Erasmus Mundus Masters Journalism, Media and Globalisation
Joint degree
What is the Real Score? The Role Perceptions of
Filipino Journalists in an Era of Misinformation
by
Hon Sophia S. Balod Student number: 11896574
Master’s Thesis Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor/Examiner: dhr. Michael Hameleers MSc
Abstract
This study aims to examine how journalists in the Philippines perceive their roles in response to misinformation. Specifically, this article aims to examine how journalists respond to misinformation and media criticism. In the current media landscape in the country, journalists find themselves in the spotlight as the media are accused of peddling misinformation. Drawing from data gathered through 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews with Filipino journalists, the findings suggest an expansion of journalistic roles from disseminator and watchdog duties to truth crusaders and advocates of social reforms. Secondly, journalists see the rise of
misinformation as both a challenge and opportunity for journalism to improve as a practice and as an institution. Lastly, journalists reflect a positive attitude on the future of journalism in the country and suggest solutions and ways to combat misinformation. Through the findings shown in this study, we reflect on the theoretical and practical implications of misinformation in journalism and in democracy in general.
Introduction
“The major new challenge in reporting news is the new shape of truth. For every fact there is a counterfact.” – Kevin Kelly, Wired Magazine (BBC, 2017)
While misinformation is not new in the field of communication, it has taken a new form in the digital era and created extra challenges for the media to face. With every like and share on social media, the spread of misinformation becomes a growing global democratic problem. Misinformation, in simple terms, is information that is “not supported by clear evidence and expert opinion” (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010, p. 305). Misinformation poses a threat to democracy as it creates misperceptions that can lead to problematic decision-making especially among the electorate. Indeed, to maintain a functioning democracy, the media must cultivate a well-informed public (Kuklinski, Quirk, Jerit, Schwieder & Rich, 2000). While misinformation and terms like “fake news” or “falsehoods presented as real news” (American Dialect Society, 2018, n.d.) gained popularity during US President Donald Trump’s administration, the Philippines offers an equally interesting case on how misinformation can be used to steer public opinion and manipulate media attention. The active online population in the Philippines makes it a vulnerable target for ‘troll armies’ or ‘keyboard warriors’ who are notorious for their reputation of sharing false information to silence dissenting opinions (Ong & Cabanes, 2018). The use of falsehoods to deliberately champion a certain ideology is a subtype of “fake news” called disinformation (Giglietto, Iannelli, Rossi & Valeriani, 2016). This type of propaganda includes inaccurate information and inflammatory opinions that can lead to confusion, distrust, or paranoia among the public (Jackson, 2017).
The spread of misinformation and disinformation can especially be dangerous for democracy as it undermines any authentic and healthy political discussion. In the case of the Philippines, this has become a growing problem as multiple fake accounts are used to
‘‘weaponize the Internet” (Ressa, 2016; Etter, 2017) in order to push for propaganda or steer public opinion. Even government officials and government departments were caught multiple times spreading inaccurate information (Elemia, 2017; Elemia, 2018). Individual journalists and media companies are also vulnerable to misinformation. as they face raps of peddling
misinformation themselves (Rappler,2018). Against this media and political landscape, this study aims to answer the following question: RQ: How do journalists perceive their roles in response to misinformation?
Despite a growing body of research on misinformation and the roles of journalists in society, there is a lack of literature addressing how these two concepts are intertwined. Also missing in the available literature is how journalists see their own responsibilities, obligations, and challenges in the midst of this development. By asking journalists about their individual role perceptions, we may understand how journalists appropriate their roles, duties, and actions amid misinformation. These role perceptions may help us understand why journalists do the work they do in response to misinformation, and how these actions can impact the current and future prospects of journalism. This study is especially crucial today as democracy is threatened by a public vulnerable to misinformation. This study can be a rich addition to the existing body of literature in two ways. First, understanding the role perceptions of journalists can enlighten us on how the media function today. Previous bodies of literature have highlighted the importance of mapping out journalistic role conceptions because of their impact on the news outputs. This
includes influences on what is deemed by journalists as newsworthy or how the story will be developed for public’s consumption (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).
In this age where news consumption patterns change, journalists are at a crossroads trying to uphold traditional roles and perform according to the new needs and demands of the public (Tandoc, 2014). In this changing media landscape where misinformation is produced and disseminated alongside information, it is only fitting to assess whether such journalistic roles have changed over time. Secondly, the phenomenal spread of misinformation and post-factual relativism pose a challenge to the authority of journalism, a tradition of practice and profession of seeking the truth (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007). Ultimately, journalism is a practice that helps citizens build their knowledge in order to meaningfully participate in the public arena (Borden, 2007). This research also aims to understand how journalists react against media criticisms and perceived threats on their authority as news providers.
By employing qualitative interviews among 16 Filipino journalists, this study aims to explore their role perceptions through an in-depth discussion on how they respond to
misinformation. This research aims to understand these roles by exploring the journalist’s attitudes and personal experience in response to misinformation. This study also provides great insight on the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age as well as personal reflections on journalism as a profession.
Theoretical Framework
The Challenge of Misinformation in Today’s Media Environment
To understand how journalists respond to misinformation, we first of all must understand what journalists are dealing with. Why does the spread of misinformation matter to the media? The fast-pace nature of the digital media environment, as well as the lack of gatekeepers online,
create a healthy host for misinformation to flourish (Ennals, Byler, Agosta & Rosario, 2010; Shin, Jian, Driscoll & Bar, 2018). Several studies have already been published defining misinformation and “fake news” across several media landscapes (Baym, 2005; Giglietto, Iannelli, Rossi & Valeriani, 2016; Tambini, 2017; Tandoc, Lim & Ling, 2017). Studies focusing on the effect of misinformation on audiences, corrective measures against misinformation (Bode & Vraga, 2015; Nyhan & Reifler, 2010) as well as the cognitive process and factors that make it easier to spread (Nyhan &Reifler, 2010; Shin, Jian, Driscoll & Bar, 2018; Weeks, 2015) have also been explored. With a wide range of options for information sources and media content, combined with social media platforms for tailored news consumption, alternative realities are born (Lewandowsky, Ecker & Cook, 2017). Misinformation is further strengthened through repetition and continuous transfer (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007), hence, diffusion can even be faster on social media where it can be published multiple times by multiple outlets in just one click (Shin, Jian, Driscoll & Bar, 2018).
