Media as a Public Information Channel: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Governance Communication

Effective governance depends on the capacity of local government units (LGUs) to disseminate public information that is accessible, clear, and inclusive. Despite the expanding use of digital platforms in government communication, structural inequalities and institutional coordination challenges continue to constrain their effectiveness, particularly in geographically dispersed municipalities. This study examines media as a public information channel in the Municipality of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, Philippines, with the aim of identifying communication barriers and governance strategies that influence public information delivery across barangays with varying levels of accessibility.
An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were gathered from 246 residents across four barangays, followed by in-depth interviews with 20 residents and barangay officials. Descriptive statistical analysis and reflexive thematic analysis reveal that while LGU Cantilan actively utilizes social media, official websites, and printed bulletins, communication effectiveness is hindered by inconsistent messaging, limited internet connectivity, and challenges in information comprehension. Digital platforms were perceived as frequently used but unevenly accessible, particularly in remote areas, resulting in continued reliance on traditional and interpersonal communication channels. The findings highlight the need for hybrid, equity oriented, and participatory communication systems that institutionalize feedback mechanisms and prioritize clarity and accessibility. The study contributes to public administration scholarship by emphasizing governance communication as a core institutional function essential to transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement.

Media, Public information, Digital divide, Local governance, Citizen engagement.

1. 1987 Philippine Constitution. Art. III, Sec. 4 & 7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ababa, G., Martin, R., & Santos, L. (2023). Geographic determinism and information poverty in upland communities: A case from the Cordillera. Philippine Geography Journal, 67(2), 89-110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alampay, E. A., & Barbon, J. R. (2022). Beyond access: Understanding the layered barriers to effective digital governance in Philippine localities. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 66(1), 78-102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arabit, J., & Cordero, M. L. (2023). Blended participation: Integrating digital and face-toface modalities in Naga City’s participatory budgeting. Philippine Political Science Journal, 44(1), 55-78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2020). Public management and governance (4th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chan, C., Kwan, C., & Fung, M. (2023). Purposeful selection in qualitative research: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Strategies for depth and richness. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 52(1), 45-67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cruz, R. A., & Pangalangan, E. A. (2021). Platform governance and public engagement: An analysis of local government unit Facebook pages in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 65(2), 145–172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dela Torre, F. (2021). Anthropology of information: Trust, rumor, and authority in a Samar municipality. University of the Philippines Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Department of the Interior and Local Government. (2020). *Memorandum Circular No. 2020-077: Advisory to all LGUs on the proper use of social media to avoid spread of false information and to maximize the platform for COVID-19 related updates*. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Department of the Interior and Local Government. (2021). *Memorandum Circular No. 2021-046: Guidelines on the implementation of the Barangay Development Council (BDC) and the strengthening of barangay based citizen participation mechanisms*. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, Republic Act No. 8792. (2000). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016: Operationalizing in the executive branch the people’s constitutional right to information and the state policies to full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. (2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2020). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Brookings Institution Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Gunnarsson, M., & Pettersson, F. (2023). Plain language as a tool for inclusive governance: Lessons from Swedish municipal communication. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 41(1), 88-105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2021). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (4th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Jansen, T., & Koop, R. (2023). Source credibility in the age of digital municipal communication: A framework for verification. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 4(2), 1-15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lee, J., & Kwak, Y. (2020). Fragmentation and coherence: A diagnostic framework for assessing government social media strategy. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101517. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Linders, D. (2020). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446-454. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Local Government Code of 1991, Republic Act No. 7160. (1991). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Malik, A., & Choudhary, P. (2022). Hybrid information systems in rural governance: Leveraging formal and informal networks for resilience. Information Systems Journal, 32(5), 1023-1050. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Nurmandi, A., Misran, & Kurniawan, D. (2022). Social media adoption in Indonesian local government: A study of platform use without strategic engagement. Asian Politics & Policy, 14(2), 245-263. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Orencia, P. L. (2023). Strategic incoherence: A content audit of LGU Facebook communication in Region III. Philippine Communication Review, 21(1), 34-59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Philippine League of Urban Governance and Innovation (PLGU), in consortium with Visayas State University & Mindanao State University. (2023). The Barangay Information and Communication Ecology (BICE) framework: A toolkit for local governments. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). 2020 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) – Province of Surigao del Sur. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2021). The third researcher in mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 146167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Smith, M. L., & Sanderson, J. (2021). Visualizing transparency: The role of infographics and live streams in local government communication. Journal of Public Relations & Digital Media, 8(2), 45-67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Soriano, C. R. R., & Cabañes, J. V. A. (2023). The multi-layered digital divide: Connectivity, capability, and cost in post-pandemic Philippines. New Media & Society, 25(11), 3105–3124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Tacchi, J., Kitner, K. R., & Haviland, M. (2023). Communicative ecologies: A cultural approach to information and communication for development. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Tesoro, R. (2022). Cultural interfaces: Designing inclusive digital governance for indigenous communities in Caraga. Indigenous Policy Journal, 33(1), 112-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Republic Act No. 6713. (1989). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10175. (2012). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. The Data Privacy Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10173. (2012). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Torres, M. L. (2022). Hybridizing hubs: SMS and face-to-face assemblies for feedback in rural Mindanao LGUs. Philippine Social Science Review, 74(1), 112-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). *E-Government Survey 2022: Digital government for resilient future*. UN DESA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark