First Presidential Debate: Controversy Over Media ‘Discrimination’

 

THE FIRST presidential debate held last month in Cagayan de Oro City provoked a controversy, with one news organization alleging that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) restricted freedom of expression by assigning exclusive broadcasting and livestreaming rights to only two media companies.

Manila-based online news organization Rappler filed last February 19 a lawsuit against Comelec chairman Juan Andres Bautista demanding the nullification of two provisions of the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the elections body and nine media organizations–including Rappler–on the holding of the PiliPinas Debates 2016.

The MOA allows livestreaming by other media organizations of the event only after negotiations with a “lead network.” It also limits the use by other media organizations of excerpts from the debates; those longer than two minutes are allowed only with the consent of the lead network.

For the Mindanao leg of the debates, GMA-7 was designated as the lead network, while the Philippine Daily Inquirer was designated as GMA-7’s print media partner.The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), the broadcasters’ association, is coordinating the debate series.

Restrained?

In an article on its website, Rappler alleged that Comelec “restrained” its “free press rights” by granting “exclusive” broadcasting and livestreaming rights to GMA-7 and the Inquirer. It said “online news groups were excluded from the MOA in terms of coverage and live video streaming rights – a(n) MOA Rappler signed based on good faith assurances that access would be granted. “Rappler said “that didn’t happen.”

In an email to KBP last year, Rappler said it proposed some amendments to the first draft of the MOA that would ensure access by online media organizations to the live feed and to make the video copy of the debate part of the public domain.  Rappler said it had been assured by the KBP that its recommendations would be incorporated in the second draft of the MOA.It received the second draft of the MOA last January 12 and immediately had “concerns” with the provisions that supposedly limit the live broadcast and livestreaming of the debate to the lead networks and their respective websites.

However, the MOA does allow coverage by other media organizations, although subject to approval by the lead network. Rappler said it contacted GMA-7 to request “access to the debate livestream” but that its request was not granted.

Section 7.3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9006 or the Fair Elections Act provides that:

“The Comelec may require national television and radio networks to sponsor at least three (3) national debates among presidential candidates and at least one (1) national debate among vice presidential candidates. The debates among presidential candidates shall be scheduled on three (3) different calendar days: the first debate shall be scheduled within the first and second week of the campaign period; the second debate within the fifth and six week of the campaign period; and the third debate shall be scheduled within the tenth and eleventh week of the campaign period.

“The sponsoring television or radio network may sell airtime for commercials and advertisements to interested advertisers and sponsors. The Comelec shall promulgate rules and regulations for the holding of such debates.”

The Comelec is, therefore, not responsible for organizing the presidential debates and shouldering the expenses for these. Instead, “sponsorship” of the debates is a task given to media networks which those who signed the MOA have accepted.

MOA Terms

Taking exception to Rappler’s claims, James Jimenez, director of the Comelec’s education and information department, said in a letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer that under the terms of the MOA, “the debates may be shown on other websites but are subject to the consent of the lead networks that produced them.”

Thus, he said, “the matter of allowing other lead networks to livestream the debates is for the lead networks to resolve among themselves in accordance with the MOA. It is important to keep in mind that Rappler, as a lead network for the vice presidential debate on April 10, 2016, will also have the right to similarly limit the other lead networks’ access to their live feed of the event.”

Contrary to Jimenez’s reference to Rappler as a lead network for the vicepresidential debates, the MOA does not refer to Rappler in those terms. CNN Philippines is the lead network for the vice presidential debates in April. Rappler requested CNN Philippines to be its partner. Upon CNN Philippines’ approval of that request, Rappler asked the Comelec to amend the MOA by designating it as CNN’s partner. Rappler claims that the request was favorably received and subsequently signed the MOA on the assumption that its request for amendments would be granted.

Rappler erred in signing the MOA on the strength of a mere verbal assurance that it would have access to the debates without having to seek the approval of the lead network.  As a signatory to the MOA, Rappler was therefore bound by the conditions in it, which, among other provisions, grant the lead network priority livestreaming and broadcast rights.

Immediate Access

While an argument can be made that Rappler’s audience was deprived immediate access to the contents of event, the lead network and its media partners have their own online media presence which assured broad public access, and the vigorous critical exchange on social media was evidence that the digital public was sufficiently engaged.

Contrary to Rappler’s claim, there has been no violation of  “Rappler‘s constitutional right to equal protection.” It would be difficult to argue that Comelec’s action was a form of discrimination aimed at restraining Rappler’s free press rights.

Rappler did not say it but the bone of contention here is business interests.  Rappler’s livestreaming of the debates at the same time as GMA-7 would have generated considerable traffic to its website.  Its demand for same-time access to the media audience as the lead network is after all crucial to its credibility in the eyes of both its audience as well actual and potential advertisers.

The terms of the MOA provide arrangements that give interested media organizations, including Rappler,  a piece of the advertising pie, a mechanism to address the claims of competing news organizations operating for profit, based on its ability to draw an audience.

In the business of staging, producing and broadcasting political debates, television companies at this time still hold the distinct advantage.

To be sure, much can still be done to improve the conduct of the debate. For instance, the advertisements could be fewer to allow more time for the candidates to expound on their positions. The organizers also need to ensure access to and participation by as many local journalists as possible who cover the debate. The election body should also stipulate clearly that the lead network and the media partner should not discriminate against journalists from other media companies who cover the event, to the point of making it difficult for them to perform their duties. To prevent controversies like the one the Rappler suit created, the Comelec should perhaps consider involving the other commissioners in the decision-making process involving the debate.

Televised debates are crucial to elections and democracy. The Comelec and the media must find a way to balance the need to conduct these debates without the organizers incurring financial loss while at the same time ensuring that fundamental rights to free press and expression are not jeopardized.