The challenge does not stop in its virality and diffusion, misinformation gets even more difficult to debunk as the information is repeated and its believability is strengthened (Silva, Garcia-Marques & Reber, 2017). There is also no guarantee that misinformation’s life cycle will cease to exist once it is debunked as proven in the study of Shin et al. (2018) where ‘rumor entrepreneurs’ give life back to debunked false claims. Various studies also found that misinformation can be reinforced through motivated reasoning and polarized debates and discussions (Taber & Lodge, 2006) or remain online unchallenged for a long period of time (Kata, 2010). In line with this, van Aelst et al. (2017) argued that society has reached a point in society where factual information is becoming a subject for public debate and are even reduced to mere claims or opinions.
Drawing from the current literature on misinformation, we can deduce that
misinformation indeed poses a challenge to journalism as it goes against the basic roles of fact-checking, truth-telling, and verification procedures of the profession. Given its wide reach, replicability, and potential for virality, misinformation directly rivals the information released by the media, thus posing a threat to the work of journalists. Overall, these challenges of
misinformation may have adverse effects and implications to the duties and responsibilities of journalists, and ultimately, to their roles as media practitioners. Against the current media environment, this study aims to examine how journalists perceive their roles under such circumstance.
Journalistic Role Perceptions in the Face of Misinformation
Multiple studies dating back to 1963 have tried to understand journalistic
role conceptions and how individual, organizational, or societal factors influence these roles (Cohen, 1963). Understanding these role perceptions is important because they “determine what the communicator thinks is worth transmitting to his or her audience and how the story should be developed” (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996, p. 103). Thus, role perceptions can influence their preference of reporting (Culbertson, 1983), and operationalization of the objectivity norm (Skovsgaard et al., 2011) or content (Scholl & Weischenber, 1998). Because the roles of journalists vary across cultures and political landscapes, it is difficult to define what a journalistic role is. The roles may change according to the type of democracy in which the journalist functions (Strömbäck, 2005) or to individual, organizational and societal influences (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). Indeed, some authors argue that role perceptions are largely dependent on the country’s “journalism’s majority culture” (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996, p. 138). For example, in a libertarian paradigm and liberal democracy such as the Philippine media,
journalists function as vigilant watchdogs monitoring use or abuse of power in behalf of the citizens (Strömbäck, 2005) through objective, factual, and accurate reporting (Oster, 2013; Tuchman, 1972).
With the current media environment feeding on a culture of post-truth and falsehoods, studying a journalist’s role in the society has never been more salient. Journalists may choose to lead an active or passive battle against misinformation depending on how they perceive their roles in today. I therefore argue that the personal perception of roles amid misinformation directly affects the kind output journalists deliver to the public. In earlier studies of journalistic roles, the roles ranged from the simplest dichotomy of ‘neutral’ versus ‘participant’ role
(Johnstone, Slawski & Bowman, 1976) where the journalist acts as a detached observer and recorder of events or as a more active interpreter of meanings in daily events. A decade later, these roles expanded into further categories. A typology on journalistic roles was mapped out by Weaver and Wilhoit in 1991, and further studied and validated by Cassidy in 2005. In these studies professional roles of journalists are classified as (1) disseminator, (2) interpretive, (3) adversarial and (4) populist mobilizer (Cassidy, 2005). The disseminator role is mostly
concerned in getting the information out there as swiftly as possible while the adversarial role is characterized by constant skepticism against people or institutions of power (Cassidy, 2005). The adversarial role is closely linked to the “watchdog role” in which journalists question and
criticize politicians for their actions (Strömbäck, 2005). Lastly, the populist mobilizer is
concerned in assembling the public to develop their views, interests, or political agenda (Cassidy, 2005). Such typology of roles has its own pitfalls and weaknesses. For example, in the
disseminator role where the practice of neutrality is often linked to objectivity, journalists must be unbiased at all costs, often restricting them to pass judgment on certain issues. The paradigm
of objectivity has long been challenged by many scholars as they argue that there can never be absolute objectivity in reporting and news judgment (Glasser, 1984; Tuchman, 1972). For active roles such as the practice of interpretive, adversarial, or populist mobilization journalism,
journalists help construct meanings, analyze, and interpret daily life events accordingly. While the practice of interpretive journalism can help shed light on the Why’s of an issue rather than the aspects of the Who, What, Where and When (Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011, p.149), one major critique for interpretive journalism is that a journalist’s judgment can cloud or overpower the salience of the facts (Patterson, 1996; Steel & Barnhurst, 1996). Moreover, in some contexts, interpretive journalism contributes to the rise of cynicism and negative tones which also lead to less focus on issues at hand and more emphasis on analysis interpretations (Patterson, 1996; Semetko & Schoenbach, 2003).
The typology of roles mapped out by Weaver and Wilhoit (1991) and Cassidy (2005) gives an overview of some of the roles that journalists fulfill. However, these roles should not be viewed as separate entities, but should rather be seen as fluid and changing. There are roles that may overlap each other while some can be combined to fulfill a function. In addressing
misinformation, journalists may choose to take on one or more roles in order to fulfill his or her perceived role. In the case of the Philippines where misinformation threatens the democracy by undermining political discussions as well as journalistic authority, journalists may assume a new role or take on a more active role towards challenging misinformation in the public arena. Based on the conceptualization of misinformation and role perceptions, the first sub-question (RQ1) for this research is: How do journalists respond to misinformation?
The Blame Game: The Media as ‘Peddlers of Misinformation’
In the Philippines, journalists battle against the erosion of public and government trust, often leading to accusations of peddling “fake news” or misinformation. This is reflected in the wide array of criticisms thrown at the media by the public, the government, and paid trolls (Alindogan, 2018; Johnson, 2018). Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte himself have accused legacy media or being “fake news outlets” (Rappler, 2018). Whether these criticisms are warranted or are mere products of propaganda or trolling, they have become growing concerns for the media. Today, various communication strategies are employed in the newsrooms as well as by individual journalists in handling media criticisms. Studying how journalists respond to media criticism can be useful in understanding the roles they assume when these accusations threaten their authority.
Research on media criticism is strongly linked to notions of journalistic authority, media accountability, and paradigm repair. One scholar defined media criticism as “criticism in a broad sense relating to media structure, conduct, performance, content, role and influence, formulated by individuals as well as civil society organizations, corporations and governments” (von Krogh, 2012, p. 15). Media criticism can further be categorized according to purpose: (1) contribution to media performance, (2) service to a certain stakeholder’s interest or (3) cultural/philosophical in which criticism is anchored on a broader societal change (von Krogh & Svensson, 2017). In response to media criticism, a journalist often employs media accountability measures such as transparency or responsiveness. Crisis communication strategies (Coombs, 2006; Groenhart & Bardoel, 2011) and paradigm repair theories (Berkowitz, 2000; Steiner, Guo, McCaffrey & Hills, 2013) can help shed light on the response of media against criticism. Communication strategies may range from denial of blame or criticism (attack of accuser, rejection and refutation) while other strategies cater to accountability and responsibility in varying degrees (confession/apology,
alteration, excuse/evasion, justification and mitigation) (Coombs, 2006; Groenhart & Bardoel, 2011).
