Here we talk about the tax evasion case versus Rappler, as an off-shoot of its defense versus the SEC order to close it down. Also whether or not the support for Rappler and Ressa have died down, whether or not they are being singled out by the Duterte government, and getting some perspective on the notion (spin?) of dissent that Rappler uses to fashion itself as hero. Part 1 is here.

Do you have any observations or reactions on how other local newsrooms have responded to the tax evasion charges against Rappler and Ressa? Do you think that they’ve lent enough support to them, or otherwise?

I do think the support for Ressa and Rappler has died down compared to early 2018 when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered its closure. I’d imagine this to have been brought on by a number of things. There’s the possibility that mainstream media entities feel they have no choice but to fall silent about freedom of the press issues lest they become Duterte’s next targets. I’d like to think that to some extent many media practitioners can see right through this spin that fashions Rappler and Ressa as heroes, even as so many others are doing the same work they are — if not better work than they are. I’m sure there’s also the part where media entities just make that decision about which issues matter more — after all in the time of Duterte, when impunity, oppression, misogyny, and incompetence are on the rise, what to use our energies on is the first decision we make.

What do you think of the tax evasion case against Rappler? 

I think the tax evasion case is something that Rappler had coming, and not because they are critical of Duterte. It’s because of how they ended up handling the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decision to shut them down for being “foreign owned” because of the PDRs it issued to a foreign company. Now I’m no lawyer, and will not judge the legality of those PDRs and whether or not those are equal to foreign ownership. What I do know is that at the very least, that foreign funding puts Rappler’s identity as a Philippine entity into question, because funding from a foreign source becomes part of its mode of production. That we’re talking millions doesn’t help its case any.

Neither did it help Rappler any that when it was defending its foreign funding sources, and the finding that it had violated PD1081 which is the implementing law for the violation of foreign equity restriction on media companies, that it decided to highlight its difference from print and broadcast media. As far as Rappler’s defense goes, the law does not apply to them because they are not print and broadcast media, as they are an “all-digital news organization” and “online news site” that “merges traditional broadcasting with the internet” and “combines the discipline and credibility of traditional print and TV journalists” so it can “join broadcasting network giants.” Essentially they are saying that what makes them different is their use of the “web, internet, mobile and  other delivery formats.”

Rappler insisting that they are different because they use the internet just made matters worse. After all, it’s pretty clear to any of us who have had to live with Rappler since 2012 that its goal has always been to compete with the big media entities, which it admits it sought to do (“join broadcasting network giants”). It’s also pretty clear that while PD1081 might not mention the internet specifically, it is talking about media entities in general, which would include online media sites like Rappler. Lastly, what exactly is Rappler doing when it puts out content online? Is it not “broadcasting,” albeit using a different medium? Rappler insisting that it’s business is “unique” because it is “not engaged in the business of traditional mass media alone (e.g., print or broadcast)” just does not fly. Omidyar donating the millions in PDRs to Rappler heads did not help either: so now they did get millions from a foreign source! How does that make things better?

The tax evasion case is an off-shoot of this defense re the PDRs and foreign funding. Do I think Rappler and Ressa are being singled out? Sure, but it’s no different from Duterte singling out ABS-CBN (for not airing his campaign ads in 2016), or the family that runs the Philippine Daily Inquirer (for the Milelong property). The task obviously, is to make sure that there is absolutely nothing they can throw your way, nothing they can question about your funding, your taxes, the way you conduct your business. It’s the way the ball has always rolled with our politics in this country, though Duterte has undoubtedly power-tripped more than most presidents.

Is this a way to silence dissent? Maybe. But Rappler and Ressa are hardly the “dissenters” if we’re looking at the bigger picture of resistance versus Duterte and his incompetent, violent governance. Compare what Rappler and Ressa have been through to what Duterte and his men have been doing to activists, who are jailed on trumped-up charges, are threatened with war and bombs in their communities, have been killed the past two years. THAT is the dissent that’s being silenced with the full use of government resources, against the people. That Rappler and Ressa are what gets international mileage is a measure of the kind of work it puts into getting that mileage, if not a measure as well of what it is international media would rather look at. ***