I wish I could end my ambivalence over the controversial right-to-reply bill but I can’t. The truth is, I often can’t stand the self-righteousness of media people and their screwed way of blurring the lines between legitimate news reporting on the one hand and agenda pushing and sensationalism for profit on the other. And I just feel that it is high time for a not-so-subtle reminder that journalism ought to get back to what it is supposed to do—inform without bias, report without personal slant, disseminate without resorting to tacky gimmickry to make news more sellable.
In a nutshell, the right-to-reply bill says media outfits must provide the space for any person or entity who feels he may have been slighted or misconstrued by a previously published report. Doesn’t sound like there’s anything wrong there, is it? In fact, it is rather redundant as it only repeats what should already be a well-entrenched fair media practice. And at first glance, that’s all it says: “Be fair,” following the often-forgotten cliché that there is always more than one side to a story. The intention appears to be simple and legitimate—never assume nor insist that any story tells everything. In the spirit of fair play, every party has a right to be heard.
In an age where media has become a platform for trials by publicity, the right-to-reply bill seems more than welcome. Every accused is given the right to be heard in court—why not the same chance when a person risks having his name and reputation destroyed publicly? In a court of law, if an accuser cannot prove his accusation, he can be liable for the payment of damages in case the defendant has filed a counter-complaint. In media, a person publicly accused of wrongdoing cannot get back at his accusers because they are covered by the mantle of press freedom. Why such injustice when getting one’s name and reputation smeared can be just as horrible as going to prison or paying a huge fine?
But the sad thing is that, based on traditional and well accepted legal definition and parameters, the right-to-reply bill does constitute an abridgment of the freedom of the press. And it does impose prior restraint. When the press is told that it has no choice but to publish stories and statements that, by its own standards would never see the light of day, freedom is curtailed. And when journalists start censoring themselves to avoid mentioning people whom they’d rather not give space to in retaliatory statements, there is prior restraint.
And it is curious why the right-to-reply bill comes at a time when aspirants to the 2010 elections are clearly positioning themselves. Is the bill a way to ensure that candidates will have a free platform in media? Especially among incumbents seeking re-election or higher office who often find themselves at the wrong end of news reports, the bill just seems too convenient. If they get lambasted, they can lash back—and they don’t even have to pay for the space because the law grants it to them for free.
Should we then quickly condemn the right-to-reply bill as unconstitutional and as an attempt by politicians to place themselves at an advantage come election time? The glaring truth is that, given today’s realities, there is a need to look beyond the traditional and well-accepted definition and parameters of press freedom. We have looked the other way and postponed this task for far too long.
The circumstances that gave birth to press freedom are no longer what they are today. It simply is not reasonable to insist on the seeming absoluteness of press freedom considering the abuses committed during the past decades and which continue to be committed today. I read the news everyday, never failing to notice how press releases from “friendly” businesses are passed off as news reports and feature articles, the political bias of publications, the screaming headlines and half-nude women on tabloids that do not really figure in the news articles at all, and the never dying penchant for scandals, tragedies and violence. Is that what press freedom is all about?
For any institution to remain viable and relevant, it must evolve. Otherwise, it becomes an anthropological relic with no real substance and no positive contribution to society amid current realities. True, strong institutions can impose themselves on the will of the public. And media has such powerful tools at their disposal to insist, and make the public insist along with them, that they ought to remain untouchable. It’s ironic, really, how an institution that has developed the bloodlust for putting people on public trial insists that the same cannot be done about it. It’s almost like saying it is above the law.
I wish that I can end this column by saying “in the final analysis” but I have to leave the issue open-ended. Legally, the right-to-reply bill doesn’t appear to have any leg to stand on. Yet, the message it is trying to relay, at least in part, is something we cannot ignore.
I had been thinking about this one, too. It has been standard practice for media to air responses of their subject and there have been a number of times that we read that the person in question cannot be located or refuses to give a comment. In other words, a reply, albeit probably not as extensive, is already granted. That makes it sort of intriguing. Why would media, on one hand, refuse to let the right to reply passed when they are bound to air/publish the response anyway for a balanced, fair news reporting. On the other hand, why would, say, politicians press/demand something that is already being granted to them? I must be missing something big.
