The right of reply bill rests on the all-mistaken presupposition that there are no available avenues at the disposal of one who wants to put across a reply when he becomes subjected to an otherwise non-factual if erroneous criticism, say, in a newspaper. For truth is, there is a letter-to-editor section built in every well-meaning newspaper where the public can vent their sentiments or otherwise make clarificatory statements for the purpose of putting the record straight. And this is free of charge subject only to certain journalistic criteria intended for clarity, brevity, and content. So why cry wolf?
Supposed that indeed this bill becomes a law, what would Day 1 and all the rest of time be in so far as print, radio, or even tv are concerned as maybe even the so-called blogosphere? It is really one of prior restraint, anathema to the entire idea of press freedom. Or is this why those who have earlier favored the bill backpedaled and now withdrew from their original stand? And only the Senate counterpart author appears determined to sort of fight it to the death as though a brighter argument will never be forthcoming? To begin with, is his proposed bill bright enough?
We heard that at the House version, the bill was practically trimmed down a lot – from a P200,000 fine down to P100,000 and threat of closure to suspension of franchise for 30 days, and made it discretionary to the
editors or news desk the demand for equal space and air time, as the case may be. In other words, the bill has been defanged a lot unless otherwise Senate does not intend to defang its own version to think that the author has the reputation of being a principled individual.
The common arguments against said bill are – it abridges the freedom of the press, it curtails press freedom – this, vis a vis existing libel law that sufficiently safeguards rights of those who might be subjected to negative news stories. With the bill legislated into law, newspapers are left no option but to accommodate for free replies of the same length and space – where the negative criticism appeared in terms of pride of place. If it appeared on the front page, the reply ought to appear on the front page as well, not in less prominent part of the newspaper in the case of print, or radio or tv as the case may be.
This kind of thinking presupposes or assumes that tri-media has been unfair in its treatment of clarificatory statements coming from those who may have been unfairly criticized or even subjected to trial-by-publicity by affording it no chance to be printed, broadcast, or viewed in much the same equal prominence and air time. But this has to be validated by some baseline information as sound basis for endorsing the reply right bill. Who are these unduly criticized but never had a chance to counter the criticism? Do we say – Sen. Pimentel himself? Maybe, good Joke Arroyo may have to pay his space in a letter-to-editor at one point in his life to see print.
If the bill is implemented today, in the context of political developments, it comes timely enough to protect the First Gentleman, first and foremost, from further being cast in negative light by such reports as those exposed by Sen. Ping Lacson. It does not appear fair if it would indicate that the bill being legislated will cater to the interest of the ruling elites or obvious sacred cows in the officialdom. Otherwise, it will be tantamount to be a case of class legislation.
Since there is a Code of Journalistic Ethics for media practitioners quite aside from various press organizations created to police their own ranks such as the Philippine Press Institute, the Manila Press Club and others, then there may hardly be any need at all for such a bill to be passed in Congress. We should call to mind what Thomas Jefferson has in fact said and I quote – “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object is to keep that right; and where it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I would not hesitate any moment to choose the latter.”
Today, the bill clearly departs from this Jeffersonian tradition. Just when the media landscape has been much improved than few years back, the state would want to exert its muscle to muffle dissent, to hide the truth from public view, and to give ‘public office is a public trust’ a distorted interpretation. The watchdog role of media as the so-called Fourth Estate will be effectively tied on the cage expertly built by our legal engineers who want to discourage people from exercising their rights as enshrined in the bill of rights and in the Constitution. Is this why we have heard GMA say that the world will not sort of tolerate an EDSA 3?
In the coming days, the tri-media environment – print, radio, tv, website – will militate against the passing of the reply right bill into law it being clearly abridging the freedom of the press. We are saddened to know that we are seeing an old Nene as frontline defender of this reply right bill and old Johnny who may have in fact benefited from the mass hypnosis that media has created for him to be where he is now. They are an anachronism of our times – a curse.
Instead of old Nene having to wait for the more convincing arguments or schools of thought to come by, he must be the first to raise the more valid arguments why this bill shall be enacted into law – not the reverse. And if people are convinced, the public and the media will stamp its approval. Let it proceed that way but how indeed if media are not invited during critical public hearings held for the purpose so they can in fact – tri-media – dutifully submit their right of reply?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Primer,
The RORB is plainly a construct of politicians wgo are either the last legs of their careers or those who mindlessly signed it as co-author.
Witness how they have retreated after realizing their folly.
Even presidential wannabees Loren Legarda and Chiz Escudero have withdrawn their signatures.