While some of these strategies are carried out in newsrooms today, I argue that these are implemented on a case to case basis depending on the culture, context, and significance of the criticism. These actions also promote choices that leave little room for discussion and
compromise. Indeed, a study by von Krogh and Svensson (2017) added that discussion can be a useful response strategy in itself as it gives room for accommodation of arguments from both critics and criticized while adding transparency to the news organization.
In the Philippines where journalists battle against accusations of peddling
misinformation, journalists must engage in specific communication strategies in order to protect their credibility and protect their relationship with the public. According to literature, in cases when media credibility is attacked, journalists engage in a paradigm repair strategy in order restore their image and reputation (Berkowitz, 2000). In initial studies of paradigm repair, journalists restore their authority by focusing on a particular threat, isolating it as an anomalous or deviant occurence, then reacting to public criticism (Lance, Gressett & Haltom, 1985; Reese, 1990). The practice of paradigm repair also reinforces the concept of an interpretive community in which journalists belong to a community that is governed by certain practices, standards and ethics (Zelizer, 1993) and also outlines “boundaries of the community along the way”
(Berkowitz, 2000, p. 127). Later studies on paradigm repair focus on a ‘second-order paradigm’ where criticisms are generalized and assessed by the media community according to its
significance to the profession (Carlson, 2012). Against this backdrop of media strategies addressing criticism, the final sub-question (RQ2) for this study is: How do journalists respond to being called peddlers of misinformation?
Methods
Design Data Collection
This study was based on 16 semi-structured interviews (see Appendix 2 for interview guide) which were later analyzed with grounded analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Saldaña, 2011). Using this method, I explored the research questions based on the interviewee’s personal and professional history as well as his or her perspective and worldview (Saldaña, 2011). This technique was also useful in determining themes that are personally important for the
interviewees and allowed room for these topics to be explored further by asking specific
questions or follow-ups (David & Sutton, 2011). This method also allowed for documenting the interviewee’s personal opinions, professional experiences, self-reflections, values and attitudes toward a certain subject (Boudana, 2010; Saldaña, 2011). Since this study is based on perception of roles which is highly personal, the interview method can best tackle the problem by
“addressing the journalists themselves” (Boudana, 2010, p. 294). Studies about journalists and misinformation are alsofairly limited, thus, the exploratory approach can be a good starting point in forming a solid foundation for future studies. Through a series of inductive coding cycles, I came up with themes and categories relevant for my study. The resulting concepts were analyzed and grouped for similarities or differences (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
Sampling
Using purposive and snowball sampling (Marshall, 1996), I have conducted a total of 16 semi-structured interviews via Skype and Facebook Video Chat. The duration of each interview ranged from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes long depending on how the interviewee responded to each question in detail (see Appendix 1 for list of interviewees). I selected the
interviewees based on my initial contacts list and asked for referrals as the data collection progressed. This strategy was used in order to maximize the assortment of opinions and perspectives from journalists working in TV, newspapers and/or news websites. To ensure variety of opinions and professional experiences, I interviewed journalists holding different positions such as program managers, editors, producers, reporters, and columnists. Each position has a unique role in the journalistic field and provided rich discussion on how misinformation consequently affects their roles. Since the topic of this study is also largely based on the spread of misinformation in the digital age, I also purposefully selected young and old journalists with varying years of experience in dealing with misinformation. I have chosen journalists working in the news because they usually encounter misinformation in their day to day coverage. They are also likely to be the subject of attacks from the readers, trolls, and even the government for their reporting. I have also chosen television and online media for my sample for the following reasons: first, television remains to be the most dominant form of media in the Philippines (Kantar Media, 2017) and can therefore be powerful in influencing the public about the role of media on misinformation. I have also chosen newspaper and/or their online media counterparts because online journalists usually encounter misinformation going viral on social media (Ennals et al., 2010; Lewandowsky, Ecker & Cook, 2017). Online news outlets are also usually the subjects of attacks of being called “fake news” outlets.
The total number of journalists interviewed was determined until saturation of content is reached. This means that the data collection has reached a point where no same theme or
elements are rising or recurring from the interviews. This is in line with grounded theory where “representativeness of concepts, not of persons, is crucial” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 9) which I will discuss further in the next section.
Data Analysis
All interviews in the local language were translated and transcribed for manual coding. Following the grounded theory, the coding process was subjected to open coding, axial coding, and selective coding as suggested by Corbin and Strauss (1990). The first process of open coding formed the ground or basis for the first set of themes and categories. This allowed for a more open-minded interpretation of the data. Next, I looked for recurring and prominent themes and created a codebook which I used to code the data. The codebook was used as basis for creating categories which will be part of the next phase: axial coding. Similarities and differences of concepts were assessed into specific themes or categories. These overarching concepts are
categorized into four major themes: Roles, Challenges, Opportunities, and Solutions. Using these central themes as guide, I then clustered similar data belonging under these categories to create new sub-codes. If a code does not fit into a certain category or theme, then it becomes a new code. I continued with the same process of analysis until no new codes were generated from the raw data. The purpose of exhausting codes builds for a stronger validation of the study (Saldaña, 2011). For a clearer and simpler representation of the major themes and sub-codes, I created a conceptual map (See Results) to guide the readers in the process of data analysis and formulation of Results. Lastly, I analyzed the results by linking it back with the theories and research
questions.
Results
I. Role Perceptions of Journalists in the Age of Information A. Primary Roles: The Disseminator and the Watchdog
Basing on traditional practice of objective news reporting, many basic primary roles are cited by journalists as important duties today. These roles include dissemination of factual and
accurate information, monitoring people in power, and contributions to social reforms. Journalists who have cited these primary roles have added that these roles are products of a longstanding journalistic practice and historical relevance of journalism in upholding democracy. Philippine journalism, examined through history books, is a result of anti-colonization
movements and battles against dictatorship. These values are cited at the forefront of Philippine media as journalists struggled against government’s imposed control of the press. “It is a battle that journalists must once again face today,” Journalist 16, a columnist says.
