The media influences our perception of conflicts, shaping what we observe and hear.

As much as the media wants to stay ideally neutral as a mediator, our humanness does
not allow us to be entirely and coldly detached from the stories we cover. Consequently,
articles and media organizations, in general, can be perceived as having a specific bias
toward certain conflicts, even if they keep to the ethical standards of journalism,
regardless of the truth. Such gatekeeping capabilities can be seen in the Rappler article
entitled, "Petition to stop 'unconstitutional' Maharlika fund reaches Supreme Court' if we
were to look at it more closely.
The mentioned article addressed the current socio-political matter surrounding the
contentious Maharlika Fund Act of 2023. Considering that the article is an 'update' of
sorts of a larger ongoing issue, the Maharlika fund, much of its content focused on the
petition filed and the arguments of the petitioners themselves. To counter the petition's
criticism of the law not having passed the "test of economic viability," the article provided
the other party's defense. It attached a citation that directly links to the three-page
business proposal used to support the law and serve as evidence of its economic
viability. The article, however, noted the lack of information on the simulations used to
generate the "return" percentage (i.e., 6.51% to 10.78%) that the law supposedly
promises. This doesn't necessarily imply a troubling bias; rather, it demonstrates the
writer's commitment to incorporating all pertinent and critical observations in their
conflict reporting.
In addition to the three-page business proposal attached to support the opposing
viewpoint, the online article is also supplemented with other reliable references in the
form of hyperlinks. These hyperlinks enable readers to access more comprehensive
information, evidence, and a variety of perspectives on the conflict. There is even a
hyperlink that compiles the entirety of the Maharlika Fund issue, leading to a list of
articles encompassing both informative pieces and opinion articles. These also include
articles indirectly related to the conflict, covering current national conditions such as
budget deficits, inflation rates, unemployment, and underemployment. These factors are
relevant to the issue because the petitioners relied on these factors to argue that
immediate implementation of the law is dangerous.
Graphically speaking, the only visual element directly associated with the article is
an image featuring pertinent petitioners, extending the petition files toward the camera.
Its contribution to the story's narrative is simple and straightforward, and that is to show
the leading figures behind the petition and the petition to the Supreme Court itself
without adding much to it. However, it is important to note that the image attached to the
article suggested at the end of it (i.e., FAST FACTS: What's in the Maharlika fund's
implementing rules?) is somewhat editorial in nature. The bluish and reddish image
depicting two hands making a grab for a coin jar labeled as 'Maharlika' fund possibly
conveys the publisher's antagonistic viewpoint of the matter and, as follows, subtly
implies the article's stance as well.
 Overall, the Rappler article in question observes 'media neutrality.' Agencies that are
media neutral do not have any vested interests or favoritism towards any specific
property, channel, or vendor (Hogg, 2023). Rappler's primary concern is what best
serves the public's interests rather than prioritizing the agency's financial gains. The
article framed the conflict at hand in ways that not only inform but also alarm its
audience. It portrayed the implementation of the Maharlika Fund Act as a crisis with
implications for the future, emphasizing the expected suffering and hardship it could
bring in an economic context that is neither conducive to nor should endorse it. It
presented it as an ongoing issue by highlighting current debates advocating for
increased dialogue and alterations to the law to mitigate potential risks.
Given all these points, I think Rappler's coverage of the petition against the
Maharlika Fund demonstrates high quality. It included all the relevant and crucial
observations, along with substantial evidence and references, effectively educating and
keeping the public informed about the conflict. Nonetheless, the article could see further
enhancement by incorporating additional information on the opposing party's
perspective. Doing so would reduce the likelihood of the article appearing unduly
biased.
Considering the analysis, one can see how Rappler acted as a gatekeeper by
filtering the Maharlika Fund issue and trying to maintain a balance of views. The
potential motivations behind the editorial decisions made by the media outlet can be
seen in the way that wholly and majorly supported the petitioner's arguments with
evidence and countered the other. While media often presents itself as 'impartial and
equitable,' behind the scenes, they naturally aim to advance a specific set of ideological
ideas and restrict the public's access to a broad spectrum of information. This isn't
inherently negative, though. Per Lewin's Gatekeeping theory, the gatekeeping process
serves to filter out undesirable, irrelevant, and contentious information. By screening out
what information should be disseminated to a group or individual and which information
should be withheld, Rappler's role as a gatekeeper thus ensures that the media space
remains clear, consequently guiding society or a group toward a more appropriate and
positive direction.
Hence, I personally think that the media outlet, in this instance, assumes the role of
a watchdog rather than that of a peace advocate. Bratic and Schirch (2007) describe
that when the media acts as a watchdog, it involves offering public assessments of local
issues. Rappler, in this case, brought out the un-talked and potential dangers and risks
of the Maharlika fund that wouldn't otherwise be swept under the carpet and gone under
the radar of the public by publishing the arguments of the petitioners of the law.
Consequently, one may also argue that Rappler acted as a peacebuilder. Betz
(2018) states media, as a peacebuilder, allows a peace process to develop by enabling
the underlying conflicts in society to be expressed and argued in a non-violent manner.
By giving the petitioners a space to voice their opinions, Rappler effectively allows a
peaceful process to develop. This, however, does not mean that the media, in this case,
is a peace promotor. The occurrence of a petition, which is the article's focal point,
suggests a form of negotiation that takes place "after the fact." In such cases,
discussions on the issue have typically progressed beyond their initial stages or
diplomatic impasse. Rather than promoting peace, it is more appropriate to say that
Rappler detracts from it, distributing faults found and stirring vital discussions that may
be seen as insubordination only by those in power who would benefit from the peaceful
promotion of the Maharlika fund.

REFERENCES:
Betz, M. (2018). The role of media in conflict prevention. Retrieved from
https://blogs.worldbank.org/dev4peace/role-media-conflict-prevention
Bratic, V. & Schirch, L. (2007). Why and When to Use the Media for Conflict Prevention
and Peacebuilding. Retrieved from
https://www.sfcg.org/articles/media_for_conflict_prevention.pdf
Hogg, L. (2023, May 22). What is media neutrality? Grand Rapids Marketing Agency -
Media Place Partners. Retrieved from
https://www.mediaplacepartners.com/what-is-media-neutrality/#:~:text=Defining
%20media%20neutrality,not%20lining%20the%20agency%27s%20pockets.
Yu, L. S. (2023, September 18). Petition to stop 'unconstitutional' Maharlika fund
reaches Supreme Court. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/nation/petition-
stop-unconstitutional-maharlika-fund-reaches-supreme-court/