A political contact asked me yesterday what I thought of the right of reply bill. My network has come up with an official stand on the issue. Let me weigh in.
On its face, the right of reply bill seems to enshrine in the statutes of the land what has always been a time honored ethical responsibility of all professional journalists—that all subjects, sides in a news story be given equal opportunities to make their case. This is in adherence to the tenet that the best test for the validity of ideas is to let them exist in a free marketplace of ideas.
Yet by the very act of giving it the force of law—and putting that force in a personality or figure outside of the media establishment—it also defeats the existence of a free marketplace of ideas.
From the onset—I will never suffer, tolerate or support any form of media restraint of control. By virtue of its watchdog function, the only acceptable form of media regulations is self regulation.
However at the same time it must be said that the right of reply bill’s existence must not only be a matter for media to be riled up—but should also be seen as a wake up call for media to further professionalize its ranks—and be more strict in its practice of ethical, excellent journalism.
Let us be realistic and honest about this matter—many , not all , but many in the profession have, by sheer stupidity, sloppiness, apathy or even corruption, have been remiss in living by the right of reply in the practice of the craft.
Media must do more than just opposing this bill—but get to the crux of what this bill is all about—exploiting a weakness of the media establishment’s practice of its craft. That begins with eliminating the very weakness that is being exploited—journalists’ failure to observe the right of reply through sheer stupidity, sloppiness, apathy and/or even corruption.
Media cannot expect to be a credible and powerful watchdog unless media itself goes the extra mile to be beyond reproach. We all must be beyond reproach.
The Pimentel bill on its face seems to allow those in power to indirectly control the content and prominence/treatment stories about them will get. the onus for those in power being—to control whats being said about them—whether for electoral campaign purposes—or—for legal survival puproses especially when it involves corruption scandals.
The bill if approved will make media think twice about reporting scandals and focus instead on “safe stories.”
A democracy cannot and will not afford that. This rorb does exactly that.
Mediamen who are remiss in observing the right of reply are just as shameful as the politicians who supported this bill—they have a common denominator—they are all selfish.
Democracy can only be served best—if those who practice its powers and priveleges, rights and opprotunities—have the fortitude needed to wield those powers responsibly. Responsibility cannot be legislated—you either have it or you don’t. media should weed out irresponsibility, immediately. Responsibility is after all, the essence of the right of reply.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Gag the media the blogs gagged as well. Not good!
I beg to disagree with the view.
It does not behoove upon either House or Senate to initiate a bill of such nature that for all – intent and purpose – will actually benefit them, first and foremost. If that is not class legislation, I don’t know what is.
Come to think of it, the bill is almost useless. The intellectual culture in Congress, if I must say, is such that they can always treat a resource speaker with respect if he were a Neri, a Bolante, a First Gentleman. Whereas, if he were something else, hell breaks loose.
We cannot turn the table on media.
Let it be what it is – past, present, future.
Two things come to play here. One is whether media can fully exercise the freedom of the press on the one hand or be in fact suppressed, repressed or oppressed by a new law intended to curtail or place limits to its full exercise.
If approved into law, it is an invasion if not an intrusion into the very freedom that the press ought to enjoy in no other way than full.
The bill makes a fool of media in one master stroke. Who would dare now expose public officials when there is a law that more than protects them.
The view of the author weighs in something else.
There is a actually a law already on the books (RA 6713) that requires government officials to reply in writing to citizen inquiries and requests for action. It is a Right to Be Heard for citizens and a Duty to Reply for govt officials, part of the Law of the Civil Service.
The Govt should first show that it is complying with this law before it requires the Private Sector to implement the same system with one day deadlines.
As Daily Tribune editor-publisher is saying – when these politicians deliver their privilege speeches however anachronistic or could tear media apart if not ground it to pieces – such acts are beyond libel laws.
So why give them the cake and for them to eat it too.
Double whammy. God damn it!
1st of all—i never said i backed the bill. in fact i am against it. anyone who sees this post as an expression of support has erroneously read it. read it again.
2nd. it is never a wrong thing for anyone to conduct a self examination and see what could and couldn’t be used against yourself. no one is perfect. no one is infallible.