I think media prefer that the right to air the other side remain within their discretion. Like, okay, that’s fair practice but they and they alone decide when they will do it.
media makes the reports and determines the slant and just how fair it should be. why should it be so powerful? in our case as pinoys, has our media displayed exemplary fairness? i don’t think so. i regard my news with skepticism and read the agenda between the lines.i gagged at the spectacle of media persons self-righteously claiming persecution and curtailment of rights. they looked so much like the crooked characters they like to attack and skewer. my theory is that our institutions, media included, are becoming irrelevant slowly but surely.
It’s disgusting how, every time a member of the media dies violently, media entities are always so quick to conclude that it was an attempt to silence him and is, therefore, an attack against press freedom.
In a democratic society, the press freedom is first vital tool before one can redress government abuses, wasteful spending, graft, corruption, etc. Press freedom is for the benefit of the governed public against powerful government officials. In dictatorship, press freedom is effectively shutdown. Clearly, it is designed as check and balance against the inherent powers of state.
In the Philippines however, the media becomes an ineffective tool because, (1) the executive through ombudsman is not prosecuting high ranking government officials, (2) ineffective senate due to its endless investigations without significant results, (3) house members are indifferent to their constituencies and there is no effective accountability, (4) the constituencies are sending the same brand of politicians to office.
Naturally, the media becomes the casualty of heavy political circus. Holy cow, the politicians agree to turn it into their mouthpiece under the guise of right of reply! What a brilliant idea for 2010 campaign.
At the outset, Filipinos deserves the public officials they put into office.
If the right of reply bill passes, this is the only democratic country that put prior restraint on the press. I just hope, the 3rd co-equal government (court) will strike it down.
media is an ineffective check-and-balance tool because media agencies are adjuncts of elite politico-economic power players. they produce a lot of hot air that are politically and economically motivated, creating excitement, but little by way of genuine change. mediamen are beholden to their agency owners and their interests. in the end, we (rightfully) regard media reports more as entertainment than truth.
The only way to describe this country is that it clearly operates by a different set of rules based on the same assumed operating language of other democracies or societies it ‘longs’ to emulate. But can’t. Three words: YES WE CAN’T.
The things that I’m seeing in this right of reply are:
- Media, to a point, has become irresponsible in their news reporting .They are more interested in getting the news out than in getting the news right. Take note that majority of the news outlet in airwaves (Ch 2 and GMA7) and prints (tabloids outnumbered broadsheets) cater for the majority of the Filipinos, the C and D classes, who treat the mass media as their last bastion for truth. (He he he…)
- News releases are not anymore about news but all about sensationalism. One has to craft the news in order to sensationalize. Mass media is business and sensationalism sells. I haven’t read the contents of Pimentel’s bill but I can confidently say it is similar with the US Fairness Doctrine. It will not be just presenting the opposing views of the involved parties but also in informing an affected party in advance on what they are going to write or broadcast about in order for the latter to have his/her/their reply be released at the same time of the news generation. Kapagka ganyan, tiyak na wala ng dating ang news. It will be just a news.
How many times have we read or heard from a news outlet the words “unnamed sources” (read: a person mopping the floor who happened to be around to answer the phone when the media inquiry was made)? How many of the readers of this blog know that there was this junior de Venecia tapped conversation tape and transcript with a star witness on ZTE brouhaha discussing about their own unspeakable strategies? I haven’t seen this one on the news front page but have read it being mentioned in passing as part of the news on the issue in the middle page.
The media can choose the news and how the way they want it to be published. Two things are in my mind – they want to make themselves to look as “The Deciders” or the agenda thing (where do you think most of these media people finished their journalism?). Will Pimentel’s bill deprive them that kind of luxury?
BTW, maybe this is an OT. You may check your children’s school periodicals and fully read their contents.
I still have to see an explanation what freedom of speech that will be violated by that RORB. All I hear and read are it is a violation of freedom of speech – dangerous for democracy (these generalizing thing – he he he ulit). For me freedom of speech is not an absolute or boundless freedom. Otherwise inciting rebellion or hate can be considered legal under the guise of freedom of speech.
It’s just me.
Section 4 Article III of the 1987 Constitution, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,..”
RORB will abridge freedom of the press intruding into the editorial decision and treatment of public issues.
In regards to freedom of speech as not absolute, the 1987 Constitution set its limit in Article 139 and 142 under Sedition and Inciting Sedition.
Hi Sass,
It’s just that sometimes, I can’t help but to put up further emphasis to my previously posted comment to the point that I might be off topic already. This claim that are being made by media that they are without bias, fair, etc, and there is no need for this RORB.
