There are nights when I think about journalism the way one thinks about a childhood belief—something once pure, once trusted, something that allowed us to sleep believing that someone, somewhere, was guarding the truth. Journalism, in its truest sense, was never meant to be heroic. It was meant to be faithful. Faithful to facts. Faithful to the people. And perhaps that is why its slow, documented betrayal does not feel like outrage, but like grief.
In the 1970s, the call for journalism in aid of development arrived wrapped in hope. Nation-building. Responsibility. Progress. These words sounded gentle to a country still learning how to speak after years of struggle. Yet validated historical accounts show how quickly that hope was taken hostage. Power discovered that controlling narratives was easier than confronting injustice. Development became the excuse. Control became the habit. Journalism, instead of being a lamp that exposed darkness, was turned into a dimmer—allowing only as much light as authority was willing to tolerate.
The Marcos years revealed this arrangement without subtlety. Media histories and archived publications consistently record how the press openly favored the regime, how praise flowed freely while criticism was suffocated. What aches more deeply is not that this happened under authoritarian rule, but that when the dictatorship formally ended, the culture it nurtured did not vanish. The uniforms disappeared. The censorship offices closed. But the transactional mindset survived, quietly adapting to a freer vocabulary.
Investigative reports and media ethics studies later validated what many had long suspected. Journalism was not merely pressured; it was incentivized. Envelopes of cash. Gifts disguised as tokens of appreciation. Favors exchanged for favorable coverage. Stories delayed, softened, reframed, or quietly buried. These were not isolated moral lapses. They were methods—repeated often enough to become routine. The journalist, once imagined as a witness for the public, was slowly recast as a broker of narratives.
Over time, these practices even acquired names, almost playful, as if labeling them could dull their cruelty. There was AC-DC journalism, where a person was attacked today to collect money from a rival and defended tomorrow for another fee. There was ATM journalism, where payoffs moved silently through bank accounts, cleaner than envelopes but just as corrosive. There was blood money, paid to ensure that certain truths never reached the public alive. There was envelopmental journalism, a bitter distortion of developmental ideals into a shield for corruption. And there was intelligentsia, where journalists on sensitive beats quietly shared in protection money alongside the very institutions they were meant to scrutinize.
Some insisted this culture existed only because journalists were underpaid. But documented cases revealed a harsher truth. Even well-paid practitioners participated. This was not hunger. It was habituation. Integrity did not collapse in one dramatic scandal. It eroded slowly, grain by grain, until compromise felt practical and principle felt inconvenient—almost naïve.
Then came the digital age, carrying with it the promise of liberation. Online platforms, blogs, and social media were celebrated as tools that would finally democratize truth. No more gatekeepers. No more monopolies of narrative. Everyone could speak. Everyone could publish. For a moment, it felt as though journalism had been given a second life. But validated media studies show that the old corruption did not disappear. It evolved.
In the digital space, paid-for journalism multiplied and disguised itself more effectively. Sponsored content blended seamlessly into news. Advertorials adopted the tone of reporting. Algorithms replaced editors, and engagement replaced ethics. Speed became more valuable than verification. In this environment, fake news did not merely emerge—it flourished.
Fake news was not born in a vacuum. It grew from the same soil as paid-for journalism: the monetization of attention and the erosion of accountability. Fabricated stories, manipulated images, half-truths, and emotionally charged lies spread not because they were true, but because they were profitable and politically useful. Troll farms, coordinated disinformation networks, and paid amplification—now widely documented—turned falsehood into a scalable political weapon.
And then came the rise of paid vloggers and social media influencers, perhaps the most emotionally disarming actors in this entire ecosystem. Unlike journalists, they do not claim objectivity. Unlike editors, they are not bound by institutional memory. They speak casually, intimately, as friends speaking to friends. Scripts are framed as personal reflections. Talking points are delivered as jokes, rants, or life stories. Disclosures, if they exist at all, are vague, buried, or deliberately confusing.
In this space, corruption becomes harder to detect. A journalist selling a story still carries the weight of professional betrayal. A paid influencer selling a narrative can always say, “Opinion ko lang ’yan.” And yet the impact is often greater. Millions listen. Millions trust. And millions are moved—not by verified facts, but by curated emotion. Lies no longer feel imposed; they feel shared.
Young people now learn politics not from newspapers or broadcasts, but from short videos, livestreams, and algorithm-fed timelines. In this emotional economy, truth does not compete fairly. It competes with entertainment, loyalty, identity, and outrage. Media literacy struggles to keep pace with platform culture.
All of this feeds directly into the present war on narratives between the Administration and the Opposition—a war no longer fought primarily in Congress or courtrooms, but in timelines, headlines, livestreams, and comment sections. Governance has become storytelling. Opposition has become counter-storytelling. Each side constructs its own version of reality, complete with heroes, villains, and moral absolutes.
The Administration speaks of stability, continuity, recovery, and unity. The Opposition speaks of accountability, betrayal, injustice, and moral urgency. Each side frames events strategically. The same policy becomes progress or failure depending on who narrates it. Silence becomes tactical. Timing becomes everything. In this war, traditional journalism, fake news networks, paid vloggers, and influencers all become foot soldiers.
What makes this war especially cruel is that the public is no longer just an audience—it has been conscripted. Citizens are pressured to choose narratives as if choosing sides in a family feud. To question one’s own camp is betrayal. To acknowledge complexity is weakness. The war on narratives thrives on emotion because emotion travels faster than nuance.
Disinformation here is not always meant to convince. Often, it is meant to exhaust. To confuse. To make people stop caring. In a tired public, even false calm feels like relief. Patriotism is invoked to silence criticism. Reform is invoked to justify chaos. Integrity is claimed loudly while manipulation continues quietly underneath.
As an educator, I see the cost of this war in classrooms and conversations. Students argue passionately, but often from scripts they did not write. Opinions arrive pre-packaged, complete with hashtags and talking points. Critical thinking struggles to breathe when narratives demand immediate allegiance.
As a citizen, the sadness runs deeper. Governance becomes secondary to optics. Opposition becomes performance. The nation’s real problems—poverty, corruption, insecurity—fade into background noise behind louder storytelling battles. When narratives replace solutions, suffering becomes just another talking point.
Until that remembering happens, the penumbra of paid-for journalism will not simply hover—it will settle. It will cling to our institutions, our conversations, even our private thoughts. It will blur the line between what is real and what is merely repeated. And in that half-light, a nation can slowly lose its sense of direction without ever realizing it has gone astray.
This is no longer just a failure of media. It is a test of conscience. Every journalist who chooses silence over truth. Every influencer who trades integrity for reach. Every citizen who shares a lie because it flatters their anger or confirms their loyalty becomes part of the penumbra. No one remains untouched. No one remains innocent by mere distance.
The most painful truth is this: democracy does not collapse in darkness. It collapses in dim light—when people can still see, but no longer clearly enough to care. When outrage replaces reflection. When narratives feel safer than facts. When comfort is chosen over courage.
The challenge before us is not abstract. It is deeply personal. To journalists: remember why you first held the pen. To content creators and influencers: remember that intimacy is power, and power without responsibility is abuse. To citizens: remember that sharing is not neutral, and silence is never empty.
Truth does not ask for loyalty. It asks for courage.
The penumbra can only exist when we allow it. We can choose to step forward—into clarity, into discomfort, into honesty—or we can remain in the soft darkness, applauding stories that soothe us while the nation quietly fractures.
History will not ask which narrative we followed.
It will ask whether, when truth still had a voice, we chose to listen.
And that question, sooner or later, will be asked of all of us.
_____
