Skip to main content

The Weaponization of “Fake News” in the Service of Power

The fight against disinformation, when wielded by those in power, is rarely about truth. It is about control. The Philippine House of Representatives has positioned itself as the vanguard against fake news, yet its selectivity exposes the real objective. Will it summon GMA News to answer for its baseless claim that former President Rodrigo Duterte sought asylum in China? Will it demand accountability from those who spread misinformation that conveniently serves the ruling order? Or is the inquisition reserved only for critics of the Marcos Jr. administration?

The answer is self-evident. Fake news is not the real concern—dissent is. The state does not seek to dismantle disinformation; it seeks to monopolize it. The function of “fake news investigations” is not to correct falsehoods but to create a chilling effect, a warning to journalists, opposition figures, and ordinary citizens alike: speak against the regime, and you will be scrutinized, harassed, and possibly silenced.

This asymmetry in the enforcement of truth reveals a deeper pathology in Philippine governance. The ruling elite understands that control over information is control over perception, and control over perception is control over power. When a narrative emerges that threatens this control—be it electoral fraud allegations, corruption exposés, or critiques of governance—it is swiftly labeled as fake news, and its sources are dragged before congressional panels. But when a fabricated claim like Duterte seeking asylum in China surfaces, implicating an opposition figure, the machinery of outrage falls silent.

In this framework, “truth” is not an objective standard but a political weapon. The regime determines what is real and what is false, who is credible and who is suspect, who must answer for their words and who is granted impunity. This is not a fight against disinformation—it is the institutionalization of state propaganda, wrapped in the rhetoric of justice.

If the House truly sought to combat fake news, it would demand transparency and accountability from all sources of misinformation, including those aligned with the administration. But it will not. Because in a system designed to sustain power rather than uphold truth, investigations are not about facts—they are about silencing those who refuse to comply.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Decline of Malacañang’s Messaging Under Claire Castro

The role of a presidential spokesperson is not simply to parrot the administration’s talking points—it is to frame the government’s narrative in a way that is coherent, persuasive, and, at the very least, grounded in some form of political strategy. Yet under Claire Castro, the function of the Malacañang spokesperson has been reduced to little more than reactionary deflections and hollow platitudes. A Crisis of Competence Where previous spokespersons—whether one agreed with them or not—displayed at least some level of rhetorical skill and grasp of governance, Castro appears to lack even the most basic ability to articulate policy positions. The likes of Harry Roque, Salvador Panelo, or even the more pragmatic Edwin Lacierda could defend their administrations with calculated arguments, strategic misdirections, or even legal gymnastics. Castro, in contrast, has managed to devolve the role into something almost unrecognizable—where responses to critical issues sound more like barroom re...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rodrigo Duterte’s "Build, Build, Build" and the Struggle for National Development

Throughout history, infrastructure has served as both the foundation of economic prosperity and the battleground of political struggle. It is not simply about roads and bridges—it is about the political will to defy stagnation, the strategic vision to connect fragmented communities, and the challenge of dismantling bureaucratic inefficiencies that have long stifled national progress. In this context, former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s "Build, Build, Build" (BBB) program stands as one of the most ambitious and transformative infrastructure undertakings in Philippine history. While critics sought to reduce Duterte’s presidency to controversies and political rhetoric, the tangible legacy of BBB remains indisputable. The roads, bridges, airports, and railways built under this program are not abstract concepts—they are lived realities, altering the daily experiences of millions of Filipinos. They represent a rare instance in Philippine governance: a promise that was, at least ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Marcos Administration’s Hague Gambit and the Question of Philippine Justice

The abduction and extradition of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the Bongbong Marcos Jr. administration raises troubling questions about sovereignty, political motives, and the credibility of the Philippine justice system. The government justified this unprecedented move by claiming that justice in the Philippines is slow, necessitating Duterte’s trial before a foreign court. But does this argument hold? If the Philippine judiciary were truly incapable of handling high-profile political cases, how do we explain the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the graft conviction of former Pagsanjan Mayor Jeorge “ER” Ejercito Estregan? The court sentenced him to up to eight years in prison and permanently barred him from public office. The ruling demonstrates that the judiciary is indeed capable of prosecuting public officials—contrary to the narrative used to justify Duterte’s removal from the country. More concerning is the use of an Interpol Diffusion notice —an informal, non-bi...
Post a Comment
Read more