Pimentel remains pigheaded about the matter with his own interest in mind.
Wither that or he doesn’t know the Bill of Rights.
Further:
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-right-of-reply-bill-assaulting-press-freedom/
Erratum: “Either…”
BTW, Note that GMA has been quick to try to score pogi points by telegraphing that she “may veto the measure.”
I think those who are beneficiaries of the so called attack-collect, defend-collect types will go against the RORB.
Not for reason of defending press freedom but for some other reasons, mostly self-serving.
That’s the irony,( or tragedy) of it.
In defending our freedom, we will march side by side with the scoundrels.
Nevertheless, let us muster all the strength to oppose the bill.
And all support must be welcomed. Even if they come from some evil quarters.
This bill is a Trojan Horse to muzzle everybody.
It will take away Freedom of Speech, Freedom of
Opinion and Freedom of the Press.
Look at the people sponsoring it. They are, I
believe corrupt politicians, robot politicians
and some shady characters.
They want us to keep quite while they steal our
tax money. Receive bribes to sell all of us. And
to do their own things.
Old Nene, viewed on TV, has just lost the war and his defense of a proposed RORB has just lost steam.
I never thought that the final flimsy argument he can raise is one in saying that media has acquired so much power. Maybe he forgot that like the other senator colleagues he has, they are reposed with so much power.
They can ask anyone in the gallery to sit like a dog, behave like a cat, stare like a monkey, and ask permission to pee.
To hell with old foggies who probably are about to lose direction.
This bill is a boon and a license for scalawags and practitioners of ATM Journalism alike……. the criminal scalawags will normally need the services of spin doctors for the much needed slant to further confuse the issue and their culpability. Will the bill once it pass raise the rates of spin doctors? I say it will since the criminals are now given a license to further distort and fool the gullible public.
there would have been wide-opposition to this bill had it been true that Philippine media is completely faultless..
Pedestrian Observer,
I doff my hat to you. Your comment is the most succinct rendering of the dangers of the RORB I’ve read any commenter has put forward. Pimentel needs you to get back to his senses.
Liam,
It is not about media being “faultless.”
It’s about responsibility being legislated.
yes
precisely because that ‘responsibility’ has led to abuse and neglect for fairness..
there is yet a remedy addressing the ugly, commercial-side of journalism.. this is an attempt..
besides, is there any part of the law, preventing media from publishing news items of their choice?
i have no problem against the ‘journalism code of ethics’ but the fact that there are a lot of journalists and non-journalism-graduates-who-are-in-the-media who seem to neglect that code necessitates that something must be done..
clear examples are showbiz talkshows (as always) and local am radio shows
i think, what public personalities want out of this law is that media should also exert the same enthusiasm and effort in bringing into public knowledge the other side of the story.
currently, it lies solely on the editor or the journalist or the media-practitioner to choose what comes out
@primer
sorry i still don’t get it.
1) letter to the editor
what if the editor refuses to print the letter of the offended party. this bill will make it mandatory to print this letter. thats the only effect that this bill have have, right?
2) PROMINENCE
you say :”With the bill legislated into law, newspapers are left no option but to accommodate for free replies of the same length and space – where the negative criticism appeared in terms of pride of place. If it appeared on the front page, the reply ought to appear on the front page as well, not in less prominent part of the newspaper in the case of print, or radio or tv as the case may be.”
no where in the bill did i see the word prominence. but lets say it at least implies prominence — a hypothetical question: if we rule out the issue of prominence (which i agree is problematic), and issue replies only on a designated place like “letters to the editor”, is this OK?
3) Evidence of Being Unfair?
you write: “This kind of thinking presupposes or assumes that tri-media has been unfair in its treatment of clarificatory statements coming from those who may have been unfairly criticized”.
actually, we need to show that that there is at least a few whose replies have not been published. laws protect those that are hurt, which may be few in number, but exist anyway.
we don’t need to make an assessment of media in general to make the case.
Example: there are consumer protection laws. do we need to prove that products are “on average” defective to have these? NO. they exist for the outliers that are defective.
4) Will it abridge press freedom?
in an earlier comment you said to me it wouldn’t, di ba?
@Pedestrian Observer GB on March 1st, 2009 3:00 am
why would the bill encourage spin doctors? could you outline the reasoning? ty!
Thanks gabby.
On question 1 – you are right. It will have the effect of making mandatory on the part of the editor to give way for a letter to the editor liberal space to see print in the context of RORB.
