In the digital age, streaming platforms, online broadcasts, and social media–driven news channels have become the primary source of information for millions of Filipinos. With this influence comes responsibility. Yet media watchdogs, analysts, and ordinary viewers are increasingly asking a difficult question: are some Philippine streaming media outlets selectively silent on issues involving powerful political families?
This concern has intensified following the lack of sustained reporting on flood control fund issues linked to House Speaker Martin Romualdez, despite widespread public discussion on social media and alternative news platforms.
Streaming Media and Political Power in the Philippines
While the Philippines does not have a Netflix-style political streaming service owned by sitting leaders, several broadcast networks with strong online and livestreaming presence are owned or controlled by corporate groups associated with the Romualdez family, close relatives and allies of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.
These outlets operate legally and openly. However, critics argue that ownership structure matters—especially when sensitive political issues receive little to no airtime.
Media Groups Frequently Cited by Analysts
The following media entities are often mentioned in public discussions due to their ownership links and strong digital or streaming distribution:
- Prime Media Holdings, Inc. – A publicly listed company linked to the Romualdez family with radio, television, and digital media assets.
- TeleRadyo Serbisyo – A cable and online news channel whose programs are livestreamed on digital platforms.
- DWPM Radyo 630 (formerly DZMM) – A major AM radio station with extensive online streaming presence.
- Favorite Music Radio (FMR) Network – A nationwide FM network with web-based and app-based streaming.
These platforms reach audiences not only through traditional broadcasting but also through YouTube, Facebook Live, and mobile streaming, expanding their influence far beyond radio and cable.
The Flood Control Controversy and the Question of Coverage
Flood control projects involve billions of pesos in public funds and directly affect the safety and livelihood of Filipino communities. Transparency advocates argue that any issue involving top government leaders must receive serious and consistent media scrutiny.
However, critics observe that streaming and digital channels associated with Prime Media and its partners have not provided prominent or sustained coverage of concerns related to Martin Romualdez and flood control allocations. This perceived silence stands in contrast to their extensive reporting on other political controversies.
Media observers emphasize that bias is not only measured by what is reported, but also by what is repeatedly ignored.
Why Perceived Media Bias Matters
When audiences sense selective reporting, public trust weakens. Over time, this can undermine the credibility of media institutions and distort democratic accountability.
Independent journalism is built on:
- Equal scrutiny of all public officials
- Transparency in media ownership
- A clear separation between political influence and editorial judgment
Without these principles, streaming platforms risk becoming political echo chambers instead of public watchdogs.
The Role of Viewers and Readers
Modern audiences are no longer passive. Filipinos actively compare news sources, follow independent journalists, and question why certain stories dominate social media yet remain absent on major streaming outlets.
Viewers are encouraged to:
- Consume news from diverse sources
- Support independent investigative reporting
- Question editorial silence on major public fund issues
Conclusion: Accountability Begins With Coverage
Streaming media linked to powerful political families are not illegal, nor automatically unethical. However, public trust depends on fair and fearless coverage, especially when public safety and billions in government funds are involved.
Until major streaming outlets openly address public concerns and apply equal scrutiny to all officials, questions of bias will continue. In a democracy, silence can be as powerful—and as damaging—as misinformation.
True accountability begins when media dares to ask difficult questions, regardless of political ties.
