ENG 407 – NEWS AND EDITORIAL WRITING

Media Analysis Project

NAME: STEPHANIE T. DE ROMA SCORE: ___________

PROGRAM: MAENG__ DATE: 10-26-2024

Media Analysis: The Drug War Under Former President Rodrigo Duterte

The drug war initiated by former President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines has been
one of the most controversial and heavily scrutinized policies in recent history. Launched in
2016, this campaign aimed to eradicate illegal drugs and drug-related crimes, but it has also led
to widespread allegations of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings. The media
plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and discourse surrounding such significant
issues. By examining how different media outlets report on the drug war, we can better
understand the narratives that emerge and their implications for public opinion and policy. This
analysis focuses on three prominent sources: Time, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and
Human Rights Watch (HRW). Each outlet provides a unique perspective, influenced by its
editorial stance, audience, and reporting style. Through a detailed examination of their headlines,
tones, key points, sources used, and biases, this essay aims to illuminate the complex interplay
between media representation and public perception regarding Duterte's controversial drug war.

Time magazine is known for its investigative journalism and in-depth reporting on global
issues. In its article titled "Philippines: Rodrigo Duterte's Drug War Photos," Time adopts a
critical tone that underscores the severity of the situation. The headline itself sets an alarming
tone, suggesting a focus on the violent consequences of Duterte's policies. The article reports that
over 6,000 extrajudicial killings have occurred since Duterte took office, a figure that highlights
the scale of violence associated with the drug war.

The piece emphasizes the lack of due process for victims, many of whom were killed
during nighttime operations—a tactic often employed by law enforcement. By focusing on these
details, Time effectively paints a picture of a lawless environment where human rights are
routinely violated. The article also discusses international outrage and condemnation from
various human rights organizations, framing Duterte’s actions as a blatant disregard for human
rights norms.
 In terms of sources, Time relies on local media estimates and statements from
international human rights figures to substantiate its claims. This reliance on credible external
voices enhances the article's authority but also suggests an inherent bias against Duterte’s
administration. The framing is starkly negative; it portrays Duterte as a leader who prioritizes
aggressive policing over adherence to legal standards and human rights protections.

Time’s reporting style is characterized by its use of vivid imagery and emotional appeals.
By including photographs that capture the grim realities faced by victims' families, the article
evokes sympathy and outrage from readers. This emotional engagement is crucial in mobilizing
public opinion against the drug war and contributes to a broader narrative that condemns
Duterte’s policies as fundamentally flawed.

Overall, Time's approach serves to inform readers about the human cost of the drug war
while simultaneously advocating for accountability and reform. Its critical tone and emphasis on
human rights violations position it firmly within the camp of those who oppose Duterte’s
methods.

On the other hand, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) takes a more analytical
approach in its coverage of Duterte's drug war. In its article titled "Human Rights and Duterte's
War on Drugs," CFR provides a comprehensive overview that situates the drug war within a
broader political context. The tone is informative rather than sensational; CFR aims to educate its
audience about both the implications of Duterte’s policies and the complexities surrounding
public support for them.

One key point highlighted in this article is that despite widespread violence, many
Filipinos continue to support Duterte's drug war. CFR links this support to economic issues faced
by many citizens, suggesting that some view aggressive anti-drug measures as necessary for
restoring order in their communities. This nuanced perspective contrasts sharply with Time’s
more one-dimensional portrayal of Duterte as solely a violator of human rights.

CFR employs expert opinions and surveys reflecting public sentiment as sources for its
analysis. This reliance on empirical data allows CFR to present a balanced view that
acknowledges both human rights concerns and public approval ratings for Duterte’s policies. By
adopting this multifaceted approach, CFR encourages readers to consider why such violent
tactics might be tolerated or even embraced by segments of society grappling with crime and
economic instability.

The article also discusses vigilante justice and police involvement in extrajudicial killings
but does so within a framework that seeks to understand rather than solely condemn these
actions. While CFR does not shy away from criticizing the violence associated with the drug
war, it also emphasizes the complexity of governance in the Philippines under Duterte.

Overall, CFR's reporting style is characterized by its analytical rigor and balanced
presentation of facts. By situating the drug war within broader social and economic contexts,
CFR fosters a more comprehensive understanding among its readers about why such policies
resonate with certain segments of the population.

However, Human Rights Watch (HRW) offers an emotionally charged perspective on

Duterte's drug war in its report titled "Our Happy Family Is Gone: Impact of the 'War on Drugs'
on Children in the Philippines." The tone is urgent and deeply concerned, focusing primarily on
the humanitarian impacts of the drug war—especially on children who have been affected by
violence.