While the roles mentioned earlier were the most prominent ones cited during the interviews, many journalists also believe that these roles are fluid and changing through the years. “We started as town criers but journalists have become part of the liberation movement and it has since continually evolved,” Journalist 14, a senior editor says. “The media should not just be a mouthpiece, nor used for PR,” Journalist 15 says. While many journalists claim that the basic primary roles and duties of the profession have not changed and are still true today, these roles have expanded in light of the spread of misinformation, particularly on social media. Some roles have also become more prominent in the current media and political atmosphere.
B. Expanded Roles: The Truth Crusader and Fact-Checker Bias for the Truth
In light of the current threat of misinformation and the hostile attitude of the government and some audience against the media, all journalists interviewed agree that their roles have indeed changed and/or expanded. All journalists have also acknowledged that journalism can never be fully stripped of biases and preconceived notion in terms of prioritization of stories, priming, and agenda-setting, thus making objectivity and neutrality outdated values in journalism today. Their actions inside and outside of the newsroom are direct consequences of their own perceptions.
“No journalist has no bias. What we can only do is to be fair,” Journalist 8, a program manager for a newscast says. For some journalists interviewed, gone were the days of traditional objective reporting. Some journalists lean more towards advocacy journalism in which journalists take an active role in becoming agents of change. “News should be truthful, not neutral. Journalists should be biased for the truth. There are stories that we, as journalists, should push forward, like stories about inequality or human rights violations,” Journalist 15, a news reporter, says. Many journalists interviewed believe that the situation today calls for more courage and initiative from journalists to break through traditional roles and perform a moral duty to give voice to the marginalized sector. Advocacy and social reform have become prominent themes during the interviews as journalists see how crucial their role is in weaving the narrative perceived by the public. “In the age of misinformation, the role of a journalist is to give context and make sense of what is happening,” Journalist 5 says. Another journalist (14) says, “The biggest misconception in journalism is that we should be detached recorders of news. But if you detach yourself, the tendency is you tend to be the defender of the status quo, wittingly or unwittingly.”
Fact-checking and Debunking Falsehoods
The vast sea of information available today, combined with the challenge of sifting through a plethora of data, has made the job more difficult to many journalists. While all journalists acknowledge that these are all parts f the job, the stakes are higher and the consequences are bigger this time. Journalist 4, a TV reporter says “It has become more difficult to verify now. You don’t know who to trust and if your sources are telling the truth.” The uncertainty of the veracity of information journalists get, even when they come from supposedly reliable or official sources like the government, should still undergo scrutiny. Because of the hectic schedule of reporters and the high demands of daily news coverage, many newsrooms see fact-checking and
verification as job that requires extra attention. This has led to the installment of independent fact-checkers in the newsroom working alongside writers and producers. Three journalists who work for large newsrooms have an independent vetting process for information. Some
journalists, however, do not have this luxury and must do all the fact-checking on their own. Thus fact-checking and verification can become a tedious duty for many reporters. “It takes away time that you should be using to pursue other important stories,” Journalist 1 says.
Another role that has become more prominent today is the corrective function of the media. Debunking falsehoods has become part of the expanded role that journalists perform today. These tasks include combating misinformation by calling out lies or inconsistencies. Even as all journalists acknowledge misinformation as a threat to democracy, some consider this role of debunking falsehoods as a civic duty than an added journalistic role for them. “Journalists play a vital role in maintaining a healthy democracy and it is our duty to ensure that people can make judgment using the right information,” Journalist 15 says. Moreover, according to Journalist 6, if journalists do not correct misinformation, then they also become a complicit in spreading false information which in turn contributes to the legitimization of “fake news.” Correcting
misinformation is particularly crucial when government officials are the source of wrong information as they can be taken as “gospel truth” by the public and can lead to dangerous consequences, Journalist 6 explains. This corrective role of the media against misinformation has become so salient that some journalists admit that debunking fake news can be a consideration for judging the news value of a story. For example, Journalist 13 cites a show launched by a legacy media called ‘Fact or Fake” which is a show only focused on debunking fake news stories. Journalist 8, a TV program manager, also says he makes it a conscious effort to correct fake news on air every chance he gets.
II. Challenges in Dealing with Misinformation in the Face of Changing Media Landscape
With the influx of information and the threat of misinformation, all journalists interviewed agree that being a journalist can be a challenging profession today. Since the phenomenon of misinformation broke out and increased on social media, some journalists claim increasing problems and challenges faced by the media, both on personal and organizational levels.
A. Personal Challenges
As mentioned in the previous section, since journalists take on the role of a more rigorous fact-checking on top of their daily routines, some journalists find it overwhelming. Being
swamped with loads of misinformation to verify, some journalists opt to delay or even eliminate certain information from the stories they publish or air. For these journalists, it is better to get rid of a contestable data than publish it and risk criticism. However, some choose to publish at their own cost. “We simply do not have the luxury of time to check. Sometimes accuracy is
compromised,” Journalist 3, an executive producer, says. Many journalists interviewed also express fear of being vilified on social media for any error in their reporting. “One error and you can be accused of producing ‘fake news.’” Journalist 8 says.
Journalist 3 has experienced being in the wrong spotlight after releasing a news documentary on the war on drugs. After airing the show, he was attacked by trolls and supporters of President Duterte for investigating policemen who were accused of extrajudicial killings. “We were accused of airing ‘fake news.’ I received death threats saying we will be part of the next death toll,” he says. Journalist 16, known for his critical reports, also received death threats not only for himself but also for his family. “They send pictures of my parents threatening they will be the next target,’” he says.
All journalists interviewed express a personal and emotional effect when they, or the
company they work in, are being accused of producing misinformation. “It is personal because it is our job on the line. This is our means of living. It is enraging,” Journalist 5 says. While not all comments and accusations are addressed personally by these journalists, they check the value of these accusations. Did the journalists actually commit mistake? If the accusation is purely made on the grounds of propaganda, or is made by trolls or bots, then a journalist’s usual response is to ignore the comment or block the user. Some journalists also go through personal efforts to address misinformation on their own capacity such as being vocal on social media pages, or even engaging in media literacy campaigns on their own volition in order to educate the public about misinformation.
As these accusations can also take the form of personal death threats, rape threats, or threats on the safety of their family or friends, many journalists feel a chilling effect on their work. “There is something in the air that makes you fearful,” Journalist 9 says. Some journalists
express doubting their editorial judgment leading to reports that are less critical. Some journalists even report of having to release reports favorable to the government because of threats made by the government against media owners. “I think scripts now have less spunk. Personally, I second-guess myself when writing,” Journalist 8 says. Journalist 12 says she chose to stay away from controversial and toxic issues. “I have become more conscious about negative reactions and how the mob will react. I censor myself and consider if I should soften the tone,” she says. These personal impacts, some journalists report, are just a part of a bigger challenge which the media organization faces.
