Criticism Is Not Red-Tagging

Lamdag Media takes exception to the League of Filipino Students–Davao’s decision to feature our editorial, “Remember When LFS Celebrated Its NPA Alumni?”, in an infographic presenting alleged practices of red-tagging and digital repression. By placing Lamdag’s work under a category describing online vilification and state-backed campaigns, LFS-Davao does more than disagree with our editorial. It associates our publication with a serious accusation without identifying what, specifically, makes the article an instance of red-tagging.

Red-tagging is a serious matter. Accusations linking individuals to communist or terrorist organizations can expose them to harassment, threats, discrimination, and violence. Such accusations must not be made carelessly, and credible allegations of intimidation must be investigated. But the seriousness of red-tagging is precisely why the term should not be applied indiscriminately to political criticism that an organization finds objectionable.

Lamdag’s editorial examined a statement attributed to an LFS spokesperson expressing pride in alumni who joined the New People’s Army (NPA). It revisited that statement in the context of questions surrounding campus activism, the communist underground, and the allegations involving Heroine Fernandez’s family. These are matters of public interest. They are open to scrutiny, disagreement, and debate.

The editorial did not declare that student activism is terrorism. It did not argue that every student activist belongs to the underground movement. Nor did it claim that every organization engaged in campus activism shares the same political objectives. Its argument was that public statements about participation in an armed movement are legitimate subjects of public scrutiny, even when those statements come from a political organization that also advocates causes and rights deserving protection.

LFS-Davao is free to challenge the editorial’s interpretation, dispute its conclusions, or present evidence that its account is inaccurate. That is part of public discourse. But placing the article in a graphic about digital repression does not establish that the article itself constitutes red-tagging. If LFS-Davao believes otherwise, the burden is on the organization to explain why, rather than leave readers to infer wrongdoing from the graphic’s presentation.

There is an important distinction between criticizing an organization’s political position and branding its members as terrorists. There is likewise a distinction between questioning a public statement about the NPA and accusing every person associated with the speaker’s organization of involvement in armed struggle. Lamdag recognizes these distinctions and expects its own work to be judged against them. We remain accountable for the accuracy of our reporting, the strength of our evidence, and the fairness of our conclusions.

Lamdag will not claim immunity from criticism. We do, however, reject the suggestion that our editorial should be treated as red-tagging merely because it scrutinizes a statement by LFS. If there are factual errors, identify them. If the interpretation is disputed, make the counterargument. If the accusation is red-tagging, establish how the article meets that description.

The public deserves better than competing labels. It deserves arguments supported by evidence, claims open to verification, and organizations willing to defend their positions through reasoned debate.

Lamdag will continue to scrutinize political organizations, government institutions, and public figures regardless of their affiliations. We will also continue to distinguish documented facts from allegations and inference, and to correct errors when warranted. Our editorial independence does not depend on the approval of the organizations we cover or criticize.