Vice President Sara Duterte has launched a sweeping attack on Philippine journalism, accusing local news organizations of falling behind international standards and suggesting that money—not truth or public service—has become the driving force behind some media coverage.
But her explosive remarks are also raising an uncomfortable question: Is the country’s journalism really the problem—or is the media being blamed for reporting statements that powerful politicians would rather take back?
Speaking in The Hague after visiting her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, the Vice President expressed frustration over reports that allegedly took her statements out of context and portrayed her family negatively.
“If that’s how journalism operates in the Philippines, then our country will never truly progress,” Duterte said.
She claimed that foreign news organizations demonstrate a higher level of professionalism in choosing, investigating, and presenting stories.
According to Duterte, the quality of journalism abroad is “far different” from that of the Philippines—a stinging assessment of an industry where reporters routinely work under tight deadlines, limited resources, political pressure, online harassment, and persistent threats.
The Vice President also accused some local media organizations of allowing financial interests to dictate their work.
She warned that if Filipinos continue doing their jobs “just for money,” meaningful change will remain impossible—not only in journalism and mainstream media, but across the country.
Her remarks quickly injected fresh tension into the long-running battle between the Duterte family and sections of the Philippine press, which intensified during Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency as journalists scrutinized his administration’s drug war, controversial statements, and attacks on critics.
Sara Duterte did not identify the media organizations or reports she believed had misrepresented her, nor did she provide specific examples of international reporting practices that Philippine newsrooms should follow.
Instead, she praised social media for giving the public access to raw videos, direct statements, and alternative perspectives.
“It’s a good thing we now have social media so we can see what people actually witnessed and what they truly said,” she said.
However, social media is hardly a guaranteed source of truth. While online platforms can expose statements that may be edited or overlooked by traditional outlets, they can also spread manipulated videos, misleading captions, coordinated propaganda, and outright falsehoods at breathtaking speed.
The controversy therefore cuts both ways.Politicians have every right to challenge inaccurate or unfair reporting. News organizations also have a responsibility to correct errors, provide context, and separate verified facts from opinion.
But branding an entire country’s journalism as inferior risks discrediting not only large media companies, but also provincial reporters, independent journalists, campus publications, and front-line news workers who continue to document events despite intimidation and limited resources.
Duterte also lamented what she described as the erosion of Filipino values, declaring that many Filipinos have “made money their god.”
She urged the public to return to values such as bayanihan, discipline, and resilience.
Yet her criticism leaves a larger issue unresolved: Who should decide what counts as truthful journalism—the reporters presenting verified facts, the politicians being scrutinized, or social media users reacting to incomplete clips?
For a country already struggling with disinformation and deep political division, attacking journalism without identifying specific inaccuracies may generate anger—but it does little to rebuild public trust.
And when powerful officials begin portraying critical reporting as proof of a broken media system, Filipinos must ask whether journalism is truly failing—or whether accountability has simply become too uncomfortable.
