Oxymoronic report

Many disturbing inaccuracies, if not outright lies, were contained in the 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in the Philippines that the US State Department released recently.

The US government appeared to have obtained the information from certain non-government organizations (NGOs), if not outright left-wing groups, with an anti-government agenda.

Regarding the status of freedom of expression in the country, the report stated that “on the surface, individuals could criticize the government publicly or privately and discuss matters of public interest.”

It then cited observers and NGOs it failed to identify, claiming that the “chilling effect on public expression engendered under former President Duterte continued at a lower level under the Marcos administration.”

Yet it ceded that international watchdogs such as Reporters Without Borders noted fewer and less violent attacks against journalists in the first year of the Marcos administration.

A clear giveaway as to the sources of disinformation that the US government swallowed entirely as the truth was the mention of “red-tagging,” which was coined by left-wing groups referring to the labeling of human rights advocates, unions, religious groups, academics, and media organizations as fronts for the communist movement.

According to the report, red-tagging continued under the Marcos administration, “which has neither suppressed nor condemned the practice.”

The report’s malicious sources indicated that red-tagging was intended to silence criticism of the government, intimidate opponents in local disputes, or “provoke legal action against political opponents.”

Also cited was the unrelenting campaign of the communist sympathizers to dilute, if not rescind, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which anti-government forces blamed for the claimed red-tagging.

The report even cited the inconsistencies between the civic organizations’ allegations, from which most of its information was derived, and the realities on the ground.

“Individuals could criticize the government publicly or privately and discuss matters of public interest,” the report said on the freedom of expression.

The report likewise cited the observation of international watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) of fewer and less violent attacks against media practitioners in the first year of the Marcos administration.

“News organizations generally were not subjected to official censorship. Media generally remained free, active, and able to voice criticisms of the government, despite the chilling effect caused by killings of and attacks on journalists, red-tagging, and political and nongovernmental pressure,” it stated.

Thus, the report was indicting in one part while singing praises in another.

In response, the Presidential Task Force on Media Security (PTFoMS) disputed the report’s assessment that attacks on journalists, red-tagging, and political pressure continued and created a “chilling effect” on media members.

It insisted that the US State Department used a minority opinion among media practitioners.

“This so-called ‘chilling effect’ is a work of fiction by certain quarters who have the habit of always seeing the glass half-empty and not half-full,” the government media protection body stated.

Another sweeping statement that does not describe the current state of media is that the country has “serious restrictions” on freedom of expression.

The growing number of media outlets throughout the country, especially in the broadcast sector, proves the vibrant media industry. The PTFoMS indicated that since the majority of slain media professionals came from the broadcast sector, the number of radio stations should have remained flat or should have decreased if broadcasters were afraid, as the report suggested.

Several parts of the report were mere rehashes from previous years, indiscriminately slipped into the report to reduce the work.

It would not have taken much effort to ask the people on the streets or the working members of the media about the real situation.

Amazingly, the US State Department is capable of a sloppy piece of work.