“Watchdog” sounds too ambitious of a word to become a steward of the public—yet journalists become the political pawn of society. Press freedom will remain nothing more than a concept if meaningful measures are not taken to defend it. Society will be left behind, remain deprived, and ignorant of the state of politics and social affairs if authorities continue to deny the right to information. Knowledge will be confined in our memory—deeply embedded in the bias of selecting information that will remain in history. Henceforth, the newsroom will continue to work as if it’s a simulation of repeating narratives in motion. Paper stack endlessly, files gather dust, digital records slip out of reach, and memory boxes fill beyond capacity.

The struggle of producing news and bearing the responsibility of delivering information for the public keepsake is not confined to political institutions or newsroom practices alone. It is also an individual practice, one in which knowledge is carefully gathered, preserved, and carried across time. Just as individuals preserve personal experiences through textual and visual recordings, societies rely on archives and documented records to sustain collective memory. Journalism, therefore, functions not only as a medium of immediate reporting, but also as a long-term repository of public history that future generations may revisit to understand political, cultural, and social realities.

After all, the human mind carries only so much, with memories often slipping quietly into time. And during the festivities of “once in a lifetime” experiences like concerts, travelling abroad, or living through a rare moment, we keep our memories alive through the lenses of our phones—as no memory lasts forever. We capture photographs, document videos, and record notes to preserve our experiences—not for the sake of remembrance alone, but to make meaning of the present too. Yet often, it is misunderstood and undervalued that the preservation of news records is not as important as producing news that is timely and relevant. Documentation and publication are crucial evidence for examining the past that can support the present claims and even influence change.

Then again, archiving news does not guarantee permanence, nor does it ensure that information will remain for as long as collective memory endures. But, archivists may define archival materials as “intricate mosaics woven together by countless primary sources, each offering a unique perspective on the past.” It is a time machine that brings us back to the human life experiences that have been witnessed by different people—shared by a single archivist, tracking the historical footprints of certain phenomena. We can understand the value of information from different origins at a certain degree—at a personal, collective, historical, and archival level. And comprehending to such an extent varies on an individual perception, belief, and experience, shaping how each person interprets meaning and place significance over what information they encounter.

In the context of contemporary journalism, news has shifted from libraries to digital data archiving. Now that the internet has become the primary source of information, it has become a platform where information is saved, organized, and remembered by the audiences of digital media—constructing a mediated memory within. At the same time, news archives and digital records serve as important but fragile infrastructures of memory. While they preserve traces of events and support accountability, they are still vulnerable to deletion, broken links, platform dependency, and algorithmic invisibility. The production of online news contains more than the textual elements—extending beyond images, videos, links, and interactive features to keep the public engaged. Newsrooms may also store memories on third-party platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram as infrastructure of digital content. Yet, “A Public Record at Risk: The Dire State of News Archiving in the Digital Age,” suggests that back-up data does not equate to long-term preservation of notes and documentation of records that will remain accessible forever.

Therefore, we can understand from here on that the construction of false memories is inevitable in the rapid circulation of fake news in the digital age. Memory distortion can be then understood as the collective remembrance reshaped through digital systems that continuously select, amplify, omit, and repeat information. Rather than functioning as a stable repository of facts, memory is produced through socially and technologically mediated processes shaped by platforms, institutions, and users. In platform-driven ecosystems, what a society remembers or forgets is not simply determined by historical occurrence, but by how information is circulated and made visible within communication infrastructures that privilege certain narratives while obscuring other valuable information. These conditions enable selective or manipulated narratives to dominate public discourse, especially when archival gaps or uneven digital visibility weaken or limit access to reliable historical records. In this sense, archiving functions beyond preservation, ensuring that contested or politically sensitive histories remain available for scrutiny, critique, and public accountability despite the instability of digital environments.

Beyond issues of preservation and accessibility, the problem of distorted memory is also shaped by platform governance. Within the systems of rules, policies, and institutional mechanisms, it regulates how information is produced, circulated, and moderated accordingly within digital environments. In the Philippine context, studies on e-participation and digital governance suggest that platform-based systems such as the e-government portals and civic engagement tools can improve policy transparency and citizen information when supported by responsive institutions and inclusive digital infrastructures. Yet, platform governance is not neutral. Digital governance systems remain constrained by structural issues such as unequal access, limited institutional responsiveness, and uneven implementation across agencies. These conditions directly affect what information becomes publicly accessible and how long it remains visible within the digital archives. As a result, the preservation of collective memory is no longer solely a journalistic or archival concern but also a governance issue embedded within the architecture of digital platforms themselves.

Moreover, the internet remains susceptible to digital memory hole (the act of suppressing, erasing, or forgetting records for political or personal convenience). Technology is widely used for its efficiency and convenience to reach a larger audience, as well as its purpose of archiving. However, digital archives remain prone to alteration, manipulation, and censorship when discussing or covering an issue targeted by political interests. Unlike, print media materials that can be easily restricted and removed entirely within moments, often without public notice. This vulnerability raises concerns among journalists, historians, and the general public who rely on digital records as media persists to enable such behavior to generate distortion and undermine accountability.

Perhaps even more critically, social media has become not just a single network of democracy, but a thriving platform of historical revisionism—especially in the context of the 2022 Philippine elections. Its accessibility posed a significant threat to a persistent spread of disinformation and political propaganda in the face of internet trolls. The internet has been used as a strategic tactic for campaigns targeted to the Filipino economic aspiration—glorifying the “Golden Era” by erasing the historical context of brutality within the dictatorship—campaigning for “Bagong Pilipinas” as an ideal political system. The platform was taken advantage of to revise historical facts in an attempt to advance the greed of personal interests and control of the political system.

The 2022 Philippine elections is just one of the many studies against digital disinformation observed on the coordinated online campaigns from over-reliance on the social media algorithms, influencer networks, and sensational narratives to reshape public perception of the concealed political agendas. False content will go down in history—historians, journalists, and the newsrooms who neglected to seek and expose the truth will be judged not only for what they reported, but for what they failed to question. To an even greater extent, these patterns are revealed on how digital platforms can become instruments of historical revisionism when archival records and factual reporting are undermined for the sake of virality and sensationalism. Over time, records may correct the narrative, but the consequences of distortion often outlive the headlines that caused them. In the end, truth has a way of resurfacing, even if it arrives late to the story.

Thus, newsrooms should work in a manner where archiving is placed at the center of priority to help future journalists, historians, researchers, and the public themselves understand the past events. Upholding such a professional work ethic to document and preserve records helps us to examine the evolution of societies, cultures, and significant events if grounded by reliable documents. In this sense, the preservation of news archives is not merely a technical responsibility but a democratic necessity. Reliable archives protect societies against the fragility of digital memory by ensuring that public records remain accessible despite political transitions, technological changes, or attempts at historical erasure. With the further threat to journalistic practices, not only were the information at risk, but also the ability to critically examine how the truth has been shaped, contested, and remembered over time. And the future will crumble beneath the weight of our deliberate neglect of education.