3rd. ad hominem arguments or comments are no different from statements coming from the ;politicians who sponsored this bill in the first place. please do your research and read first before opening your mouths.
debate and disagreement are hallmarks of a democracry. responsbile, logical, cerebral, and calm debate that is.
problem with some bloggers is that they have misused democracy and free speech for when it’s convenient for their views. heaven forbid you present a dissenting view—they become the very same bigoted, anti-press freedom advocates that they want to fight by coming up with ad hominem arguments.
There is however going to be some differentiation now I think between “commercial media” and “free media”. Necessarily so, because economics is always reflected in politics.
Among the tribes of the “free media” the Right of Reply would be easier to accomodate. In fact I would encourage the idea of demanding a reply from government officials especially in the electronic media. We have far greater bandwidth than the commercial media, who rightfully can complain about the imposition financially.
And of course, the Right of Reply is iterative: a Reply immediately creates a new Right to Reply on the part of the party replied to. This means that there will be a Right to Reply to the Reply because there is nothing in the bill that says only the First Reply is given Right to. Rather, “any criticism of lapse of behavior, public or private” engenders a right to reply.
It is a Right to Reply ad infinitum ad nauseam.
RG,
Your “The bill if approved will make media think twice about reporting scandals and focus instead on “safe stories.”
NBot really. Under Marcos’s martial law the working press then simply underwent a winnowing of the chaff from the greain, in a manner of speakin.
Ultimately the ‘mosquito press’ gathered strength and exposed Marcos’s “smiling military rule,” his ‘New Society” for hat it was a fascist dictatorship.
Filipino journalism has a long, a rich fighting tradition. Not Pimentel, or any like him will survive a withering examination ng the news media of any misuse of the RORB if it does get enacted.
wE WILL TEST ITS LIMITS TILL IT IS STRUCK DOWN.
THE cONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IS OUR REFUGE.
Further to this issue, if you care to:
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-right-of-reply-bill-assaulting-press-freedom/
Commercial media, especially broadcast is already subject to regulation by the NTC. It appears the good senator is unconvinced by the industry’s claims to self-regulation.
But RG, I wonder if this applies to paid advertisements, political advertisements jingles, billboards, campus radio, campaign ads, etc.
An excellent introspection into your profession RG, and to oppose such a move by politicians (no doubt for future political purposes) is something I agree with wholeheartedly.
The fact that politicians seek to gain more control should be a troubling sign. It is also and indication that they have realized the limitations of what they can do with libel suits, that they must now up the ante with a new law meant to act as a stranglehold that will essentially give them the power that media has as a credible check on government and those who wield power.
Without this check that media provides, the flow of information can lead to one politicized media that reiterates the propaganda of those in power.
Media must remain independent from an institution with which it constantly tries to check on, to deprive media of this right is to potentially lose one of the vanguards of our democracy that fights for our freedom to know and understand the issues. It is now a question of policing its own ranks, but this right does not belong to government.
ding, let me expound on the statement you question.
i was trying to drive home the point that the political establishment who proposed this is trying to control the content the media will publish—and certainly—that is what they aimed to do—by even concocting this bill.
i think politicians today forgot the lessons of history on the mosquito press by even coming up with this bill because if they were students of history—they wouldnt even dream of this.
the bill on its face is unconsitutional because it is a form of prior restraint. and again—self regulation is the only acceptable form of regulation on the mass media.
DJB—you raise valid points which i will have to reply to in a subsequent post because it deals with the political economy of the mass media and why the free press is not really free—because while the constituion guarantees freedom of the press from political controls—democracy and capitalism’s very own nature will run anathema to the concept of free press because free money, free enterprise —in short money, will always be the limiting factor—and i will explain that to all of you in greater detail in my next piece. mahaba yun. hehehe.
I dunno. Good ideals, bet let me play the devil’s advocate.
People know that the major media outfits in the country (print and broadcast – radio & TV) are controlled by business interests who are perceived to be either cozying too much with, or tangling (your station is one)with the powers that be.
And as in the United States, any message and non-event could be spun by public relations and We don’t know if what’s being run are news or views. But unlike in the U.S., people in the Philippines have very limited resources/channels to double check and verify.
RG,
Corollary to your response and DJB’s observation… the challednge is for media empires like ABS-CBN which is the crown jewel of the Lopez clan must continue to chamoion ot just press freedom but invrestigative reportage no matter who gets its on the chin.
