Sinning Against the ‘Sin’ Tax Bill

Unknown sources, unverified facts, opinion

In its own count and review of MBI’s “sin” tax articles, PJRR found that while Macasaet may have never approached BAT for a response, BAT executives were quoted in at least two of MBI’s  news reports.

“Our position is simple, we just want a chance to compete in the market. I don’t want any special treatment, I don’t want any special grants from the government. We simply want a level playing field, meaning my brand pays the same excise tax as another brand at the same price,” Lafferty was quoted as saying in MBI’s banner news report “BAT says Recto version levels playing field” published last Oct. 15, 2013. (http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/business/business-news/15228-bat-says-recto-version-levels-playing-field)

Those two news reports in which the BAT position was mentioned pale in comparison to at least 14 opinion articles MBI published from October to December 2012, the last quarter of the year that was the height of the “sin” tax debates. The articles attacked BAT directly with headlines such as “BAT is smuggling, researchers claim” and “Fighting Ourselves to Favor Foreigners”.

In an obviously opinion article, “BAT is smuggling, researchers claim” published last Nov. 26, 2012 by MBI, the writer quoted research supported by the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health that “the industry documents have primarily provided evidence of complicity in smuggling by BAT.” Oddly, the report was categorized in the MBI website as “Entertainment”. (http://www.malaya.com.ph/~malayaco/index.php/entertainment/160-news-flash/18483-bat-in-smuggling-researchers-claim)

At least six banner stories from the newspaper, presented as news during the last quarter of 2012, interspersed into supposedly factual reporting outright opinion to support calls for lower taxes on cigarettes.

On Oct. 18, 2012, MBI published a banner story headlined “Bias persists vs. tobacco”. The report supposedly provided “empirical data” that an unidentified source had collected from a government agency. The “empirical data” supposedly indicated that the government is increasingly biased against tobacco in favor of alcohol “in imposing a tax”. The writer presented the situation as an “anomaly” his unidentified source wanted to expose. (http://malaya.com.ph/index.php/business/business-news/15579-bias-persists-vs-tobacco)

“(MBI) pointed out what it calls the anomaly of one sin product paying less than half in taxes compared to… beer and distilled spirits,” said the report.

Instead of accurately reporting relevant facts to help shape informed opinion among its readers, the report was apparently persuading readers to believe that cigarettes are being unfairly taxed by using unidentified sources whose agendas are at best unclear.

The 647-word report concluded with only two short paragraphs of less than 60 words that presented the other side of the debate, saying Senator Franklin Drilon had taken over leadership of the committee concerned with the bill, and that finance secretary Cesar Purisima insisted that the higher tax on cigarettes would go to health care.

In subsequent reports, MBI used more unidentified sources to argue against higher taxes on cigarettes. MBI’s skewed coverage of the “sin” tax bill was first brought into PJRR’s attention last October 2012 with the banner report “$5M lobby vs tobacco”, published on Oct. 23, 2013. The newspaper reported that documents “obtained” by the newspaper  showed that over P200-million had been used to lobby against cigarettes and that unidentified “sources said they could very well mean bribes to powerful people.” (This article is also oddly categorized as “Entertainment” in MBI’s website.) (http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/entertainment/160-news-flash/15962-5m-lobby-vs-tobacco)