B. Organizational Challenges
“The media is (sic) in a state of shock. We don’t know how to respond with what the current climate demands,” Journalist 8 says. Older and more experienced journalists also see the spread of misinformation in the digital environment as a phenomenon that is unique to journalism today as there is no formulaic solution to solve this problem yet. One of the biggest challenges that the media have to face today is the erosion of public trust. “What is the purpose of journalism if nobody reads any of our reports?” Journalist 1 asks. Journalists have noted that there is a continuing battle between misinformation and the media in a fight for credibility and authority. Some journalists claim that there is political machinery behind the ‘troll farms.’ “Misinformation is a deliberate effort of people with vested interest. It’s a well-oiled and well-funded machinery,” Journalist 14, a senior news editor says.
One online journalist (13) says some people are using the brand of the media company in order to spread misinformation. “Some websites are pretending to be a news website and using our logo to publish false information,” he says. In this battle, however, the most affected are the media owners, some journalists say. Accusation of peddling misinformation and the hostility of some audience and the government against the media contribute to self-censorship which affects the profession on an organizational level. Some journalists also claim that media owners are trying to steer clear from criticism and engage in self-preservation by staying quiet from
controversial stories or issues such as press freedom or government criticism in order to protect the business and advertising interests of the company. “Impact of the stories is lessened. You are not able to deliver the best and sharpest angles,” Journalist 9 says. After receiving a death threat and a possible boycott from various pro-Duterte groups, Journalist 3 says he refrained from doing critical reports against the government for some time. “We are still driven by ratings. You
have to understand that those who support Duterte and those who are critical of the media are your audience too,” Journalist 3 says. Some journalists have also experienced subtle warnings from the management to water down some controversial issues or change the language or tone of the report in order not to arouse possible criticism. Because of the danger of being called biased, unfair, or misinformed, some journalists fall into the “he said, she said” routine in order to provide the most balanced reporting. Some journalists (7, 12, 15) say they resent this practice as parties involved tend to just issue statement after statement of responses. The media then become an outlet where statements are issued. In the larger context of response to misinformation, some journalists consider their work as a mere reactionary role on misinformation and claim there is no active resistance to the overall spread of misinformation. Some journalists also partly blame the media themselves for the spread of misinformation.
The deliberate attacks of the government against the media like tagging certain news outlets of being “fake news” outlets or threatening critical media organizations of closure are considered by most journalists as threats to press freedom. However, media owners are careful not to brand these attacks as curtailment of press freedom because of the possible effect they may have on their own media businesses. “We don’t want to be tagged as “fake news” outlets’ because our platform is all we have. If we lose our credibility, it will be worse,’ Journalist 7, an executive producer for a news show says. Individual journalists express their frustration of not being able to voice their own opinions about the issue. Some journalists are banned from posting about their opinions on their own social media pages. The conflict between the personal stances of the journalists versus their role in the media is evident in their responses. “Personally I think this is an upfront attack against press freedom but we can not voice our stand in the public,” Journalist 6 says.
III. Opportunities Amid Misinformation Wake-up call
While dealing with misinformation and media criticism can be a daunting task for many journalists, they also recognize some upsides in working in this kind of environment. First, being vulnerable to attacks and critique contributes to an increased sense of accountability and self-awareness in fulfilling their roles as journalists. The spread of misinformation has created a unique opportunity for journalists to assess themselves as media practitioners. Misinformation, according to most journalists interviewed, encourages them to be more fair, judicious, and careful in verifying information they release to the public. Accuracy and fairness are values that are prioritized in any story. The rise of misinformation also paves way for the increase in investigative, long-form narrative stories. “We have the opportunity to shine as journalists and give the public more than information. We can weave stories, provide context and timelines, and understand trends.” Journalist 8 says. Some also try to experiment with new formats of shows or presentation of data to make the audience understand the stories better. Some journalists also consider these criticisms made by the government or the public as a humbling experience because of the demands on accountability from journalism. Journalists realize that they, too, are admittedly prone to committing mistakes.
Understanding the Audience Better
Because of the sea of information available both in traditional media and social media, many journalists also recognize a shift in the news consumption pattern among the public. Journalists say that there is an increased interest in politics and the work of the media. “Today, the public is not apathetic anymore. People are now media savvy,” Journalist 1 explains. The increased attention of the public in the media also opens a lot of opportunity for the public to register their
grievances and complaints against media work. The media, as an institution, has become more vulnerable to attacks and criticisms. Some journalists see this as an opportunity to understand their audience much better and formulate ways on how to mend the disconnection between the public and the media.
Solidarity for Press Freedom
Journalists also express solidarity in defending the profession against attacks on press freedom. Some journalists think that the government’s accusations against the media for publishing “fake news” is a strategy used to undermine the media’s credibility or silence dissenting opinions against the government. Online and verbal harassments against journalists have encouraged journalists to talk about the plights of the profession openly. “The Philippine press is independent because the Filipino journalists insist of being independent,” Journalist 14 says.
IV. Solutions and the Future of Journalism
Another interesting finding in this study is that almost all journalists interviewed seem to have a positive prospect on the future of Philippine journalism. In light of the current media and political sphere, all journalists see their job as crucial in preserving the nation’s democracy and freedom of expression. As discussed in the previous sections, accusations of misinformation both from the government and the public can contribute to a chilling effect. In line with this, three journalists have expressed possibilities of reforming media systems and exploring new business models in order to lessen impact of corporate or owner interests in journalism today. “Maybe journalists should think about alternative media structures where journalists are beholden not by the owner but only by the tenets of journalism,” Journalist 14 says.
Concrete steps are also currently being taken in various media organizations such as media literacy and media education efforts. Individual efforts such as talking in academic forums, speaking among colleagues, or posting opinions on their personal social media platforms are also seen as solutions contributing to media literacy. Journalists believe that by educating the public about how the media work, the public can be more emphatic on the plight of the media today. In terms of responding to misinformation and criticisms of peddling misinformation, most
journalists think that the best way to tackle these issues is just to do what they do the best way they can. “If I do a good job as a journalist, people will appreciate me and people will realize that I am just doing my job,” Journalist 12 says. Moreover, most journalists also see this as an
opportunity to repair the eroded public trust in the media. By understanding the concerns of the public, the media can direct their efforts and coverage on issues that are of importance to them. Most journalists also think that the media should be more vigilant, critical, and fearless in their reporting. “Start by asking who is behind this? The role of media should be to find out who is funding the trolls, who is spreading misinformation,” Journalist 16 says.