The interminable network wars, and how even the newscasts are used as thinly disguised promotional platforms must be put in check.
Disinformation comes not only from government but from irresponsible media outlats.
Tulong-tulong dapat lahat… hindi pataaan ng ihi.
Phil Manila brings up a good point which I was also thinking about in the distinction between the Commercial Mass Media and the Free Press. Historically the former have been controlled by special interests simply because of the high entry fee. They controlled the means of production, to use a Marxist idiom. In the era of total domination by the Old Media, ordinary human beings were basically consumers in a one way relationship where they were basically connected “UP” to the main media centers in newspapers, tv and radio. In the era of New Media and the WWW, ordinary human beings are still connected “UP” to the Old Media Centers, but they also have all sorts of other connections “horizontally” to one another directly and through the magic of the Web. The means of production have been radically democratized!
We should complete that revolution here in the Philippines by doing everything we can to give Web access to ALL Filipinos.
We must create a society with 100% of the households having access to one another.
That would be a society where no one fools any of the people for any length of time at all!
Typical Filipino mentality of “gaya-gaya”.
Afoot in the U.S. is the Bill known as the “Fairness Doctrine” where radio commentators are supposed to air the other side after airing their own.
The bill attempts to make a free ride of unknown talk shows to that one that is very popular because of the integrity the popular talk shows have developed overtime as against those cheap talk shows that peddle garbage and gossips.
Conservative Writer Ann Coulter writes about Fairness Doctrine Bill:
“By requiring that any political views disseminated over the airwaves be counterbalanced by the opposing view, the Fairness Doctrine not only requires radio stations to give boring crackpots airtime, but it creates a conceptual and administrative nightmare. What is fair? There are conservative and liberal views — but there are also libertarian, Green party, Federalist and Marxist views. (Though the liberals will tend to have the Marxist arguments covered.) The problem isn’t just the paperwork stations have to fill out. It’s also that radio stations would have to start balancing three hours of Rush Limbaugh (20 million listeners) with three hours of Randi Rhodes (6 listeners) every day. Re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine spells the end of talk radio.”
In the case of the “Right to Reply Bill” such is being directed against newspapers and I surmise, blogs too that are outside the MSM that are gaining some credibility from the public. Because the MSM and broadcast Radio and TV are basically under the control of media moguls and therefore part of the ruling elite that always pander to government directives least you suffer being “sequestered”, (ala Marcos style over the Lopez media interest and Meralco too) and therefore are open to the ruling class even without the “Right to Reply Bill”.
The “uncontrolled” or the freak media outlets, (small publishers and blogs) have to be muzzled by this bill.
If some interests are not served, the remedy is not to free ride those interest to some media outlets or blogs that may be gaining the support of the populace. The remedy is for them to create their own medium to ventiliate their own interests. But the fear of losing their stranglehold over their traditional market consumers due to credibility issue gives away the ulterior motive of the Bill.
The traditional print media is losing its allure and Time Magazine Writer Walter Isaacson, sees its demise soon. Its time now for the “politicos” to tame the alternative media.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html
We have all the right to reply or not.
What is wrong with right of reply?
i read the bill, and all it does is ensure space for a reply to an accusation in the media.
It doesn’t regulate content.
It doesn’t stop the editors/columnists from writing stuff.
the freedom of speech concept isn’t really violated, as this doesn’t abridge anyone’s speech.
Whats the problem?
Gabby D,
What’s wrong is it legislate responsibility in media, the news media to be precise… it legislates that those ‘affected’ by a report must be given the same prominence, including the same air time length and wsuch, precluding the editorial prerogative of the new journakllist. While there is debate meedia need to institute balane at all times, legislating such is unnecessary..
i don’t think there’s any real need for a legislated fairness doctrine, aka, right to reply. a partisan newspaper or tv-radio network may succeed in portraying a particular politician, or public figure, a “hated” personality, but it’s digging its own grave when, by its own acts, it exposes its own partisanship, unfairness and lack of integrity. make no mistake about it. the public is not as dumb as some of us may think.
when you have alleged journalists, whether in print or broadcast media, who make it a point to inject their own political bias/agenda into what they are reporting, or make themselves the “news” instead of reporting the news, the public could sense that, and form their own conclusions. of course, disinformation can hoodwink both the uninitiated and the sophisticated alike but, in the end, through the free market of ideas, the pebble is separated from the gem.
there’s nothing much you can do with closed-minded, prejudiced, pig-headed, and immovable idea. in the ultimate analysis, it’s the individual concerned who has the responsibility to search for the truth and make the correct choice.
