Journalism, Internet Trolls, and Disinformation Networks: A Conversation with Sheila Coronel
Photo of Sheila Coronel. Image provided by Sheila Coronel.
Sheila Coronel is the current Director of Columbia Journalism School’s Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism. Having worked in the field for more than 40 years, Coronel began her prolific career in the Philippines reporting on former dictator Ferdinand Marcos for the underground press. She is also the co-founder of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and the recipient of the “Nobel Prize of Asia,” the Ramon Magsaysay Award.
Coronel’s work offers great insight into the contemporary journalism network in the Philippines, focusing on increased government censorship of the press. In our interview, Coronel speaks on the government’s tools of intimidation, namely through fabricated accusations of communist sympathy and internet troll networks. In support of this view, she cites the nationwide phenomenon of social media disinformation and the Filipino government’s attempts to delegitimize news outlets across the country. However, she ends by offering an optimistic glance into a nation ravaged by fake news and authoritarian leaders, arguing that a path toward liberation still exists.
Throughout this interview, both Professor Coronel and I mention various key events in recent Filipino history—most notably, the 21-year presidential term of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. His administration, which saw the placement of the Philippines under martial law, was toppled after a series of popular demonstrations known as the People Power Revolution in 1986. For the purposes of clarity, I refer to Ferdinand Marcos as the elder Marcos, and the current president of the Philippines, Bongbong Marcos, as Marcos. The following transcript has been edited for clarity and grammatical errors.
As a long-standing journalist who entered the industry in the era of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos when the press was heavily censored, how did your beginnings during this time period inform the trajectory of your journalism work? How did it shape your understanding of investigative journalism?
My start was during the elder Marcos’ era working for the underground press because at that time the [mainstream] press was very strictly censored and controlled. There was a thriving universe of clandestine newspapers that were passed on secretly and possession of which was a criminal act–you could get arrested for possession of what they called then “subversive materials.” So my initiation into journalism demonstrated that it's an undertaking that's under threat and that it speaks truths that are dangerous to power. I've always seen journalism as holding power to account and interrogating power. There are other types of journalism: journalism that informs, that educates, that provides a forum for public discussion and debate, and journalism that entertains. All of these are legitimate forms of journalism. But because of my experience as a journalist, I've always thought that the journalism I wanted to do is journalism which interrogates power and holds power to account.
In the Philippines, liberal news outlets such as Rappler and Vera Files have constantly been the victim of communist accusations by government forces. How has this shaped the journalism network in the Philippines? How has it differed from your beginnings in the elder Marcos’ era?
After the fall of the elder Marcos’ dictatorship, the press was free. Almost overnight the restrictions on the media were lifted; You could set up a newspaper if you had the money. And there was no more administrative regulation of the media. And so the media was free for a very long time. But over the years there has been a gradual erosion of that freedom in part because of powerful business interests that control the media and sometimes political interests intervened. Then, at the local level, there were the killings of journalists. Journalists were being killed for exposing corruption or criminality. While no press in the world is completely free, it wasn’t until the era of former President Duterte that the press was able to overcome many of those restrictions. But President Duterte really clamped down on the media and investigated news organizations, not just Rappler, but The Inquirer, and ABS-CBN for all sorts of things. And so that created really a chilling effect on the media and the media's ability to report freely. Current President Marcos benefited from the closure of ABS-CBN, the multiple cases that have been filed against Rappler, the intimidation of The Inquirer, and generally the media community as a whole. And also the unleashing of a massive disinformation campaign against the media and against political enemies. So now I think the space for doing independent investigative journalism is really becoming an endangered space.
How has the Filipino public reacted to these cases of disinformation and media suppression? What is your opinion on the public’s perception of journalism?
I think the public perception of journalism is very mixed. There are those who view Rappler and independent journalists as doing the work of professional journalists. But a lot of politicians, particularly President Duterte, have delegitimized journalists, demonized journalists, called them prostitutes, paid hacks, or influenced by Western powers–particularly the United States. That has had an impact on the perception of journalists, but aside from Duterte, there's really been a troll army unleashed against independent journalists and people who are critical of the government. That has had an impact also in the public's perception of journalism. Also, I think that because of a lot of this heavy trolling, disinformation has made the public really exhausted and weary so they’re tuning out of the news. That's true not just in the Philippines, but in many other countries.
The Philippines has been described as “patient zero” in the disinformation crisis. Further, the Philippines’ troll networks have been described by scholar Jonathan Corpus Ong as “architects of networked disinformation,” in which there is a hierarchized system of PR agents, who control low-level internet trolls, and reach the root source of the problem, which are local politicians sponsoring these networks. What mitigation strategies should we focus our attention on? What efforts has the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) done to aid in this information crisis?
Well, I'm really just marginally involved in PCIJ now. I'm just on the board. But I think producing original reporting is PCIJ's main contribution to the information ecosystem. Other people have done fact-checking, and other people have done educational videos, explainers, etc. But the PCIJ's main contribution is finding original information to enrich what people know about, to expose wrongdoing, to provide background and context, to provide data and analysis. I think all of those roles are important. It's the role of fact-checking providing a venue for opinion and analysis, which Rappler, The Inquirer, and other places do. But also using non-traditional formats like TikTok, or even TV dramas and talk shows–that's also important. This is what Jonathan calls a whole-of-society approach. It shouldn't just be the media, it should be the churches, it should be civic groups, it should be schools, educational institutions, cultural institutions, even museums, which have done fabulous exhibits about the Marcos era. All of that plays a role. Even ordinary citizens should play a role in terms of not passing on unverified information, for example. Even if it's information that confirms our biases, just because we agree with it doesn't mean it's true. All of us, it should not just be the burden of information providers and information producers, but everybody has a role here.
I definitely agree with that. You hinted at this when you were talking about public perception and how Filipinos were very disillusioned with the state of politics. It seems very hard to find a glimmer of hope for the Philippines. Do you believe that there is hope for the country? And rather than remain immobilized, do you think that a whole-of-society approach is truly feasible?
Look, I've been through an era worse than this one. In 1985, for example, when it seemed that the Marcos regime was going to stay forever. This is why [the People’s Power Revolution in] 1986 came as such a surprise. It was such a surprise for us because we thought that the dictatorship was strong, it was formidable, and it was never going to go away. We believed that it was just going to dig into the trenches and continue with its oppression, but that didn't happen. I think part of gaining hope is to look at this from the broad sweep of history, that there are periods of democratic advance and there are pictures of democratic retreat. Right now, it's a period of democratic retreat—but it's not going to last forever.
As Coronel incisively demonstrates, attacks on independent news outlets and investigative reporters have had a perceptible impact on Filipinos. However, rather than allow these instances to foster apathy and disillusionment, Coronel points us in a direction of hope. Citing the elder Marcos’ downfall through the People Power Revolution, she encourages us to remain optimistic and to allow history’s cyclical nature to unfold. Ultimately, Coronel leaves us with an affirming message of faith and conviction, arguing that, despite bleak circumstances, the sheer tenacity of Filipinos can and will prevail.
Amelie Ortiz De Leon (BC ‘25) is the Publicity Editor and a Junior Editor for Columbia Political Review. She is a political science major, with research interests in disinformation networks and South East Asian politics. Her hobbies include curating Spotify playlists, reviewing movies on Letterboxd, and eating summer rolls.