“Check your privilege!” gained traction on social media at the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns when “the newly emergent dichotomy between the information rich and the information poor” (A. Flor, 2009) instantly became apparent by a person’s social media feed. First, the information poor (often a daily wage worker) would complain about their loss of income due to the extended lockdown. Then, the information rich (often a work-from-home employee) would remind them that safety comes first. Triggered, the information poor would respond with, “Check your privilege!” But I’m here to argue that privilege is not something to be demonized nor ashamed from. Rather, privilege should be capitalized on, and the information rich hold the key to narrowing the digital divide.

To understand how the digital divide came about, we need to go back in time to Pre-Colonial Philippines. The following timeline is primarily sourced from Florangel Rosario-Braid and Ramon R. Tuazon’s “Communication Media in the Philippines: 1521-1986”:

Pre-Colonial Philippines

“Long before our colonizers introduced modern communication technology, the Philippines already had indigenous forms of communication such as writing on barks of trees, leaves, and bamboo tubes using sharp tools or colored saps of trees as ink. They also had an umalohokan (town crier) and folk media such as sabi (maxim), bugtong (riddle), and kumintang (war song) among others.”

Colonial Philippines (1521-1946)

“The Westernization of the Philippines signaled the beginning of an era characterized by the introduction of modern communication technology and the continuing diffusion of Western values, traditions, and technology into the country. The first newspaper, Del Superior Governo, was established in 1811 and edited by the Governor-General himself. John Lent (1971) described early colonial newspapers as more literary than newsy in style. Due to strict government censorship, colonial newspapers often depended on satires, poems, and news laced with sarcasm.”

“Another characteristic of early colonial newspapers was their focus on news events abroad.” Nationalistic papers evolved much later on, and even then were first published by the elite (Ilustrados) for the elite. Despite this initial elitism, the Propaganda Movement caught on, spreading to the lower classes (Katipuneros).

Post-Colonial Philippines

Fast forward to the 1950s-1970s, the “Golden Age of Philippine Journalism”, so called because “the Philippine press was regarded ‘the freest in Asia’.” This was also the time when TV was introduced (in 1953, over 30 years after the Americans introduced radio broadcasting in 1922) and when women journalists started gaining prominence. That said, the Golden Age was overshadowed by “a ‘forced marriage of convenience’ to large business enterprises and political groups with most newspapers wholly or partly owned by large businesses.”

It was for this reason that, when Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, his first order was the “takeover of all privately-owned newspapers, magazines, radio, TV facilities, and all other media communications.” Or so he says. The supreme irony was that this resulted in media ownership becoming “even more concentrated in the hands of individuals or families” of Marcos loyalists.

During this time (1970s), the controversial field of Development Communication emerged from the university town of Los Baños. Whereas Dev Com insiders like Nora Quebral (1971) defines it as “the art and science of human application applied to the speedy transformation of a country and mass of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic growth that makes possible a greater social equality and the larger fulfillment of the human potential,” Dev Com outsiders like John Lent (1977) argued “how it can be a tool to impinge on press freedom and be synonymous with government control of media in the Third World” (Ongkiko & Flor, 1998).

“However, both its critics and exponents should note that its [Development Communication’s] claim to legitimacy begins with the assumption that previously developed models of mass communication are not exactly appropriate to Third World conditions and social realities” (A. Flor, 1991).

In Alexander G. Flor’s “The Fifth Theory of the Press”, he argues “not just for the legitimacy of Development Communication but also for its potential of becoming a unique and separate paradigm in the social sciences using Siebert et. al.’s ‘Four Theories of the Press’” as his launch pad.

The Four Theories of the Press are: the Authoritarian Theory, the Libertarian Theory, the Social Responsibility Theory and the Soviet-Totalitarian Theory.

Authoritarian Theory. The earliest press system was characterized by the state’s superiority over the individual, and the press’ role as a servant of the state.

Libertarian Theory. This was characterized by the end of man’s dependence on the state with the recognition of his rational nature to discern between truth and falsehood. In turn, the press served as a watchdog of the state.

Social Responsibility Theory. This counterbalanced media’s near-monopoly position with an obligation to be socially responsible.

Soviet-Authoritarian Theory. Also known as “Social Centralist System”, this theory is similar to the Authoritarian Theory in that the press is a tool of the ruling power, but its difference lies in that the state, not private individuals, own the press.

“The primary thesis of the ‘Four Theories’ model is that the press always takes the form of the social and political structures within which it operates… However, another type of social structure began to emerge… This was the Developing Society in Post-Colonial Asia, Latin America, and Africa. It is in this context… that a ‘Fifth Theory’ finds its application” (A. Flor, 1991).

Such was the prevailing sentiment during this time “when local communication scholars began questioning the relevance of Western theories and models to Asian and developing country settings” (Braid & Tuazon, 1999). Alexander G. Flor points to Development Communication as the Fifth Theory of the Press being the answer. Its uniqueness lies “in its profound view of communication which not only addresses man’s relationship to the state (as in the case of the first ‘Four Theories’) but also man’s relationship to his whole environment in the pursuit of the realization of his full potential” (A. Flor, 1991). In Development Communication, media ownership is no longer limited to the government and private individuals, but it also belongs to NGOs, religious orders, and even to the audience themselves: the poor and marginalized.

