When Media Must Relearn Its Purpose

By Sonia P. Soto

There is an uncomfortable truth that media organizations everywhere must now confront:

People are slowly walking away from the news.

Not because they no longer care about society, democracy, or the future of the country. In fact, many still do. But audiences today are exhausted — exhausted by outrage masquerading as discourse, by endless political noise, by social media ecosystems designed to provoke anger rather than understanding, and yes, sometimes even by journalism itself.

Let us admit it honestly. Modern media has contributed to this fatigue.

Somewhere along the way, the race for clicks, ratings, virality, and algorithmic attention began shaping not only how stories were distributed, but also how they were framed. Nuance became difficult. Outrage became profitable. Noise became a business model.

“Pag mas maingay, mas viral.”

Unfortunately, that is often true.

As someone who has spent decades in media — as a writer, broadcaster, producer, public affairs host, and media executive — this is not easy for me to say. Media people are trained to defend the profession. But genuine reflection requires honesty, especially now that journalism itself is undergoing an existential crisis.

This is precisely why the transformation journey now being undertaken by CLTV36 through the North Star Goal Methodology of the Institute for Public Interest Media (IFPIM) matters deeply to us.

Last May 12-13, 2026, I had the opportunity to personally participate in the CLTV36 Bootcamp organized by CLTV36 Management with the support of IFPIM. I thank management for undertaking what is honestly a difficult but necessary process.

Hindi biro ang magpa-transform ng isang media organization habang tuloy-tuloy pa rin ang daily operations, deadlines, programming pressures, and financial realities. Mas madaling magkunwaring “okay pa naman tayo.”

But real leadership requires the courage to ask uncomfortable questions before circumstances force those questions upon you.

What made the experience even more meaningful for me personally was its familiarity.

For many years now, I have also been associated with the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA), an institution that has spent almost three decades helping transform public sector organizations, local governments, water districts, educational institutions, and various governance institutions through strategic governance and performance management systems.

In many ways, ISA helped shape how I understand institutions, leadership, governance, and accountability. It taught many of us that transformation is not sustained by slogans, personalities, or one-time publicity campaigns. Real transformation requires systems, discipline, citizen engagement, measurable outcomes, and long-term thinking.

And frankly, the Philippines already has many good governance models and solutions. Marami talaga.

The problem is that these lessons are often buried under political noise, personality-driven discourse, and a media culture that sometimes prefers conflict over understanding because conflict is easier to sell.

We have local governments quietly improving services. We have schools experimenting with reforms. We have communities innovating despite limited resources. We have institutions trying to professionalize governance. We have public servants attempting long-term solutions even when such work is less glamorous than headline-grabbing politics.

But these stories are often drowned out.

That is why the conversation around solutions-oriented journalism resonates strongly with me.

At first glance, CLTV36’s North Star Goal transformation process may sound like another strategic planning exercise — the kind that produces thick documents, colorful slides, and corporate buzzwords that eventually gather dust in office cabinets. Thankfully, this process is proving to be something far more uncomfortable, and therefore far more meaningful.

Because the methodology forces organizations to confront difficult questions that many media institutions prefer to avoid.

Who are we now as a media organization?

What unique value do we still provide in an overcrowded information environment?

Can journalism still build trust in an era dominated by influencers, vloggers, propaganda networks, and hyperpartisan content creators?

And perhaps the hardest question of all: how do we remain financially sustainable without slowly surrendering our soul as a public-interest media institution?

Those questions are not theoretical. They are survival questions.

Regional media organizations like CLTV36 can no longer compete simply by trying to imitate national networks or outshout social media personalities. We cannot outspend them. We cannot out-click outrage factories that monetize anger twenty-four hours a day.

But perhaps regional media still possesses something increasingly rare: proximity to real communities.

And I think this matters even more for us because we are deeply mainstreamed in the local community. Hindi kami dayo sa mga kuwentong binabalita namin. Dito rin kami nakatira.

The flooding affects our own families too. The economic struggles are experienced by people we personally know. The schools, hospitals, businesses, local governments, cultural institutions, churches, and communities we report about are part of our own daily realities.

We do not simply “cover” Central Luzon. In many ways, we are part of it.

That creates a deeper responsibility.

We know the ground. We know the people. We understand the stories behind the statistics because these communities are not abstractions to us. They are our neighbors, viewers, listeners, advertisers, local leaders, schools, churches, workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

That proximity matters.

And perhaps this is where trust can still be rebuilt.

Part of this transformation journey involves embracing more deeply the principles of solutions-oriented journalism — a model of journalism that does not stop at exposing problems, but also rigorously examines credible responses to those problems.

This is important to clarify because solutions journalism is often misunderstood as “positive news” or “feel-good reporting.” It is not. It is still journalism. It still demands evidence. It still questions institutions. It still investigates failures and limitations.

But it asks one additional question that modern media too often neglects:

“After exposing the problem, what now?”

Who is responding seriously? What systems are working? What reforms are worth studying? What lessons can communities learn from one another? What models can actually be replicated?

In a society drowning in cynicism, these questions matter.

Because if citizens only hear stories of corruption, incompetence, violence, and dysfunction every single day — without also seeing examples of communities attempting solutions — eventually people stop believing that improvement is even possible.

And once a society loses the ability to imagine solutions, democracy itself becomes fragile.

This realization has also forced me into personal reflection.

For many years in media, success was often measured through visibility, ratings, influence, or public recognition. But the transformation journey quietly pushes one toward a more uncomfortable realization:

It is not enough to be visible.

The deeper question is whether people still trust you.

That, I think, is the real crisis facing journalism today.

Not simply declining revenues. Not merely shrinking audiences. But declining trust.

Because in the end, media is not just content production. It is not merely airtime, livestreams, podcasts, social media metrics, or television programs.

It is public responsibility.

And perhaps in this age of noise, one of the most radical things media can do is not to become louder, but to become more credible.

Madali kasing magpakaingay. Mas mahirap ang maging kapani-paniwala.

The future of journalism may no longer belong to those who dominate outrage cycles or generate the loudest headlines.

It may belong to institutions willing to rebuild trust slowly, honestly, and courageously — even when the process is uncomfortable.

Because if media cannot help clarify conversations, deepen understanding, and help communities think beyond division and despair, then we risk becoming part of the noise we once promised to challenge.

###