Resistance to threats against press freedom is also well underway. The watchdog function and constant vigilance prevail in the current media environment. Many journalists see the current situation as a turning point in the Philippine media history and they personally feel the
responsibility to contribute to the future of journalism in the Philippines. These reflections are seen as opportunities to solve the current environment of misinformation. “Thirty years from now, I ask myself, what role did I play during such a critical phase in our history? I always believe that the best of journalism comes out when journalists choose to be brave in a time when courage is needed,” Journalist 16 says.
CONCEPTUAL MAP OF ROLE PERCEPTIONS IN RESPONSE TO MISINFORMATION
Lack of active resistance against misinformation Emotional Toll and
Frustration Overload of Tasks Chilling effect / Self-censorship Understanding the public and audience more Upholding the highest standards of journalism values Collaboration with social media giants in fighting
misinformation Alternative journalism models Media Literacy and Education Solidarity among journalists amid criticisms Rise of long-form investigative pieces and experimental pieces to engage audience Increased public awareness of media work More attention to accuracy and fairness Addressing of public grievances and media criticism Increased sense of accountability and self-awareness in reporting Corporate/Ratings interests
Erosion of Public Trust Organizational
Media in a state of frenzy and shock He said/she said journalism Personal Threats,
Harassment Personal
Roles Challenges Solutions
More rigorous fact-checking Expanded Debunking of Misinformation Agents of Social Reform Advocacy Role Primary Adversarial Role Watchdog Role Opportunities Dissemination of Factual Information
Discussion
The Philippine media are currently undergoing an important transition in history where journalism is challenged by changing news consumption patterns, technology, and criticisms that threaten its authority. In the center of the battle is misinformation or falsehoods that could
potentially be used as measures for propaganda (Jackson, 2017). In this media environment, the thesis aims to provide in-depth analysis on the role perceptions of Filipino journalists in response to misinformation. Amid the threat of misinformation, journalists revert to the primary roles of journalism such as basic dissemination of accurate information and checks and balances of the institutions in power. These roles align with the definition of Strömbäck (2005) in defining roles of journalists as watchdogs in a libertarian and liberal democracy. These primary roles cited by the journalists also correspond with earlier studies of the media’s ‘participant’ role (Johnstone, Slawski & Bowman, 1976) and in later studies of typology of roles by Cassidy (2005) which classifies journalist’s roles into four main categories: (1) disseminator, (2) interpretive, (3) adversarial and (4) populist mobilizer.
However, in response to misinformation, such roles are further expanded into much more specific and demanding duties. Journalists argue that the current environment of misinformation calls for a much more active participation of the media in the societal affairs as well as more attention to the quality of facts disseminated in the public. The watchdog role is further
highlighted where in journalists take actions and step in the role to champion certain ideologies such as the campaign against “fake news” and propaganda. This particular role perception is more in line with the interpretive and advocacy roles of journalism where journalists fight a certain cause and focus on the ‘why’ question (Patterson, 1996; Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011). The rise of misinformation also paves way to an emerging role that has become central to the daily
duties of journalists: debunking and correcting misinformation. In becoming truth crusaders, journalists have taken the role to stop the spread of misinformation by calling out lies or inconsistencies even from sources like the government. However, as journalists take a highly active and interpretive role in their work, rejecting notions of objectivity in the process, this can also be potentially problematic. In studies of interpretive journalism, there is a risk of a rise in cynicism and negative tones as well as editorial bias or a possible cloud in judgment (Patterson, 1996).
The first part of the thesis addresses the question on how journalists respond to
misinformation. As journalists battle against misinformation, the disseminator role is magnified through a more rigorous and strict fact-checking and verification from journalists. The expanded roles of debunking falsehoods and correcting misinformation have also become part of a
journalist’s daily routine. The interpretive role of journalists also paves way for the rise of long-form narratives which focus on analyses, trends, and editorials (Patterson, 1996). While most journalists interviewed acknowledge that objectivity may be futile because of their inherent biases, journalists place premium value on fairness and accuracy in their reporting. The
operationalization of objectivity as well as the journalists’ preference of reporting are influenced primarily because of their individual role perceptions as reflected in the studies made by
Culbertson (1983), Skovsgaard et al. (2011) and Scholl and Weischenberg (1998). In summary, a journalist’s response to misinformation can be linked to how they perceive their roles today. By fulfilling these roles, journalists help combat the spread of misinformation and propaganda which are both seen as threats to democracy (Jackson, 2017). These roles also ensure that Philippine journalism continue to uphold the media’s democratic function in the society as they actively assume interpretive and critical roles amid misinformation.
The second part of the thesis addresses the question of how journalists respond to
accusations of being called peddlers of misinformation. In the Philippines, being tagged as ‘fake news peddlers’ is similar to having a scarlet letter on one’s forehead. It can lead to more
accusations, a drop in public trust ratings, and in the company’s advertising revenues. Being accused as such both by the public or the government is a huge blow to the media today as many journalists report experiencing chilling effects or discouragement and restraint to publish certain materials because of fear or punishment (Schauer, 1978). This fearful and dangerous
environment where many journalists experience bullying, online harassments, and death threats can be a positive deterrent to fearless critical reporting and execution of the watchdog or
adversarial role. These criticisms not only target the media performance but are also seen by journalists as part of interest-based campaign to discredit journalists who are being critical. This is in line with the findings of von Krogh and Svensson (2017) regarding interest-based
criticisms. This can be especially risky in a democracy like the Philippines where journalists are supposed to be acting as watchdogs and measures of accountability of those in power
(Strömbäck, 2005). The chilling effect reported to be experienced by most journalists may also hinder a healthy, fair, and accurate discussion of societal issues, thus ultimately undermining the role of media in a democracy (Kuklinski, Quirk, Jerit, Schwieder & Rich, 2000).
Even as journalists struggle with these accusations, such criticisms also allow them to reflect on the quality of work they produce, a wake-up call, so to say, to prove the critics otherwise. It is also seen as an opportunity to engage with the audience through media literacy and education in order to reduce perceived bias (Vraga, Tully, & Rojas, 2009). This intervention by the audience is part of participatory media accountability (Fengler et al., 2014) where
journalists acknowledge their own weaknesses and also correct criticisms or issue counter-attacks or statements if need be (Coombs, 2006; Groenhart & Bardoel, 2011).
