Q: The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) has been playing the victim, reposting articles from certain organizations, i.e. the Movement Against Disinformation and the Committee to Protect Journalists, to support its position while continuing to dismiss China’s criticism. What is the response from the embassy?

A: It did not take long for the PCIJ to rally helpers that may share similar foreign funding sources to echo its anti-China narrative. If anything, the episode only underscores a troubling reality: coordinated online attacks on China are organized, persistent, and increasingly difficult to ignore.

PCIJ should therefore answer a simple question: Did it receive funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—yes or no?

Accepting substantial funding from the NED inevitably raises legitimate questions about PCIJ’s editorial autonomy. Transparency is not optional when foreign-backed financing intersects with politically charged reporting.

Further, playing the victim may make for a compelling storyline, but weakness does not confer moral authority. The PCIJ initiated the attacks on China and should be prepared to answer for them. Its claim of “independence” rings hollow when its reporting on China is so consistently one-sided and the facts say otherwise.