On question 2 – we do know that letters-to-the-editor comes next after the main menu or the editorial section where we read the editorial and the various columns written by the newspaper’s columnists. Even if the letters be designated in the LTE section, its prominence to my mind is never less diminished, the location being very appropriate. So you are right, it is just as okay.
Let it not be an occasion for newspapers not to publish letters so that writers would rather resort to submit it in another format to be printed like a pol ad material. Did we not see those one-page ads or manifestos from very concerned individuals or groups against say a controversial bill proposed in Congress?
On question 3 – it ought to be implied from what the author himself says of media as having acquired so much power to the point of excess. The RORB is intended to apply the brakes of a possibly one-sided news reportage. The corporate identifies of newspaper organizations make it also prone to abuse yielding as they do some influence in shaping public opinion on issues. The Philippine Press Institute, I believe, is in the best position to tell us on the statistics. That letters to the editors are at times not being published are not an overstatement nor a sweeping generalization of media. They really happen as editors or news desks have at some point become ‘chieftains’ in their own territory.
On question 4 – that seems to be the shared battlecry whenever any form or state-sponsored regulation is erected. It will have to impinge to some degree or other on the freedom of speech and of the press. At least, that notion is all too clear to the likes of Ninez and Jake of their newspapers. Personally however, I think that it sometimes depends. But in general, and especially in the context of what old Nene himself said, it does abridge that freedom. I heard him say libel law is not even enough and such notion is too revolting. I do not expect a man of that reputation say that.
Primer,
The objective of the Right of Reply Bill is to promote Fairness in the public sphere of discourse, and this by itself is perfectly legitimate. Now though I have joined the chorus of opposition to the bill because of the manner and method by which it tries to attain this objective, I nonetheless support that objective and reject the Echo Chamber’s claim that by itself the “Right of Reply” is “in principle” violative of Freedom of the Press or even Freedom of Speech. The Right of Reply is no such thing (if you leave out the wrongheaded proposed implementation of it) since it is what mathematicians might call “a proper subset of the Freedom of Speech.” In other words, the right to reply to someone else’s speech is founded upon the exact same Rock that that someone’s right to speak in the first place was founded.
But there is not doubt that Mass Media can be and has been elementally unfair to some people in the past and will likely be so in the future. Unfair in the sense that they will not be upholding their own Code of Ethics. Unfair in that they will continue to use innuendo, gossip and outright lies on their front pages and broadcasts, along with truthful and factual reporting of course. It is that indistinct mix of truth and falsehood that the Press wished to protect as absolutely under their recipe and control which is being controverted by the bill by demanding equal access to the same channels.
But it is basically a deluded solution since there is no remedy to innuendo and gossip or falsehood once it is disseminated. If only the Media would lie outright and put utter falsehoods in their headlines and scripts. But of course they don’t. They are far more clever and devious than that. They know what the libel laws proscribe and so they can play an infinite game of cat-n-mouse with the public’s sense of fair play and the stated objective of catching out crooks in society and govt.
I have criticized the bill for proposing solutions that are tantamount to unreasonable and illegal seizure of private property: namely said media’s production facilities.
But I still do support the objective of somehow promoting fairness in the public domain.
Because I claim that not even if the Right of Reply bill were implemented could the suitably determined be prevented from engaging in the kind innuendo, of false but cleverly disguised reporting and opinion making that we see rampant in the Philippines media.
I have proposed licensing of journalists not as a requirement for the exercise of free speech and press freedom–most emphatically not–but compleatly in line with what other professions do.
I assert that Journalism is no different, no better, no worse, no holier than thou, and no less in need of regulation than professions of Law, Medicine, Nursing, Airline Piloting, Psychiatry, Plumbing or Tricycle Driving. Excuse me.
T here is an elemental problem of FAIRNESS in our public sphere. Though the Right of Reply bill is the wrong solution, the problem still exists and it is as much the fault of media as their victims.
ding,
With Loren and Chiz – signing and un-doing – meant the same to me however they try to remove the ink from the paper. Now I have reason not to vote either one in.
Also, it has become clear that Malacanang’s media bureau or your friend Cerge Remonde operates a 24-hour business – quick enough – to score “pogi” points for his principal, source of his bread and butter.
palayain,
You’re right in saying the scoundrels and those who are not will be in the same page. Let Darwin takes its course or never have to begin the process. In short, the good ones amongst the journalists will win the day.
pedestrian,
If the RORB will increase the rates of spin doctors, that will still be class legislation by any other way since it will benefit a particular class in body polity. Truth is, all the more will the public be confused with the population of spin doctors and the harm they can do on the rise. May their tribe not increase.
liam,
I guess you are quite right. Thus, there is this form of self-control – a Code of Journalist’s Conduct. To add more controls than necessary especially where an entirely anxious, zealous, and dangerous implementing agency would pry upon media in the exercise of its constitutionally-guaranteed freedom is to me, what makes the RORB a little bit questionable.