My favorite hypocritical media is Ch 2. I’ve seen these arrogant claim of their station’s top management of their integrity as to fairness and no bias programming
Cases in point:
- Take note of their newscasters’ smirk during newscast every time they don’t like the news that they are reading. (I could only surmise that it is because their newscasters are also their news opinion maker).
- Ch 2 is a model of fairness and non-bias in their program. They are committed in airing the other party’s side. You will always hear the enemy of the nation’s Edu Kabalu and Ka Roger’s fast and clear sides every time situation arises. They can even wake Erap up from his hang-over slumber to ask for a rebuttal or for a comment. (Journalism on-demand?).
- Again in Umagang Kay Ganda program, they will put a person of interest on the air through phone but they will not inform that person that there is another party who is also on the other line waiting for a cue who can agree or disagree with whatever he/she will say. Bulagaan time. So, hard for them to inform the person that there is an other party on the other telephone line to join later on with the discussion. Is it within the boundary of journalistic professionalism?
It’s so confusing :
-Isn’t it illogical to claim that a news is their exclusive on the airwave? The news watchers are already locked on their TV channel so what is the point? Does it mean that if their news does not have the disclaimer of exclusiveness then it is the time for the news watchers to switch their TV channel to a different one? (I’m confused by this Tunying Taberna who, in every morning time update for TV watchers announces current time in vernacular with a translation in Chinese. The heck, I still have to meet a Chinese who can’t understand Tagalog and is watching their program. Mamalasin sya pag napanood ni Jay Leno ang program nya and it will be another “only in the Philippines”)
- Where did they get their mathematics? There was once a survey that GMA was the most corrupt president ever in Philippines and these two loonies, Webb and Tunying, from UKG show, with their patented smirks, put some more fire to highlight the issue. Take note that it was a survey. How about the other survey that says with the same resulting magnitude that Filipinos believe in Cupid as real? Can we correlate it? But by the next day, there was a news release that it was not GMA who is the most corrupt but Marcos based on data (not that stupid survey)! So what this Webb woman said? For her, it is still GMA. Count the number of how long she is serving as president and compare with 21 years of Marcos. She is the more corrupt according to her mathematics. (He he he he he at he he he he uli).
- Tunying in his advice to FGMA on cases being hurled on him. Since the President is “touring” US, why can’t he go with her. By that, if he is guilty of what he is being accused of, the US immigration will arrest him in the US soil and if he is not then it’s a let go situation. Since when is the time the accused has to prove his innocence first before the accuser has to substantiate his accusation?
- We might even delve to Tunying’s solution to nurses and medical staffs brain drain – increase their salary!
(Dalawang tao pa ang ganyan sa Pilipinas tyak wala na. Pack-up at magkanya kanya na tayo.)
This is what the Ch 2 management brand of being fair and non-bias news outlet. My unsolicited advice to them if this Webb woman and this asshole Tunying proved to be an excess baggage for what they are claiming to be in their journalism ethics – make a claim that they are just their comedians in the morning show. Everybody will ride with it…
Connie, indeed, the right to reply legislation on its face is really a no-discussion matter because it’s a valid proposition. If journalists can write and/or castigate any personalities out there in the wilds, why can’t the subject of the article defend himself and/or herself from the write-up attack. Plain and simple. Offer the other side of the story and you’re right, that’s almost a no-brainer because from the very start, that’s what journalists are supposed to do anyway. Unbiased reporting.
However, we go to that usual and familiar line… “however…”, there are also rotten tomatoes amongst journalist. But that’s not exclusive to them. Self-police? That’s far from happening. Sometimes, journalists are swayed by their own personal convictions over fair reporting. Worse? The Philippines is on the Guinness Book World of records for most murders, I think that was 2007 and a good number were journalists.
Yet, if I read the other side, I would more than likely agree that there’s the more sinister outcome to this proposed legislation that what it is supposed to control. That is what I am afraid of, given that politicians in the Philippines not only have the propensity to tweak almost everything in their favor but have mastered them through power, bullets and everything in between.
I’m actually very interested in the outcome of the legislation. From what I read on some blogs, a similar legislation in the US was strucked down. Masarap basahin yong arguments and counter arguments on the issue kasi.
