MEDIAMEN OF the Philippines, unite!
A spectre is haunting the freedom of the press, the spectre that is House Bill No. 3306 or the so-called Right-to-Reply Bill sponsored by a congressman ranting and raving of his having been “victimized” by the media’s vicious on-sided attacks.
“We need to level the playing field in journalism,” said Bacolor Rep. Monico Puentevella in rationalizing his bill that seeks to punish the publisher and editor of a newspaper or the owner and station manager of a broadcast facility if they fail to provide equal treatment to the reply of any complainant to a story published or aired.
Equal treatment means the reply is to be published, free of charge, in the same space or aired, free of charge, in the same program within three days of its receipt from the complainant.
HB 3306 imposes a P200,000 fine, jail term of up to 30 days, and possible closure or suspension of the offending media outfits.
A Senate counterpart measure – Senate Bill 2150 authored by Sen. Nene Pimentel and approved on third and final reading in June – imposes lesser penalties of P50,000 fine on “errant” publishers and editors, and radio-TV station owners and managers.
Equal treatment. Level the playing field. What are these legislators talking about?
Fairness and accuracy are inherent in journalism praxis. As stated in the “first commandement” of the Journalists Code of Ethics: “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”
Of course, not every journalist strictly adheres to the Code. But then, why damn all for the failings of a few?
Besides, anyone – congressmen and senators not excluded – feeling offended by a published or broadcast story have myriad recourses to seek redress for their grievances: raising the issue to the resident ombudsman of the newspaper/station in question, going to another newspaper/station, calling a press conference, issuing a press statement, writing a complaint with the different press councils, filing a libel case in court.
Others have even resorted to extreme prejudice in dealing with stories unfavorable to them. However much is the malignity, the libel or the slander in the story, neutralization of the journalist is never a legal, much less, moral option.
Congressmen and senators have in their arsenal added weapons to deal with those they perceive as belligerent media – the hallowed, untouchable privilege speech on the floor of the august bodies.
As though all these were not enough, they crafted HB 3306 and SB 2150 that would virtually dictate to mediamen what to publish and what to broadcast.
The venerable Vergel Santos is right. House Bill No. 3306 infringes on the basic freedom of expression. “Wrong” and “stupid” Sir Vergel correctly calls it.
“We can decide for ourselves in cases like this in the practice of our profession…It may be unfair, but it is up to the editors and the organization to decide whether or not to publish the reply. It doesn’t justify a law telling an editor to publish or air a reply
As in previous cases where the issue of media freedom and repression are at stake, we take comfort and inspiration with the greatest defense ever for press freedom in John Milton’s Areopagitica: “And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
“For who knows Truth is strong, next to the Almighty. She needs no policies, no stratagems, nor licensing to make her victorious – those are the shifts and the defenses that error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her while she sleeps.”
Puentevella, Pimentel, et al, Truth cannot be bound with your twisted legal threads.
(Reprinted from our column in November last year at the time the Right to Reply Bill first came into public discussion.)
A spectre is haunting the freedom of the press, the spectre that is House Bill No. 3306 or the so-called Right-to-Reply Bill sponsored by a congressman ranting and raving of his having been “victimized” by the media’s vicious on-sided attacks.
“We need to level the playing field in journalism,” said Bacolor Rep. Monico Puentevella in rationalizing his bill that seeks to punish the publisher and editor of a newspaper or the owner and station manager of a broadcast facility if they fail to provide equal treatment to the reply of any complainant to a story published or aired.
Equal treatment means the reply is to be published, free of charge, in the same space or aired, free of charge, in the same program within three days of its receipt from the complainant.
HB 3306 imposes a P200,000 fine, jail term of up to 30 days, and possible closure or suspension of the offending media outfits.
A Senate counterpart measure – Senate Bill 2150 authored by Sen. Nene Pimentel and approved on third and final reading in June – imposes lesser penalties of P50,000 fine on “errant” publishers and editors, and radio-TV station owners and managers.
Equal treatment. Level the playing field. What are these legislators talking about?
Fairness and accuracy are inherent in journalism praxis. As stated in the “first commandement” of the Journalists Code of Ethics: “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”
Of course, not every journalist strictly adheres to the Code. But then, why damn all for the failings of a few?
Besides, anyone – congressmen and senators not excluded – feeling offended by a published or broadcast story have myriad recourses to seek redress for their grievances: raising the issue to the resident ombudsman of the newspaper/station in question, going to another newspaper/station, calling a press conference, issuing a press statement, writing a complaint with the different press councils, filing a libel case in court.
Others have even resorted to extreme prejudice in dealing with stories unfavorable to them. However much is the malignity, the libel or the slander in the story, neutralization of the journalist is never a legal, much less, moral option.
Congressmen and senators have in their arsenal added weapons to deal with those they perceive as belligerent media – the hallowed, untouchable privilege speech on the floor of the august bodies.
As though all these were not enough, they crafted HB 3306 and SB 2150 that would virtually dictate to mediamen what to publish and what to broadcast.
The venerable Vergel Santos is right. House Bill No. 3306 infringes on the basic freedom of expression. “Wrong” and “stupid” Sir Vergel correctly calls it.
“We can decide for ourselves in cases like this in the practice of our profession…It may be unfair, but it is up to the editors and the organization to decide whether or not to publish the reply. It doesn’t justify a law telling an editor to publish or air a reply
As in previous cases where the issue of media freedom and repression are at stake, we take comfort and inspiration with the greatest defense ever for press freedom in John Milton’s Areopagitica: “And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
“For who knows Truth is strong, next to the Almighty. She needs no policies, no stratagems, nor licensing to make her victorious – those are the shifts and the defenses that error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her while she sleeps.”
Puentevella, Pimentel, et al, Truth cannot be bound with your twisted legal threads.
(Reprinted from our column in November last year at the time the Right to Reply Bill first came into public discussion.)