In relation to the review of literature, the study finds the existing body of research on role conceptions lacking in the face of misinformation. Because of the evolving and emerging roles that journalists take on amid this complex media environment, theories on journalistic roles must therefore be refined. For example, as this thesis suggests, there is more focus on reactionary roles of journalism today such as debunking misinformation and monitoring the quality of sources’ information. Additionally, theories on media criticism and media accountability must also be updated in line with the current developments on media threats and accusations especially on social media.
Taken together, this study provides great insight on the role perceptions of journalists in response to misinformation. With the development of digital news and social media, the problem of misinformation and disinformation will continue to persist. Thus, the results presented in this study may prove to be useful for future researchers who want to study the implications of misinformation in other media and political landscapes. Given the notoriety of the country’s media’s situation as regards to dealing with “fake news” and propaganda, I argue that the Philippine case can be a valuable jump-off point in understanding how journalists in other countries perceive their roles amidst misinformation.
However, the results are not representative of the overall media scenario in the
Philippines because of the small sample size as well as the overall diversity of interviews. Since this topic is highly personal and emotional for some interviewees, this may ultimately affect their opinions in role perceptions. A study has shown that those who have strong opinions on specific
issues may therefore assume active roles in their work as journalists (Bekker, 2005). The
interviews were also all done via online video chats, thus, some non-verbal cues may be missed. These non-verbal cues are important because they may compliment answers and give more meaning to the discourse of the interview (Saldaña, 2011). The language was also inconsistent as some interviewees preferred to answer the questions in English and/or Filipino.
In summary, the current environment of misinformation puts the media in a unique position where journalists both have the duty to act and react, to report not only the truth but also mistruths, and to be critical not only to those in power but also to themselves. Indeed,
misinformation poses both as a challenge and opportunity to journalism today. While this may not be the first time that journalism is put to the test, journalists express the readiness to adapt to the changing times, and in the words of one journalist (1) interviewed, “commit to constant vigilance.”
References
Alindogan, J. (2018, January 30). Duterte’s “fake news” crackdown aims to ‘silence dissent.’ AlJazeera. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/dutertes-fake-news-crackdown-aims-silence-dissent-180130151107979.html
American Dialect Society (2018, January 5). “Fake news” is 2017 American Dialect Society word of the year. Retrieved from https://www.americandialect.org/fake-news-is-2017-american-dialect-society-word-of-the-year
Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259-276.
BBC (2017, April 1). 50 Grand Challenges for the 21st Century. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170331-50-grand-challenges-for-the-21st-century
Bekker, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 439-454.
Berkowitz, D. (2000). Doing double duty: Paradigm repair and the Princess Diana what-a-story. Journalism, 1(2), 125-143.
Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of
Communication, 65(4), 619-638.
Borden, S. L. (2007). Journalism as practice: MacIntyre, virtue ethics and the press. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Boudana, S. (2010). On the values guiding the French practice of journalism: Interviews with thirteen war correspondents. Journalism. 11(3). 293-310.
Carlson, M. (2012). ‘Where once stood titans’: Second-order paradigm repair and the vanishing US newspaper. Journalism, 13(3), 267-283.
Cassidy, W. P. (2005). Variations on a theme: professional role conceptions of print and online newspaper journalists. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 264-280.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). T he press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing
reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of promotion management, 12(3-4), 241-260.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1), 3-21.
Culbertson, H. M. (1983). Three Perspectives on American Journalism. Journalism Monographs Number Eighty-Three. Journalism Monographs. Columbia.
David, M. and Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research. An introduction. Second Edition. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC: Sage.
Difonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Elemia, C. (2018, January 30). Duterte is no. 1 source of fake news – veteran journalist. Rappler.com. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/194838-duterte-top-source-fake-news-journalist-ellen-tordesillas
Elemia, C. (2017, October 4). Mocha Uson: ‘Ako po ay biktima ng fake news’. Rappler.com. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/184243-mocha-uson-claims-victim-fake-news
Etter, L. (2017, December 7). What Happens When the Government Uses Facebook as a Weapon? Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-07/how-rodrigo-duterte-turned-facebook-into-a-weapon-with-a-little-help-from-facebook
Ennals, R., Byler, D., Agosta, J. M., & Rosario, B. (2010, April). What is disputed on the web?. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility (pp. 67-74). ACM.
Fengler, S.; Eberwein, T.; Mazzoleni, G.; Porlezza, C.; Russ-Mohl, S. (2014). Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang.
Giglietto, F., Ianelli, L., Rossi, L., & Valeriani, A. (2016). Fakes, News and the Election:: A New Taxonomy for the Study of Misleading Information within the Hybrid Media System. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2878774
Glasser, T. L. (1984). Objectivity precludes responsibility. The Quill, 72(2), 13-16.
Groenhart, H. P., & Bardoel, J. L. (2011). A Profession in Defense? An Analysis of Letters From Editors-in-Chief’. Medien Journal, 35(3), 6-18.
Jackson, D. (2017, October 17). Issue Brief: Distinguishing Disinformation from Propaganda, Misinformation, and “Fake News” – NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR
DEMOCRACY. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from https://www.ned.org/issue-brief-distinguishing-disinformation-from-propaganda-misinformation-and-fake-news/
Johnson, H. (2018, January 17). Why Rappler is raising Philippine press freedom fears. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42713897
Johnstone,J., Slawski, E., & Bowman,W. (1976). The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work. London: University of Illinois Press.
Kantar Media. (2017, March 2). In the age of smart phones and social media, Kantar Media study shows TV remains king in the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://www.kantarmedia.com/global/newsroom/press-releases/kantar-media-study-shows-tv-remains-king-in-the-philippines
Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709–1716.
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2007). The Elements of Journalism : What Newspeople Should Know and The Public Should Expect. 1st rev ed. New York: Three Rivers Press
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62, 790–816.
Lance, W., Gressett, L. A., & Haltom, W. (1985). Repairing the news: A case study of the news paradigm. Journal of Communication, 35(2), 50-68.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353-369.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
Ong, J. & Cabanes, J. (2018, Feb. 20). In the Philippines, political trolling is an industry – this is how it works.Opendemocracy.net. Retrieved from
https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/jonathan-corpus-ong-jason-cabanes/in-philippines-political-trolling-is-industry-this
Oster, J. (2013). Theory and doctrine of ‘Media Freedom’ as a legal concept. Journal of Media Law, 5(1), 57-78.
Patterson, T. E. (1996). Bad news, bad governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(1), 97–108.
Rappler (2018, February 20). Rappler to Malacañang: Don't use power to obstruct.
