By: Elena Grace Flores
This is written in Inquirer’s content online: President-elect Rodrigo Duterte said Tuesday that corrupt journalists were legitimate targets of assassination; this is true but why is the title like this?: Duterte endorses killing corrupt journalists; which is false since he was only commenting that corrupt journalists can be targets of killings but definitely did not endorse their killings.
The 174 murders after the administration of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was toppled, can clearly signify that there ae many factions that are condemning media corruption. In fairness, the journalists are merely following the platforms of their media or else, their work will not be published or released into their channels.
This statement is also true: Duterte also said freedom of expression provisions in the constitution did not necessarily protect a person from violent repercussions for defamation.
“That can’t be just freedom of speech. The constitution can no longer help you if you disrespect a person,” he said. Anger can lead to evil doings so provoking a person can trigger someon to kill another. Is this not the reality?
If this line will be highlighted without the introduction why Duterte said this, then this can be easily misinterpreted: Journalist ‘deserved to die’ – when he meant that those corrupt journalists who would do everything to destroy a person for personal interests, deserves to die – but he did not mentioned to be killed. Give it the benefit of a doubt that corrupt press people can also have an untimely death as a punishment.