P Kharel

Son of ex-dictator Ferdinand Marcos to run for Philippines president”
At first glance, the above-headline carrying an Agence France-Presse story might read to many as an innocuous announcement. A little more attention should offer an extra message. BBC’s online news portal also carried a similar headline; so did Britain’s Guardian news. The insertion of the word “dictator” to describe the late Marcos is factually correct but unprofessionally selective.
AFP and other news media do not always term dictators for what they are, especially if they hold office. As long as Ferdinand Marcos remained as the presiding deity of Manila’s presidential Malacanang Palace, he was treated by those at the forefront of the robust capitalist world as a bulwark against communists in the Philippines as well as a counterweight to others in East Asia.

First elected president in 1965, Marcos ruled for the next 20 years in an authoritarian style until the 1985-86 public protests and massive street demonstrations compelled him to step down and live in exile in Hawaii. Aided and abetted by a corrupt regime, the Marcos family amassed millions of dollars and acquired huge properties at home and abroad, which was no secret worldwide.
But hardly any media called him a dictator until he went in exile. Not even the major media with international reach stepped out to call a spade a spade. However, once in exile the loyal friend of Washington and its close allies began to be termed “dictator” by the media with increasing frequency as the times marched.

Blatant cherry-picking
Marcos was no exception. Indonesia’s Suharto, Egypt’s Mubarak, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad are among those hoisted with the dictator crown. The pathetic practice is that some of these rulers — no doubt all authoritarians or even worse — were not labelled “dictator” when they were in office. Once out of power, however, the same lot was crowned with the epithet. And, mind you, the world is witness to many other dictators overlooked by the media for one reason or the other beyond basic professional norms expected of their vaunted status as the Fourth Estate.

This has been a consistently shameful practice going on too long and well into a new century. Pathetic is how newspapers and broadcasting services lap up whatever is dished out by foreign agencies they subscribe to. Either they agree with agency diktat of who is to be called a “dictator” or they do not have the minimum professional enthusiasm for ensuring uniformity in approach and attitude. Call a spade a spade. Fine. But cast the call to cover all eligible for the tag.
It is sheer cowardice to use different strokes to different folks in such deliberately selective manner.

Rodrigo Duterte, who leaves office in 2022 as president, remains the Marcos family’s close ally, as reiterated by the way his administration gave the remains of the late Marcos a hero’s burial. Duterte also made a move for winding down the three-decade search for the widely rumoured hidden wealth. Much to the chagrin of anti-Marcos forces, there are persistent speculations that Marcos Jr and Duterte’s daughter Sara Duterte could come together as candidates for president and vice-president in next year’s elections.

In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, accused the BBC of propagating subtle biases in connection with the 2016 Brexit referendum. He asserted that reference to “European Union”, which he said carried negative connotations for many voters who otherwise were positive about the term “Europe”. Critics are dissatisfied the way narratives are slanted in stories, when Chinese- and Russian-funded journalism becomes “disinformation” but contents influenced or instigated by Washington are branded “information”.

Let facts speak
In April, the US senate passed a bill “Strategic Competition Act”, which offered hundreds of millions of dollars for anti-China initiatives through the media. It includes $300 million allocated for disseminating information concentrating on the “negative impact” of BRI. Training programmes for journalists in countries participating BRI and enlarged funding for Radio Free Asia are among the activities proposed.

When Biden had a flour-hour meeting with Putin in Geneva in June, BBC spoke of Biden’s “calculated” agenda, as if the Russian president did not have any. The slant was clear. Putin, a much more experienced politician with 21 years in office, including a stint as prime minister, and public approval rating of more than 70 per cent for two decades, would not come to submit a “give up” to his American counterpart.

Then the same media speculated whether Biden would next meet Chinese president Xi. The tone was as if the Chinese president would be “granted” a meeting. Ground reality is that the American president simply cannot afford to ignore or rebuff the president of the world’s next No. 1 economy. Doing so would do more damage to the US interests than to China’s.
Of note is that two-time US President Barack Obama met with Myanmar’s junta-backed president twice. In fact, Biden’s immediate predecessor Donald Trump met with North Korean President Kim Jong-un twice during his four years at the White House. Trump accommodated to Kim’s fastidiousness about the venue selection. Now, Biden’s administration complains of Pyongyang not responding to Washington’s repeated signals for contacts with the North Korean ruler.
China’s CGTN and Russia’s RT are listed as state-funded whereas a US propaganda conduit like Radio Free Asia escapes such scanner. BBC World Service, too, is fully funded by the British government.

Remarks on a “hardliner conservative”, “rightwing”, extremist”, “conservative”, “fundamentalist” and “jingoist” need to be carefully studied before passing them to the news hole or broadcasting bulletin. Diplomatic positions taken by some powers are termed as being of “strategic national interest”. Smaller nations are not accorded such privilege, unless their own interests match with the powers that be.

Editors’ duties call for vigorous check on motivated, self-serving contents seeping in as news their news outlets and being taken for a free ride. When plagued by party press, journalism becomes a propaganda medium to navigate political passage for public support and positive engagement. Party press is the first cousin of propaganda. Cherry-picking of facts does discredit to journalism as a reliable, credible and all-embracing public platform without bias.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)