Rappler.com. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/about-rappler/about-us/196470-statement-pia-ranada-ban-malacanang-palace
Reese, S. D. (1990). The news paradigm and the ideology of objectivity: A socialist at the Wall Street Journal. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 7(4), 390-409.
Ressa, M. (2016, October 3). Propaganda war: Weaponizing the internet. Rappler.com. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/148007-propaganda-war-weaponizing-internet
Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford.
Salgado, S. & Strömbäck, J. (2011). Interpretive journalism: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 144-161.
Schauer, F. (1978). ‘Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect’, Boston University Law Review, 58(5), 685-732.
Scholl, A. & Weischenberg, S.(1998). Journalismus in der Gesellschaft: Theorie, Methodologie und Empirie. [Journalism in society: Theory, methodology, and practice]. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Semetko, H. A., & Schoenbach, K. (2003). News and elections: German Bundestag campaigns in the Bild, 1990-2002. Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, 8(3), 54-69.
Shin, J., Jian, L., Driscoll, K., & Bar, F. (2018). The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source. Computers in Human Behavior, 83,
278-287.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message. White Plains. NY: Longman.
Silva, R. R., Garcia-Marques, T., & Reber, R. (2017). The informative value of type of repetition: Perceptual and conceptual fluency influences on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 53-67
Skovsgaard, M., Albæk, E., De Vreese, C. H., & Bro, P. (2011). A reality check: How individual, professional, and organisational influences shape journalists’
conceptualisation of the objectivity norm. In International Communication Association Conference, Boston.
Steele, C. A., & Barnhurst, K. G. (1996). The journalism of opinion: Network news coverage of US presidential campaigns, 1968–1988. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 13(3), 187-209.
Steiner, L., Guo, J., McCaffrey, R., & Hills, P. (2013). The Wire and repair of the journalistic paradigm. Journalism, 14(6), 703-720.
Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
Tandoc Jr, E. C. (2014). The roles of the game: The influence of news consumption patterns on the role conceptions of journalism students. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 69(3), 256-270.
Tandoc Jr, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2017). Defining “Fake News” A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 1-17.
Tambini, D. (2017). Fake News: Public Policy Responses. Media Policy Brief 20. London: Media Policy Project, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Tuchman, G. (1972). ‘Objectivity as a Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen’s Notions of Objectivity’. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660-679.
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F. de Vreese, C. H., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R.,
Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T. & Stanyer, J. (2017) Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?, Annals of the
von Krogh, T. (2012). Understanding media accountability: Media accountability in relation
to media criticism and media governance in Sweden 1940-2010 (Doctoral dissertation,
Mid Sweden University). Retrieved from http://miun.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:542409/FULLTEXT01.pdf
von Krogh, T., & Svensson, G. (2017). Media Responses to Media Criticism., Nordicom Review,38(1), 47-64.
Vraga, E. K., Tully, M., & Rojas, H. (2009). Media literacy training reduces perception of bias. Newspaper Research Journal, 30(4), 68-81.
Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1996).The American journalist in the 1990s: US news people at the end of an era. Mahwah, N.J:Erlbaum.
Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1991).The American journalist: A portrait of US news people and their work. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Weeks, B.E. (2015). Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation. The Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719.
Zelizer, B. (1993). Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 10(3), 219-237.
Appendix 1
Table 1. List of Interviewees Interviewee Age Years of
experience in Media
Position/Media Outfit Date of Interview
Duration of
Interview Journalist 1 27 7 years Multimedia Reporter/News
website
March 11, 2018
1:04:27 Journalist 2 28 8 years Segment Producer/ TV Network March 13,
2018
45:16 Journalist 3 32 11 years Executive Producer/ TV
Network
March 13, 2018
49:31 Journalist 4 31 11 years Senior Correspondent/ TV
Network
March 16, 2018
1:07:00 Journalist 5 27 6 years Reporter/Newspaper/Newspaper March 17,
2018
1:03:58 Journalist 6 28 7.5 years Senior Correspondent/TV
Network
March 18, 2018
1:10:17 Journalist 7 28 6 years Executive Producer/TV
Network
March 18, 2018
1:09:14 Journalist 8 36 15 years Program Manager/TV Network March 20,
2018
1:39:22 Journalist 9 49 22 years Program Manager/TV Network March 23,
2018
1:40:43 Journalist 10 20 7 months Reporter/News
Website/Newspaper March 24, 2018 1:01:26 Journalist 11 27 1 year, 6 months Reporter/News Website/Newspaper March 25, 2018 48:53 Journalist 12 30 4 years, 5 months
Reporter/TV Network March 27, 2018
1:12:19 Journalist 13 30 6 years Journalist/News Website March 28,
2018
56:22 Journalist 14 56 30 years Senior Editor/News Website March 30,
2018
1:17:08 Journalist 15 26 6 years Reporter/TV Network March 31,
2018
50:00 Journalist 16 42 15 years Columnist/Newspaper
Blogger
April 18, 2018
Appendix 2 Interview Guide
The following are the interview questions for the study:
1. What do you think is the role of journalists in the society?
2. As a journalist, what role do you play in the media in helping achieve this broader role? 3. Do you feel that this role has changed over the past years? If so, what has changed? What factors have triggered this change?
4. What do you think is the greatest challenge to journalism in the age of social media? 5. How do you define misinformation?
6. What do you think should journalists do when they encounter misinformation? What do journalists actually do when they encounter misinformation? On a personal level as a journalist, how do you respond when you encounter misinformation?
7. What are the barriers and facilitators of reporting accurately in the current political and media landscape?
8. There have been many attacks online against mainstream media calling them fake news outlets.
a. What is your opinion on this?
b. Recently, Duterte launched an attack against Rappler, considered one of the more critical media against the government. Rappler’s license was also threatened to be revoked by th e also got its license revoked at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
b. 1 What guidelines do you follow when covering cases where the media become the story? b.2 When credibility of journalists is in question, do you take measures in order to repair this? Elaborate please.
c. Do you see this repairing of credibility as a role that journalists should take on today? 9. What makes a good story? What do you think are they key values a journalist should follow when reporting a story? In writing or pursuing a story, do you consider accuracy as a priority value in your report?
10. How do you, as a journalist, ensure that the information you publish or air is devoid of inaccuracies?
11. Do you see any major change in roles in light of misinformation today? Do you see the current roles changing should the problem of misinformation persist in the future? What do you think are the implications of misinformation for democracy at large and to trust in media
specifically?
12. Do you see any major change in roles in light of misinformation today? Do you see the current roles changing should the problem of misinformation persist in the future?