HRW reports thousands of deaths as collateral damage from Duterte’s campaign against
drugs, including innocent children who have lost their lives or witnessed horrific acts of
violence. The organization emphasizes not only physical harm but also psychological trauma
inflicted upon children who grow up in such violent environments. This focus on personal stories
adds an emotional weight to HRW’s reporting that is less pronounced in both Time’s and CFR’s
analyses.

The sources utilized by HRW include testimonies from affected families as well as
reports from other human rights organizations. This reliance on personal narratives allows HRW
to create an intimate connection between readers and victims’ experiences, thereby mobilizing
empathy and outrage against government policies perceived as abusive.

HRW adopts a highly critical stance towards Duterte’s administration, framing his
policies as violations of children's rights under international law. This framing serves not only to
condemn specific actions but also to call for accountability from both national authorities and
international bodies.
 In summary, HRW's reporting is marked by its emotional appeal and focus on
humanitarian issues rather than political analysis or public sentiment. By centering children's
experiences in its narrative, HRW effectively highlights the far-reaching consequences of
Duterte's drug war while advocating for urgent reforms.

The analysis reveals both similarities and differences among Time, CFR, and HRW
regarding their coverage of Duterte's drug war. All three outlets emphasize human rights
violations associated with extrajudicial killings; however, they differ significantly in their tones,
focal points, and framing strategies.

Similarities include a shared concern over high death tolls resulting from police
operations and vigilante justice linked to the drug war. Each outlet raises alarms about
government accountability failures concerning law enforcement actions. Furthermore, all three
publications acknowledge international condemnation directed at Duterte’s administration for its
handling of human rights issues.

Differences, however, are pronounced when examining their tones and focal points. Time
adopts an investigative tone that prioritizes immediate facts surrounding violence while
employing emotional appeals through vivid imagery. In contrast, CFR provides an analytical
perspective that situates public support for Duterte within economic contexts—offering readers
insight into why some Filipinos might endorse violent measures despite their consequences.

HRW stands apart with its emotionally charged narrative focused primarily on
humanitarian impacts—especially concerning children affected by violence—thus evoking
empathy from readers. While Time focuses broadly on casualties without delving deeply into
individual stories or systemic issues beyond immediate violence, HRW personalizes these
experiences through testimonies from victims’ families.

The impact of media bias and framing is significant in shaping public perception around
Duterte's policies. Outlets like HRW may galvanize public outrage against human rights abuses
through emotional engagement while fostering calls for reform or accountability. Conversely,
CFR’s nuanced approach encourages readers to consider complex socio-economic factors
influencing public sentiment toward Duterte’s governance.
 Ultimately, these differing narratives can lead to varying levels of understanding among
audiences regarding not just what is happening but why it is happening—and how it might be
addressed moving forward. Media representations play an essential role in shaping societal
narratives about political figures like Duterte; thus, understanding these dynamics becomes
crucial for informed public discourse.

In conclusion, analyzing how different media outlets report on former President Rodrigo
Duterte's drug war reveals significant insights into how narratives are constructed around
contentious political issues. Time, Council on Foreign Relations, and Human Rights Watch each
provide distinct perspectives shaped by their editorial styles—ranging from critical investigations
to nuanced analyses grounded in socio-economic contexts or emotionally charged humanitarian
appeals.

While all three outlets agree on fundamental concerns regarding human rights violations
associated with extrajudicial killings during the drug war, their differing tones influence how
audiences perceive these events' complexities—whether through immediate outrage or deeper
contextual understanding.

Ultimately, this analysis underscores the vital role media plays in shaping public
discourse around governance issues like those presented by Duterte's drug war. As narratives
evolve based on reporting styles and biases inherent in each outlet's approach, so too does public
perception—highlighting journalism's power not only to inform but also to influence societal
attitudes toward pressing political matters.

References

Jenkins, N. (2016). Philippines: Rodrigo Duterte's Drug War Photos. Time. Retrieved from
https://time.com/philippines-drug-war/

Gershman, J. (2016). Human Rights and Duterte's War on Drugs. Council on Foreign
Relations. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/interview/human-rights-and-dutertes-war-
drugs
Human Rights Watch. (2020). “Our Happy Family Is Gone”: Impact of the “War on Drugs” on
Children in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/27/our-
happy-family-gone/impact-war-drugs-children-philippines