@ding
thanks! so, a few questions as to your answer:
1) the concept of editorial prerogative… editors choose the length of articles, what goes in an issue, where to place the article.
the concept of prerogative is that the prominence(length, position in the newspaper — front page, etc) of reply need not, should not, be the same.
So if a newspaper has a reply section within it, (and this is legislated), then is this OK?
as far as i understand, the bill doesnt tell editors where to put it, only that its a certain length.
so if the only variable is length, OKS ba yun?
2) Unnecessary legislation
Do you mean, that newspapers practice this anyways, so its unnecessary?
if yes, then this is not an argument against the bill.
the bill is for newspapers that don’t do this practice of their own volition. if everyone publishes replies, then no worries.
3) My problem with this bill
My problem is mainly in the scope of it.
For example. what if a blogger does it in FV, accuses politician X of receiving a bribe.
IS FV supposed to issue/publish a reply?
the answer, i think, is in what DJB said about high costs of entry, which is true for newspapers but not for blogs.
the reply law should have as its scope media outlets with high costs of entry (TV radio and print).
Gab,
We’re praactically on the same page. Let me just add: Pimentel in making the proposal is, I guess, speaking from his own experience through the years… including when he was DIG boss under Pres. Cory during which he found himself on the receiving end of news media ‘scoldings’ —
But hey, while the mainstream… and even bloggers are not perfect and may, at times deserve their own spanking, are coninually looking inwardly to correct mistakes.
At the end of the day, I submit huumbly, the unspoken principle of attrition will rule: unfair, irresponsible reporetage will lose currency, readership and viewership: the target audience will simply turn off, stop buying the papers, stop surfing the blog and say I’ve had enough and I won’t take it anymore. Remember the movie ‘Network’?
@ding
oks.
you mention pimentel’s past. do you think its fair to say that ALL politicians, as some point, will be accused of something?
also, i’m sympathetic to your attrition principle. however, its possible that this doesn’t work for media, coz of the demand side issues in consuming information.
so let me ask: is there an example in the philippines of a newspapers/media that closed because it made an accusation, did NOT reply, and consequently, the circulation fell?
I’ll have to jog my memory on that query bro, but further on Pimentel… he conveniently forgets that government itself has a humongous media ‘empire given that it not only has NBN 4 but also had failed to privitize the sequestered RPN and IBC networks. The government radio network,Radyo ng Bayan, has 32 stations across the archipelago.
(Disclosure: I once headed that radio network.)
So to summarize, government has the requisite ‘muscle’ but as anyone in the media industry knows, the market share continues to be held mainly by the privately-owned media given how the viewing ang listening public patronizes them, warts and all, in a manner of speakiung. The operative words: resonant, meaningful programming, and sensitivity, responsiveness to the public pulse. It’s a buyer’s market.
The non-trad and new media are helping further balance things out, slowly but surely.
Shameful and selfish are those who favor the bill, we must grant that to be true.
Stupidity, sloppiness, apathy, and corruption in media – to be honest enough about it – is said to be the rule than the exception.
There is room for improvement – even excellence in journalism and ought to be a continuing religion, matter-of-factly.
In the context of that proposed right of reply bill, it is as if our lawmakers are doing an embargo of constitutionally guaranteed rights and therefore cannot but violate – freedom of the press.
Self-regulation, if it be of the nature of a work in reconstruction, is precisely a work in longevity.
With a set of rules accompanied by penalties, punishments, and ‘injury’, how can self-regulation even begin?
@RG
What is wrong with right of reply?
i read the bill, and all it does is ensure space for a reply to an accusation in the media.
It doesn’t regulate content.
It doesn’t stop the editors/columnists from writing stuff.
the freedom of speech concept isn’t really violated, as this doesn’t abridge anyone’s speech.