Trosp & Reyna Elena:
In the end, really, this is about accountability. Media is supposed to make sure that government can be held accountable for its actions, non-actions, abuses and mistakes.
The problem is, who makes media accountable for its actions, non-actions, abuses, mistakes AND BIAS? Can’t be just the law on libel because that only covers malicious imputations. There are a lot of biases and abuses that do not constitute libel. What happens in those cases?
It used to be said that the real government is the one we do not see — the businesses and moguls behind politicians, funding their campaigns then extorting returns once their pets are elected.
Media has become so powerful with the money and technology at their disposal that it can manipulate public policy. Will media be the new invisible government?
invisible government – now that’s a perfect addendum solution for this society, wouldn’t it? unless people begin to get very discriminating about telling media what it should be doing and where it can go (and don’t get me started, by the way) the confusion and disinterested amongst the public will prevail.
meanwhile at the Francis Magalona wake….
Your sarcasm is contagious, Ben. You’re gonna get me writing about politics again the way the rage is building up hahahaha
rage is a good thing, sass. eat well and healthy, but be full of rage, hahahaha.
Salbahe ka! LOL
The media have flaws and biases, true. But who would like to have yes-madam press?
Belinda Olivares Cunanan paid the price in violating the libel law. In addition, the state can revoke the license of a media business. Clearly, there is no need for the huge government bureaucracy to interfere and micromanage what the press can air or print by imposing equal space or time and criminalizing those who cannot comply. It is absolutely ridiculous opening the media for exploitation by the politicians.
RORB is well crafted in timely manner by the politicians for the 2010 election. The 2010 election is not only presidential but covers legislature and local elections. The fact is, RORB is a sunshine bill which expires when the election is over. And for such temporary period, the media is converted into politicians mouthpiece for equal time and space – another political genius.
I hope somebody here can explain what freedom of speech/expression will be violated by RORB.
All I can read are speculations on how it will be used by politicians in this 2010 elections (may I know how they will use it?). I’m baffled how this speculation suddenly became a fact. Rich…
The way I see it, a person’s freedom of speech or right to defend one’s self will be violated if this right of reply is at the mercy of an offending media.
Filing a libel suit is a very costly legal undertaking. Correct me if I’m wrong – the accuser have to post some cash bond that is forfeitable once he/she lost the libel suit.
Kawawa ka pag wala kang pera. RORB is a proactive solution IMO.
Trosp, the answer is in the settled case of Miami Herald vs. Tornillo. Miami Herald refused to print the answer of Tornillo, a candidate of State Office who then sued Miami Herald under Florida’s right of reply. The Circuit Court held the statute unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court ruling.
Then, the U.S. Supreme Court in June 25, 1974 decided that:
2. The statute (Florida’s right of reply) violate the First Amendment guarantee of the press.
2a. Governmental compulsion on a newspaper to publish that which “reason” tells it should not be published is unconstitutional.
2b. The statute operates as a command by a State in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding appellant to publish specified matter.
2c. The statute exacts a penalty on the basis of the content of a newspaper by imposing additional printing, composing, and materials costs and by taking up space that could be devoted to other material the newspaper may have preferred to print.
2d. Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with the statute and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the statute still fails to clear the First Amendment’s barriers because of its [418 U.S. 241, 242] intrusion into the function of editors in choosing what material goes into a newspaper and in deciding on the size and content of the paper and the treatment of public issues and officials.
The way to look at this is that the 1987 Constitution provided that no law to abridge freedom of the press.
The US Supreme Court noted that Florida’s right of reply statute intruded into the function of editors on the treatment of public issues and officials – regardless fair or UNFAIR, and decided that the statute is unconstitutional.
Press freedom is limited by libel law and sedition.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” This was a question put to Socrates which literally translates to “Who will guard the guards?” The media is supposedly the people’s watchdog against the abuses and excesses of the government, but when it is the media who commits the very crime they are trying to protect the people from, who will stop them?
In Article III Section 4 of the Bill Of Rights -
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances”
The right of reply does not mean to ABRIDGE the freedom of speech. For me, providing for the right of reply means the freedom of speech will become more persuasive. And not to forget that this will not discriminate whether your moneyed or not (different from our libel law).
Of course, some will interpret the Article III Section 4 of our Bill of Rights as an absolute one (slandering, defaming somebody or inciting hate are freedom of speeches/expressions). And I might agree with them provided there is that right of reply.