166 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy, Second Edition Corruption Chairman Martin Diño, and Pastor Wendell Unlayao led a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to join – and further substantiate – an earlier petition by Ricardo Penson, Christian Señeres, Rizalito David, and Baldomero Falcone to declare the 2013 senatorial elections “null and void” because of “strong evidence… of electronic dagdag-bawas [cheating].” The petitioners accused Comelec of “grave abuse of discretion when it proclaimed the winning senators in the May 2013 polls” in spite of “clear and overwhelming evidence that the May 2013 elections were carried out illegally, resulting in massive electoral fraud and deliberate subversion of the will of the electorate”. What Brillantes and his complicit ofcials had deprived the Filipino public of is the basic democratic right to free and transparent elections. By systematically eliminating all the IT security protocols, safeguards, and processes that might allow voters to verify and ensure that their votes are counted accurately in a computerized election, the Smartmatic-loving Brillantes, his patrons, and his minions had made certain that the automated elections were completely opaque and that the Filipino people would be blissfully oblivious to the deceptions being foisted on them. By the way, those deceptions were propagated by a mostly undiscerning and gullible media. Reading the print columnists and listening to the TV commentators congratulate Comelec chairman Brillantes for his staging of the 2013 automated polls made one painfully aware of how uncritical Philippine media is. For what, pray tell, was Brillantes being congratulated? For brazenly violating key provisions of the poll automation law? For decisions and actions that make stealing the vote in the automated polls much easier with no one being the wiser? For depriving the Filipino voter of the fundamental right to see how his vote is being counted? Can media – supposedly watchdogs of the people – be so utterly lacking in discernment, analytical ability, and judgment? The problem is that many media practitioners today are not intellectually prepared to deal with complex issues and are often too lazy to put in the work needed to prepare to deal with such issues. This is evident in the quality of our talk shows where the host is content to lob supercial “gimme” questions at a guest instead of engaging him/her in serious discussions that will illuminate difcult subjects or unmask hidden agendas. It is also evident in the quality of our news stories where reporters write (and editors print) what they are told by subjects without making the effort to study the case and challenge questionable assertions. In this situation, it is difcult to overcome the fact that much of media – not just Philippine media, to be sure – are owned by vested interests and exist mainly to sing paeans to the powerful, rich, or famous. For many media practitioners, it is enough to sing for whoever pays for their supper. Doubtless, these factors were in play in the way the media treated the issue of automated polls. Some media practitioners simply could not stand people who talked in what seemed like technical gobbledygook and just turned them