The Verdict

In the past 26 days that I have monitored the Inquirer, I came up with the following scores as to who their front page largely benefited:

Aquino: 15
Estrada: 2
Villanueva: 1
Teodoro: 1
Madrigal: 1
Delos Reyes: 1
Villar: 1
Perlas: 1
Gordon: 0

Reviewing the past 26 days, it is quite obvious to me that the Inquirer gave positive coverage to Aquino. In fact I have not even counted much those coverage that did not name Aquino but instead supported the message or propaganda from the LP camp. It is obvious who benefits from coverage focusing on cheating, on the evil of the Arroyo government, and on the evil of Villar. Well, we know that the coverage should have been instead on issues such as charter change, electoral amendments, economic issues, taxation, peace and order especially in Mindanao, etc.

In fact to me, the Inquirer has become more of the mouthpiece of the Aquino campaign. When there is something bad to say about Villar, it reaches the front pages and seems to have came from neutral sources (such as PSE non-news which the Inquirer has researched on its own, parallel to the supposed "expose" by Enrile). Meanwhile, when there is negative news about Aquino, it seems to have come directly from the NP which news is thus coming from a polluted source. While the front page is positive to Aquino, it is very much negative to Villar. And while the Inquirer front page gave Estrada neutral treatment when they should have not done so (because Estrada is a convicted plunderer), the paper generally ignored all the other candidates.

With mass media ignoring the real issues but instead participating in partisan politics, how can the people properly evaluate their leaders? Is there a chance we will see a good leader in the future if our mass media doesn't look for them but instead place their bets only on the winnable? Are we forever doomed to choosing only for the lesser evil rather than for the best choice in our elections?

Basing from the past, I have no doubt that in three years, Noynoy Aquino if he indeed becomes President, would become a favorite punching bag of the country's mass media. Her mother, even if she is now hailed as an icon of democracy was much maligned within even much less than six years of her term. Then, she is not an icon. She is a person who doesn't know anything (walang alam), is weak and cannot control her relatives (or Kamag-anak, Inc.). Since she doesn't have a First Gentleman, her brother Peping has become the personification of corruption. As a result of the influence of the mass media, I thought I was the only one left in 1992 to defend among my friends the Cory presidency.

Ramos is most corrupt in the he mass media in his time with the PEA Amari and Centennial Expo deals. It is also during his term that we are introduced by the media to the most expensive road which later became the Macapagal Avenue. When he pushed for conversion of our business taxes to VAT, I thought I was the only one supporting it, even if I did not vote for him as President. But from a most corrupt person, we can now realize that we have better peace and prosperity in his time as president.

While PGMA is the lesser evil in the elections of 2004, the mass media is able to project her as the most corrupt person that ever walked the country starting less than a year after. She is now described even as worse than Estrada and Marcos, perhaps even combined.

Surely, in 2013, Noynoy would be worse than his mother, true or not. He might even be proven "abnormal", true or not. Peping Cojuangco might re-emerge as benefiting from the Aquino presidency, true or not, while sister Kris might become the worst Diva, depending on how she plays the media, true or not.

And in 2016, we would all again vote for the winnable, the one that our mass media's elite would tell us is the best for us. That is, unless, there is a mass media entity that will tell it as it is. And I say soon.