Whats the problem? ty!
hi gabby.
my main beef with the right to reply is that it serves as a form of prior restraint. one simply doesn’t need an additional layer of control. the constitution is clear on prior restraint. anyone with a problem on prior restraint better join the chacha train.
second, a provision in the bill mandates media to give replies the same size and prominence that was given the mother story.
what if on the day of the reply—a bigger story comes out. for example. today i come up with a breaking, headline hogging story on this corruption scandal. politico involved didnt want to reply today but tomorrow. that’s fine.
but what if tomorrow, god forbid, a bigger story—that of a disaster that killed thousands is the bigger story—than the reply— breaks and is more deserving to be a headline? on its face the current bill will clamp down on the editorial judgment of journalists to make that judgment call.
the bill doesn’t just cover content—but how the content is managed. that’s also part of free speech eh.
3rd. on its face the bill can also be used, once it becomes law—to ensure that scandals about them never make it to the public view. for example—by witholding their replies—politicos can delay the publication of stories about them.
@RG on February 26th, 2009 10:48 am
ty! some further questions…
1) On prominence
i’m not sure if its the same prominence. it says:
“The reply of the person so accused or criticized shall be published in the same space of the newspapers”
same space, need not be the same meaning as prominence.
but i admit, its ambiguous, so lets change it.
IF editors can determine where it is published in the “space” of a newspaper, OKS ba yun?
2) prior restraint
the wiki entry on prior restrain says its when govt prevents something from being published.
the bill DOES NOT do that. it only states that when an accusation is made, the newspaper must publish a reply of the same length if the accused so desires.
3) i think your point number 3 is wrong. The bill doesn’t INSIST that the accused must reply.
it only says that if the accused does want to reply, then the media outlet should make space.
Finally, i think the language of the bill is unclear, but IN THEORY, i don’t know of any reasons this is a problem.
i have also responded to ding’s reply. i still don’t think there is a killer argument there also.
thanks!
hi gabby!
my point number 3 was an implication of the provision on mandatory replies. on its face it doesnt—but given how lawyers and politicos can twist the wordings of ambiguous laws—it’s a real risk—point number 3 i mean.
nevertheless—professional journalists naman kasi need no law to ensure they get the replies of their subjects.
however the bill offers ni protection for say—okay i try to get your side—you say no—or better yet you give me the runaround—dodge my calls, avoid me at your house/work—
and then you turn around and say i didnt ask you to reply?
maraming ambiguous sa bill that needs to be clarified and is very open to exploitation and abuse.
@RG
yes! i was ambiguous. what i meant to say is that we can make the language clearer.
i guess, i’m looking for good arguments against legislated reply in principle/in theory.
parang wala.
i’m hearing alot of arguments about problems with mandatory reply. i agree, problema yun.
but the bill doesn’t want mandatory reply.
i don’t think the bill offers protection for people who stall for a reply.
if they want to reply, they should, and the bill would guarantee their statement would be published.
The bill should explicitly state this, to forestall your fears.
@RG
yup, its confirmed. the bill does not contain anything that says the media outlet is mandated to get wait for a reply.
The only creatures that are afraid of the light
are the cockroaches. You shine light on them
and they run in different directions.
The only people that cannot stand the truth are
the corrupt politicians and government officials.
They want to prevent us from telling the truth
thru the Blogosphere. They are afraid their sins
will be exposed in the public.
While the clamor is for libel to be decriminalized, Pimentel wants to handcuff the Fourth Estate.
Sure Filipino journalists can be licentious, even irresponsible and display, at times, wanton disregard for privacy.
But what about government?
It freely dispenses untruths that will shame even Joseph Goebbels.
With technology making spy cameras ubiquitous, George Orwell’s Big Brother is now a reality.
While you’re at it, Sen. Pimental, why not file a bill to create the Thought Police of the Philippines?
Sure the working press must be expected to exercise utmost responsibility with the premium on fairness and adherence to the truth.
But that’s for all citizens to live by.
Wonder why at the twilight point of his seemingly ‘well-respected’ pride of place in realpolitik, old Nene still self-destructs. In the end, there is no such thing as a principled individual in government. Certainly, not old Nene.
Maybe, the simple problem of a graying population and that oblique view that no one can replace them which is but a myth. Maraming pong matalino sa Pilipinas.
I just wanted to say that I love this site