Not necessarily the news

According to the August National Momentum Survey of Momentum Research, 76.5 % of us trust journalist more than vloggers. This is welcome news indeed, for many scholars in the field of political communications have lamented that fact that in this age of social media, journalists have yielded their gatekeeper role to vloggers and influencers. Which has significantly brought down the level of political discourse in the country.

We need to know what is happening in our homeland, understand why it is happening, and decide what we should think about it. These are three distinct tasks, yet our media often blur the boundaries between political news, political commentary and political analysis. The distinction is not merely a matter of journalistic style. It affects how we understand public affairs, evaluate political leaders and make democratic choices.

Political news is the timely, evidence-based reporting of events involving government, public officials, political parties, elections and the exercise of public power. Its central obligation is to establish facts. When Congress passes a bill, the Supreme Court issues a ruling, or an impeachment court hears evidence, the public needs an accurate account of what occurred, what was decided and what the available evidence establishes.

However, this must not mean political news is simply the repetition of statements made by politicians. A press release is not automatically a news report, and a politician’s allegation is not an established fact merely because it appears in a headline. Responsible reporting verifies claims, seeks relevant responses and provides sufficient context for audiences to understand the event.

Political commentary serves a different purpose. It offers judgments about political events, policies and personalities. A political pundit might argue that a government decision is unconstitutional, that a senator acted irresponsibly, or that an elected official has betrayed its campaign promises. These are evaluative claims. They can be persuasive, but their purpose is to advance an interpretation or position.

Commentary need not be partisan. A constitutionalist, for instance, can criticize a government action because it threatens institutional checks and balances, regardless of which political faction benefits. What matters is that audiences can distinguish the commentator’s judgment from the underlying facts. Unlike straight news reporting, an editorial openly interprets political developments and invites readers to consider a particular argument.

Political analysis goes further. It examines the causes, relationships, incentives and consequences behind political events. It asks why a decision was made, what interests shaped it, how institutions influence political behaviour and what developments might follow.

Consider, for instance, the Duterte impeachment trial. News reports establish the charges, evidence presented and decisions made. Commentary may argue that the prosecution or defence acted properly or improperly. Analysis examines how the evidence affects the prospects of conviction, how political alliances influence senators, and how the outcome could reshape the next election.

Why does this distinction matter in the Philippines? In an increasingly polarized information environment, audiences can mistake confident opinion for verified fact, speculation for explanation, and political advocacy for independent journalism. Media personalities may move between reporting and commentary without clearly signalling the change. On social media, these distinctions become even harder to recognise.

Obviously, we cannot eliminate opinion or analysis from journalism. Democracies need both. Citizens benefit from competing interpretations and rigorous explanations of political events. But they must also have access to reliable reporting on which to base their judgments.

Journalists, commentators and political analysts have different responsibilities, even when one person performs all three roles. News must be accurate and verifiable. Commentary must make its reasoning and values clear. Analysis must offer evidence-based explanations, consider alternative interpretations and acknowledge uncertainty.

Ultimately, democratic discourse depends not only on the availability of information but also on the public’s ability to recognise what kind of information it is receiving. Before citizens can judge political events, they must know what happened. Before they can understand what happened, they need explanations that go beyond partisan opinion.

A healthy democracy requires all three: trustworthy news, responsible commentary and rigorous political analysis. The public deserves to know the difference.