> That would seem that they reported fake news that could have caused panic but later on just conveniently issued an erratum. You are taking excerpts of my res

> That would seem that they reported fake news that could have caused panic but later on just conveniently issued an erratum. You are taking excerpts of my response out-of-context to argue your point. Again, they had reason to believe it was true, because the information came from a source they trust (AFP/the news wire). I would not call it "fake news" if they admitted the case from the other side later on. If you'd sneer at people admitting their own mistakes (like by issuing errata)...well I hope you don't make mistakes of your own. > So, it's a standard that "journalists" can disregard with impunity. You are the only one saying that. If their reporting does not check out with their references, they lose credibility at best or get sued for libel at worst. > But Pres. Duterte does not I am not claiming that he is doing it. I am claiming that he _can_ do it. He CAN dictate the police/influence regulating bodies to strangle institutions. In contrast, these institutions do not have any similar influence. That is why, unless you are using the word "dictator" in a context other than political, you cannot label institutions as dictators. > Regarding the live updates[1], He called it out because it may endanger the soldiers. Now this, my friend, is a clear example of what you are calling "fake news that could have caused panic". Quoting the article: "But Aznar stressed that if Nieto's accusations of him endangering the troops were true, why is the Armed Forces of the Philippines still allowing him to cover the Marawi siege?" Surely, on-the-ground AFP units know better than Nieto on whether Aznar is endangering them? And yet Nieto saw it fit to raise an online hue-and-cry. Errata/apologies from Nieto: 0, nil, zilch, nada. Makes it hard to believe that his intentions were for the best interest of the AFP (and in fact, had that been the case, would it not make more sense to discreetly raise the matter to AFP, seeing that he has contacts in the government the ordinary Filipino does not?). And also, > Regarding the NUJP's condemnation[2], Nieto seems to be joking. Imagine if a professional journalist made "jokes" in bad taste like that. Imagine the professional backlash they would face. And yet Nieto who keeps passing off his opinions as "fact" is not held to the same standard. Point: any professional journalist who value their own credibility would be careful not to say things like this, joking or not. > What I meant is that he effectively raises issues using his words such as the Dengvaxia scandal. Ends do not justify means. You originally raised Nieto's part in exposing Dengvaxia in response to me labeling Nieto as "fake news". I stand by my original assertion and that even if Nieto's role in exposing Dengvaxia is significant, that does not redeem him from all the other times he peddled baseless accusations or outright lies. > he found a way to do it quickly in his first few months what the previous administration wasn't able to do after many years in office Duterte would not have been able to implement it quickly were it not for the legislative foundations (House meetings, Senate deliberations, etc.) that happened in the previous administration. It is not as if all the work on this bill was done exclusively by Duterte's administration. To claim that the previous administration weren't able to do anything for FOI after many years in office is outright false. In fact, no amount of executive orders can will an ordinary bill into a strong law in a matter of months. Should any president try, there are checks and balances in the government (hi Supreme Court) that could question the process and hold the implementation. Heck the RH Bill took its sweet time before it even became a document awaiting a president's signature and it was still issued a TRO for over a year. Not to mention that today, the RH Law is a toothless version of what was originally passed.