One media giant is now under fire from the government for alleged violations of its legislative franchise to broadcast. And while the concerns of ABS-CBN are now headlines, it is not really unusual for media companies — or personalities — to be in the sights of politicians at one time or the other. After all, news media have significant influence on Philippine political dynamics.
News media plays a role, primarily, as that of a truth-seeker. That it aims to inform, perhaps even educate, media consumers also comes with its mission to report the truth — regardless of consequences. But even truth has many versions, at times equal to the number of viewpoints expressed. It is in this line that media always endeavor to seek all sides of a story, a scandal, or controversy.
Bias in reporting is not unusual, and cannot be denied nor ignored. People who gather and report the news cannot help but be influenced by their own personal biases and prejudices, while a media company can always be distracted by business concerns or market dictates. To survive, a media entity needs to be prosperous enough to pursue its mission of reporting.
But while one can be forgiven for biases, one must always be measured by a high standard of intellectual honesty. One must struggle to report the facts, and just facts, as they happened, as correctly and as honestly as possible. Commentary and opinion can be left to commentators and columnists, to the opinion section, and to editorials. News pages and news programs, however, must be considered sacred and reserved only for facts and news.
Over the years, I believe ABS-CBN has proved itself equal to this task. It had stood its ground on many occasions, reaping political whirlwinds as consequences of its reporting. But it had managed to live on. Martial rule silenced it for over a decade. However, as political winds changed in 1986, so did its fortunes.
Admittedly, the media giant is not without its politics, if not its political linkages. In a number of occasions, its news media personalities — after years of service with the network — had managed to launch successful political careers, notably Senator Loren Legarda and Vice-President Noli de Castro. Even the company’s beginnings and evolution were always tied to politics. It is thus perhaps unsurprising that even its continued survival now is again influenced by politics.
American James Lindernberg started the Bolinao Electronics Corporation in 1946 to do radio equipment assembly. By 1949, the company shifted to radio broadcasting, and by 1953, it was also into television broadcasting. But the latter wouldn’t have happened if Lindenberg, in 1951, did not partner with Antonio Quirino, brother of then-Philippine President Elpidio Quirino. It was for this reason that in 1952, Bolinao was renamed as Alto Broadcasting System or ABS, as “Alto” was a contraction of “Tony and Aleli,” the first names of Quirino and his wife. The TV station was also known as DZAQ-TV, from Quirino’s initials.
In 1956, Chronicle Broadcasting Network (CBN) was put up by Eugenio Lopez, Sr. to do radio broadcasts. At the time, Lopez’s brother, Fernando, was a senator. This was after Fernando served as Vice-President to Elpidio Quirino in 1949-1953. Fernando was reelected senator in 1959, and was later reelected vice-president to Ferdinand Marcos in 1965-1969.
By 1972, the ABS-CBN network owned and operated two television stations and seven radio stations in Manila, and 14 radio stations and three television stations in the provinces. However, having found itself on the side of the opposition to then president Ferdinand Marcos, and despite the political involvement of Fernando Lopez with Marcos in 1965-1969, the network was shut down with the declaration of Martial Law.
The basis for closure, in line with Presidential Proclamation 1081 on the declaration of Martial Law, were Letters of Instruction No. 1 and No. 1-A, series of 1972. LOI No. 1, addressed to both the Press Secretary and the Secretary of National Defense, was an order “to take over and control or cause the taking over and control of all such newspapers, magazines, radio and television facilities and all other media of communications, wherever they are, for the duration of the present national emergency, or until otherwise ordered by me or my duly designated representative.”
This was “in order to prevent the use of privately owned newspapers, magazines, radio and television facilities and all other media of communications, for propaganda purposes against the government and its duly constituted authorities or for any purpose that tends to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in our Government and aggravate the present national emergency.”
LOI No. 1 noted that this was “in view of the present national emergency which has been brought about by the activities of those who are actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to seize political and state power in the Philippines and to take over the Government by force and violence the extent of which has now assumed the proportion of an actual war against our people and their legitimate Government.”
More interesting, however, is LOI No. 1-A, which was addressed only to the Secretary of National Defense, to the exclusion of the Press Secretary. While LOI No. 1 ordered the Press and National Defense offices “to take over and control or cause the taking over and control of all such newspapers, magazines, radio and television facilities and all other media of communications,” LOI No. 1-A singled out only two out of several media entities for seizure of assets.
LOA No. 1-A ordered the Secretary of National defense to “sequester the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and the TV and Radio network and facilities owned and operated by the Associated Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] which include radio stations DZMT, DZTM and DZWS and sister radio stations in Davao City, Cebu City, Laoag City and Dagupan City, as well as Channel 5 and its sister TV stations in the cities of Davao and Cebu.”
This was considering that “the ABS-CBN network and the Associated Broadcasting Corporation [ABC], whose owners, principal officers and key personnel are engaged in subversive activities against the Government and its duly constituted authorities and are participants in a conspiracy to overthrow the Government, have, more than once and often, actively engaged in or otherwise wittingly allowed the use of its facilities and manpower in the broadcast and dissemination of subversive materials and of deliberately slanted and overly exaggerated news stories and commentaries as well as false, vile, foul and scurrilous statements and utterances, clearly well-conceived, intended and calculated to malign and discredit the duly constituted authorities, and thereby promote the agitational propaganda campaign, conspiratorial activities and illegal ends of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and had been used as indispensable instruments in the assassination attempt against the President of the Republic of the Philippines by maligning him, all of which activities are patently inimical to the security and interest of the State.”
Simply put, ABS-CBN and ABC and their owners were deemed by the Marcos government “subversives” that must be put down. It was, in my understanding, the first time that the government actually made an official or legal declaration of media entities as “enemies” of the state that must be neutralized, for acting in ways allegedly contrary to the interest of the republic.
Likewise interesting is that LOI No. 1-A, perhaps for the first time in Philippine political history, used the terms “sequester” and “sequestration,” which was defined by the Marcos order to mean “the seizure of private property or assets in the hands of any person or entity in order to prevent the utilization, transfer or conveyance of the same for purposes inimical to national security, or when necessary to protect the interest of the Government or any of its instrumentalities. It shall include the taking over and assumption of the management, control and operation of the private property or assets seized.”
After the 1986 EDSA Revolt, which ousted Marcos and which celebrated its 34th anniversary just a few days ago, the Lopez family regained control of the ABS-CBN network with the help of then president Corazon Aquino. I am uncertain as to how this was actually done, and whether a legal document exists to provide legal basis to counter LOI No. 1 and No. 1-A, for the return of ABS-CBN to the Lopezes. I recall our late publisher, Raul Locsin, actually having written about this in the late 1980s.
That politics had an influence on ABS-CBN may all have been coincidental, really, particularly during the years when the Quirinos and the Lopezes were active in politics. But it was obviously political when Marcos shut down and sequestered the network in 1972, and when it was returned to the Lopezes in 1986. In its long history since 1952, politics had always had some part in ABS-CBN’s life, outside the world of news reporting. And this will still be the case, I guess, in 2020 and beyond.
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippines Press Council.
matort@yahoo.com
