fake news, though its meaning still varies,

continues to be used consistently to intentionally create disinformation for forwarding political

agendas (Buckmaster & Wils, n.d.). The world is never the same again with fake news. The

boundary between the truth and opinions is hard to identify and both terms seem to be used

interchangeably. Pictures of mainstream news can be edited to fit ridiculous or false information.

Tools and apps can help generate information with no credible source. With fake news, there is

an abuse of the human right to self-expression. With fake news, the credibility and reliability of

the free press are waning and the right information is indistinguishable. Though there are laws

in place, fake news peddlers and makers are hard to pinpoint and apprehend because of their

anonymity and vague intentions. For this reason, I argue that the creators of fake news,

especially in the digital age, have acted as a panopticon to the people's beliefs and perceptions

of the Philippine presidential elections.

The proliferation of fake news astonishingly grew in the campaign period before the 2022

national elections. People were bombarded left and right with information that was either meant

to favor one candidate or defame the reputation of other candidates. I was even confused about
VELASCO, Vincent L.

who was telling the truth and who was faking everything because of the number of sources of

information about the public servant candidates. The apparent blurred boundaries between self-

expression and objective news are disorienting and terrifying. The confusion is disorienting

mainly because of the massive amount of information revolving around the candidates in the

presidential elections sprung simultaneously. The confusion is terrifying because people can

easily navigate around the laws and the meaning of a free press in the country. Adding more

fuel to the wildfire of the fake news is the allegation that presidential candidate Bongbong

Marcos sought to rebrand the family name through the political data firm, Cambridge Analytica

(Tomacruz, 2020). Cambridge Analytica was envisioned to be a firm that would use personal

data from millions of people to help the government make policies based on the preferences of

society. This possession of data could be dangerous when people with bad intentions get their

hands on data to influence voter behavior - just as the allegations against Marcos exemplify.

The existence of such firms then has corroded what privacy means and extended the definition

of manipulation. These firms are also profiting from the ignorance and illiteracy of people that

their data can be weaponized and used for other purposes.

Besides gathering and using data to shape behavior, exposure to media can also

influence how people think and behave. YouTube and TikTok are convenient ways to deliver

messages and information. Aside from being made for entertainment purposes, the videos

created have made people believe these are credible and reliable sources of good information.

News channels and broadcast firms have also turned to social media for wider and faster

dissemination of information to the public. But then again, the problem with these kinds of

platforms is the indiscriminate easy access and the truthfulness of the content that creators

produce. "Supporters" of Marcos generated so much information that garnered more supporters

and catapulted Marcos into the Malacañang. Not only celebrities or known personalities have a

good reputation for Marcos, but dummy accounts especially from TikTok produced content to
VELASCO, Vincent L.

support Marcos. This is alarming for the audiences and beneficial for the creators for two

reasons. First, people could easily create content that would serve their interests along with

content that would strongly influence their target audience. People could easily manipulate the

feelings and views of the audience while remaining unknown. Second, people see this content

as true and reliable without reviewing the validity and truthfulness of the videos. The audience

would easily fall into the traps set by the anonymous content creators. Furthermore, people

consume these on a daily basis which solidifies their belief that Marcos is the best to represent

the Filipinos. Whether the videos aimed to glorify the achievements of late President Ferdinand

Marcos Sr., to falsify the truthfulness of historical pieces of evidence, or to tell stories

exaggerating the shortcomings of political opponents, a range of misleading and false

information exists.

I proceed to my argument: the creators of disinformation are likened to Jeremy Bentham’s

Panopticon. Like the Panopticon, the creators of fake news are strategically confined at an

undiscoverable “central tower” that can observe the behavior of society at large (Foucault,

1995). The creators of fake news have this obscure yet all-seeing power that manipulates and

dictates people's behavior, especially in the 2022 national elections. This is observable with how

platforms such as Cambridge Analytica intrude on the data of people to strongly influence their

voting behavior. Not only is power visible, but the power of content creators is also felt subtly

with misleading headlines or with the consistent appearance in people’s accounts. The non-

physical yet coercive power subjugates the audience and tricks them into thinking that fake

news is reality and vice versa. Though people have the agency to scrutinize the source of this

false information, fake news is difficult to pinpoint who enables and spreads it. People can also

choose whether to believe it or not, but if the structure of apps, as well as the information

literacy, remains as the status quo is, the propensity of people to believe the false information is

most likely to be high. Apparently, the structure of the apps are oriented to suit the tastes of the
VELASCO, Vincent L.

audience. Tuazon, Torres, and Palcone (2020) found out that online disinformation is largely

attributed to online trolls exaggerating political narratives and the ineligibility of individuals when

exposed to the mentioned narratives. Furthermore, creators of fake news also gain profit from

this disillusionment with reality. More people believing would simply mean more people rallying

and lobbying for the return of Marcos in the government.

In sum, a free press in a democracy serves as a watchdog in any democracy but with the

advent of social media and technology, it is difficult to bark at the real perpetrators of fake news.

Anonymity and the speed of transmitting information may be, on one hand, beneficial for privacy

concerns of individuals but, on the other hand, harmful and influential to the decision-making of

people. The Panopticon analysis by Foucault offers an explanation of how the creators of fake

news exercise their power upon people especially in the Philippine national elections. I believe

the deception will persist as long as creators of fake news have their faceless gaze and subtle

coercion on the people who are incapable of seeing through the “central tower”.

References:

1987 Philippine Constitution.

Buckmaster, L., & Wils, T. (n.d.). Responding to fake news. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved
June 28, 2022, from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/FakeNews.

Foucault, M. (1995). Panopticism. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 195–228.

Johnston, M. (2021). How to create TikTok videos the algorithm loves. Social Media Examiner.
Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/how-to-create-tiktok-
videos-the-algorithm-loves/.

Kaye, D. (1995). The importance of information. Management Decision, 33(5), 5–12.

doi:10.1108/eum0000000003897.

Tomacruz, S. (2020, July 16). Bongbong Marcos asked Cambridge Analytica to 'rebrand' Family
image. RAPPLER. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://www.rappler.com/nation/bongbong-
marcos-cambridge-analytica-rebrand-family-image/.
VELASCO, Vincent L.

Tuazon, R., Torres, T. P., Palcone. (2020). In M. Kajimoto, M. Ito, M.K. Lim (Eds.), Media and
information literacy education in Asia exploration of policies and practices in Japan, Thailand,
Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines (pp. 65–74). essay, United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.

United Nations. (n.d.). Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations. Retrieved June
28, 2022, from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.