It creates an imaginary police watching you all o the time, a “thought police”, a “truth police”, a “moral police”.
Nene Pimentel is not stupid. He knew this would happen: that there would be a hue and cry over Press Freedom and Freedom of Speech.
So why is he doing this RORB thingy?
I think it’s an intentional Red Herring. He is actually setting things up for his Media Pals and prepping the ground for his own entry into Post Retirement Press Punditry ala Panganiban!
He is about to champion the Decriminalization of Libel.
Which I oppose!!!
i think i’ve figured out (for myself — i dunno if this is convincing for others!) why a Right of Reply would be deterimental to press freedom…
its the interplay of allocating scare resources and editorial policy.
Newspapers are constrained by space. Radio and TV constrained by time.
these are physical — hence real! constraints…
lets talk about newspapers, coz this argument is general and carries to Radio/TV…
a newspaper has X pages, and say 10 stories. As much as 100% of these stories can offend someone. Say 10 people reply, and the law as currently written demands next day publishing of replies.
That means all X pages of the paper will be a reply to yesterdays paper(!), assuming we follow the length argument strictly. Even if we don’t a good chunk of the paper will be used up by this law, leaving much fewer NEW content.
Note that increasing the number of pages is NOT a perfect solution. it only means more people might be offended, so you’d only get a fraction more new material in. In addition, the cost accounting of publishing tells us that a permanent increase in the number of pages would more than proportionately increase the costs of production.
Hence, a rational response from editors would be to more carefully screen their articles for offensive materials (i.e. Self-censorship… i think this is what pedestrian observer is saying, more use of spin doctor approved articles).
Also, note that loosening the ‘next day pubishing of replies’ requirement will not help either. The newspaper will need to EVENTUALLY publish the letter anyway, so it will reduce new content EVENTUALLY, so this only delays the punishment.
I think this argument is logically cleaner, and is able to link Press Freedom to Right of Reply. (also, its my argument, so i’m kinda happy about it :) )
gabbyd,
a great quantitative argument. however, it is not actually based, in my opinion on some principle involving freedom of the press, because the argument’s premises can be eroded by technology.
Remember that in the US the federal equivalent of our NTC mandated a Doctrine of Fairness Rule in American media because before the advent of Cable/TV, it adjudged the “bandwidth” for public discourse to be too narrow and limited. They forced TV stations to give free public service messages and time to reply for those criticized (not in the same draconian fashion of pimentel, which I think were designed by him to be rejected anyway!). But they have since obsoleted the rule and requirement because there is now ample bandwidth to accomodate replies to criticism through independent channels.
Your argument is similar: that because right of reply would infringe on bandwidth it is an abridgement of press freedom.
I don’t necessarily buy that, unless I have misconstrued it, because we bloggers for example could easily accomodate right of reply in some more benign form with our built in comment threads.
Business thrives best in an regime of least state intervention, this can be said without risk of mistake.
It is so because private ownership ought always to be inviolable. In other words, for the state to intrude into the whole production process to produce a particular good or commodity, it is unwanted intrusion or invasion altogether in which it has no constitutionally-known guarantees.
The RORB, against this backdrop, appears to me to amount to such intrusion in a domain not within its competence. Otherwise, the easiest thing that can happen is to in fact, create a universe where censorship, editorial judgment, and all that kind of stuff will have to be decided upon in that single framework called – law. Automatically, it becomes a lawyers’ universe and every word or thought content printed in newspapers will be the proper subject of courts and their prosecutors as to whether or not – the rorb (as law) may have been violated.
In the end, the whole exercise is always as to whether or not, at any point in time, a law has been violated. And it will, almost always, be a case of violation given the intellectual culture prevailing.
Overexpanding the already existing law on libel is like creating a bigger monster out of a monster.
Decriminalizing libel will be like handing out machine guns to high school kids.
Libel, ‘criminalized’ under guise of “real or imaginary” claim is itself a legal anomaly that has not been cured to this day.
Nor will anything that replaces it, cures the old wound.
Is there a way to become a content writer for the site?
George, check the “contribute” tab on the top of the page.