By the 1980s, communication programs shifted to Dev Com-oriented issues such as agriculture, education, health, women in development (WID), environment, indigenous peoples and sustainable development (Ongkiko & Flor, 1998). But “the local communication environment was merely reflective of the global debate on the need for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO)… a restructuring of the imbalance in the flow of information worldwide, and communication policies which were perceived as advantageous to developed countries” (Braid & Tuazon, 1999).

This global informatization, however, did not happen overnight but can be traced back to 1957 when the Sputnik Satellite was launched into space, ushering in the Information Age. “Social observers and academics agree that humanity has gone through two major eras: the Agricultural Age (the invention of the plough) and the Industrial Age (introduction of the steam engine)” (Ongkiko & Flor, 1998).

The third major era, the Information Age, is “characterized by rapid informatization, widespread recognition of the primacy of information as a resource, and the dominance of information-based economies” (Ongkiko & Flor, 1998). This dominance is also known as Media Imperialism which Benjamina G. Flor discusses extensively in “The ASEAN Media Landscape”.

In it, Flor defines Media Imperialism as “the use of media to advance the interests of a dominant country over a subordinate nation” and cites Johann Galtung’s Structural Theory of Imperialism in which he distinguishes between Center (C) and Periphery (P) nations, each with their own centers (c) and peripheries (p), setting the relations between these nations.

“In ASEAN, one may argue that the booming of mobile technology and social media network has brought the biggest change in the media landscape… but it is also home to a number of least developed countries where ICT development is among the lowest in the world” (Flor & Flor, 2019).

“Information and Communication Technology or ICT is the collective term given to the new (second and third) generation of information technology spawned by the merger of computers and telecommunications… It encompasses computer systems and networks, cellular telephony, desktop publishing, multimedia production, the Internet, cable television, and others. Another feature of ICT is the convergence of media” (Ongkiko & Flor, 1998) in which mainstream media (radio, TV, print) come together with new media (digital and social media) in a common platform.

“While mainstream media are more centralized and easily controllable by the few (Center), new media or digital media (Periphery) are more accessible to the people and may be an ‘alternative’ medium to produce and share information with the public nationally and internationally” (Flor & Flor, 2019). Thus, new media is a practical tool for the information rich of the Philippines, belonging to the center of a Periphery nation (Pc), to mobilize the narrowing of the digital divide nationally and internationally.

“One common indictment for globalization is that it is just happening too fast and too sudden for developing countries to cope. To allow the globalization phenomenon to grow naturally and organically, some economists suggest regionalization as a prelude” (Flor & Flor, 2019).

In Alexander G. Flor’s “Carving ICT Industry Niches within the ASEAN in a Globalized Higher Educational & Knowledge Environment,” he proposes that, “ASEAN universities and industry clusters should position themselves according to their relative strengths and strategic advantages.” He identifies eight ICT competency niches, along with a matrix “based partially on the perceived educational strengths within ASEAN countries” to “provide an impetus to lead in ICT4D policy and planning.”

ICT4D stands for “Information and Communication Technology for Development”. It is “not only a global initiative to leverage ICT to further the development agenda but also an active force to remedy inequities attendant to information societies… Based on ICT4D value premises, information resources should contribute more towards equality than exploitation, towards harmony than conflict, towards complementarities than dominance, towards integration than segregation, towards participation than elitism, towards indigenous development than dependency, and towards convergence than divergence” (A. Flor, 2009).

But even Alexander G. Flor is the first to admit that his ICT Industry Niches “may be considered radical by the conservative traditions of the academe” (Flor & Flor, 2019).

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for the conservative academics to finish their debate (or retire, whichever comes first), because we, the privileged information rich, can do something now to narrow the digital divide; this is not a product of elitism but an insight from history.

In the late 19th century, the Propaganda Movement began when a group of “rich kids” started a newspaper publication in Spain. “The use of the power of the pen to expose colonial exploitation and seek independence is perhaps the most important non-violent strategy for social and political reforms” (Braid & Tuazon, 1999). Rizal, Del Pilar, and Lopez-Jaena would later inspire the next generation of pen-wielding revolutionaries in the American and Japanese Eras, and even long after that when oppression no longer came from foreign nations but from within. It is from this long line of pen-wielding revolutionaries that we should now look to for inspiration in the Information Age.

If not through the more centralized mainstream media, then through the more accessible new media as alternative media. “The growth of the alternative press and its success showed the Filipinos’ hunger for non-mainstream news both local and foreign. With limited access to media (mainstream media), they resorted to creative communications, primarily interpersonal” (Braid & Tuazon, 1999).

“The content that is being shared by digital media has an impact in shaping the ASEAN identity and its cultures” (Flor & Flor, 2019). Therefore, it now falls squarely on the shoulders of the information rich to capitalize on their privilege and access to ICT resources and use the new media as an alternative media to mobilize the narrowing of the digital divide.

Note: This essay was originally written for my postgraduate class in Communication and Media in the ASEAN Context (DEVC 242/ASEAN 231).

References:

• Flor, Alexander G. 1991.The Fifth Theory of the Press.

• Flor, Alexander G. 2009. Developing Societies in the Information Age. UP Open University, Diliman, Quezon City.

• Flor, Alexander G. and Benjamina G. Flor.2019. ASEAN Convergence. Towards an ASEAN Identity: Discourses on Communication and Culture.

• Ongkiko, I. V. C., & Flor, A. G. (1998). Introduction to Development Communication. UP Open University.

• Rosario-Braid, F., & Tuazon, R. R. (1999). Communication Media in the Philippines: 1521-1986. Philippine Studies, 47(3), 291–318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42634324.