Rappler recently published a blog post crying foul about how they are being treated unfairly by Duterte and pro-Duterte bloggers when questions about their foreign ownership was raised. They say these questions are forms of harassment and an attempt to curtail freedom of expression and threaten the freedom of the press.
Here is what Rappler had to say:
They seem to not see the irony and problem in their own statement. Yes, it is true that startup digital companies around the world use every financial means available to them to raise capital to grow. Yes it is true that Silicon Valley start-ups need to be creative in sourcing their start-up capital. The problem that Rappler does not see is the fact that it tries to wear two faces at once – one as a digital company start-up to be treated like every regular start-up and another as a media company to be treated as an essential pillar of democracy. The problem that Rappler does not see is the fact that being a start-up is not as serious as being a media company with the power to shape public opinion. The problem that Rappler does not see is the fact that start-ups are not essential to a democracy but media companies are critical to a democracy. Start-ups can be owned by a foreign entity and our democracy will remain intact and not threatened. Media companies have the power to make or break governments and as such questions about foreign ownership of media companies need to be treated seriously. The problem with Rappler is that they fail to see the issue with the PDR’s it issued to foreign entities. They claim that PDR’s do not give foreign entities control over their company, this may be true, but even just a sniff of foreign ownership of a media company should be cause for concern.
Rappler is very vocal about their criticism of Duterte’s alliance with China, claiming that Duterte is selling-out to China over the territorial dispute. They have no proof of this but they cry foul simply because there are two dots that they can connect – closer alliance with China and Duterte not being confrontational about Philippines claim over West Philippine seas. This simple game of connect the dots does not seem to apply to Rappler – PDR’s issued to foreign entities and possible foreign control of a domestic media company. What is Rappler’s defence? That they are a start-up digital company and should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are just doing what other digital start-ups do in raising capital.
Ok we will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are a start-up digital company but we should all start treating them as such – a digital company. Not a media company that they claim to be. Not as journalists seeking to tell the truth but a digital start-up trying to give their investors a good return on their investments – this includes their foreign investors. Until they are completely free from any shadow of foreign ownership – Rappler cannot claim harassment over these questions – they cannot claim to be just another digital start-up but ask to be treated as a legitimate media company without the corresponding scrutiny required for its readers to be confident it is free from foreign influence. We should give Rappler what it wants – to be treated as a digital start-up – any content it produces online should be seen from this perspective.
0 Comments