How to Answer Back

It is human mechanism to respond into stimulus. The response is either fight or flight.

Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. chooses “fight” as a response to what he calls “press’ right to offend or to mortify.”

“What I want the right to reply to do is to underscore the fact that that freedom — the freedom of the press, of speech, of expression – is not the monopoly of the members of the Fourth Estate. It also belongs to all the people – literate or not” says Pimentel as he backs the bill he introduced, The Right of Reply Bill or Senate Bill No. 2150.

But the media sees flaws and unconstitutionality in the Bill. And they will never take “flight” for a response.

Now the battle’s on for whether or not the Right to reply bill must be passed into a law.

VIOLATES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

If the Right to Reply bill gives chances for anyone to defend and air their side, how does this violates freedom of expression?

The freedom of expression mainly consists of two things: the right to say and the right not to say or publish. The said bill commands that a ‘reply’ must be published with equal exposure, thus violating the freedom of expression.

Not to mention the limitation the bill imposes on bloggers and texters since the Section 1 of the bill encompasses not only Print and Broadcast media but also “websites and any electronic device”

Let’s assume that the bill narrows down only to TV, print and radio. Media practitioners could easily resort to other means like blogging, txting, emails, etc. This proves the pointlessness of the bill.

MEDIA VALUES TIME AND SPACE

The right of reply bill demands that a ‘reply’ must have equal airtime and paper space as that of what’s being replied.

Media outlets find it financially detrimental if the bill would be approved. As PhilSTAR columnist FDPascual says, “If newspapers accede to every Right to Reply demand, they would go bankrupt spending half of their time and resources printing the “other side.” Ironically, after the “other side” is printed, we are not even sure if we have seen the whole truth.”

Many events happen in our world. There are a lot more important issues to use the newspaper space and the airtime for, than that of a reply.

THE BILL IS INCOMPLETE

As Dana Batnag of the Foreign Correspondent Association points, nothing is said in the bill that the replies “have to be truthful”. So if one of the reasons why the bill is passed is the presumed untruthfulness of the news, would it not be unfair if the reply is just as untruthful?

By this, it appears that the Right of Reply bill aims to satisfy the ones who made and promulgated it, not the nation.

POLITICIAN’S “FREE” PUBLICITY

Paolo Romero of the Malacañang Press Corps said “With the elections a year away, I think many of us could not miss the connection on that. We also would like to point out that free exchange of ideas will suffer here.”

If the right to reply bill is passed into a law, politicians can better expose themselves by means of a “reply”. And it is free of charge.

There’s a possibility that media outlets will turn into means of political propaganda.

How do we avoid this? The only way to avoid media turning into political campaigns is to not talk or write about the politician. Hence, it hinders the call to responsible journalism.

NEWS AND OPINION

“We should, for instance, differentiate between news stories and opinion pieces” said FDPascual

News is factual. If a published news story is proven to be a distorted reality, remember that Libel and Oral Defamation is on our list of punishable crimes, ready for the concern’s complaint. So what do we need the Senate Bill 2150 for?

Editorials and commentaries are "opinions". It’s less effective to bombard our newspapers with a lot of things that are “not necessarily true”. It’s wasteful to add an opinion for an opinion. It will only add to public confusion.

Now, how do we answer back?

The answer to that question is “We don’t.” If someone keeps himself free from guilt, he doesn’t need to reply. Besides, if we know we live our lives in integrity, why do we care so much on what people think about us? Unless if you’re a politician of course.

For politicians, not having the Right of Reply bill is a challenge for you to always keep your doings “clean” so as not to be scandalized.

The journalists have their code of ethics which makes Right of Reply bill not a necessity.

In the end, it is on every individual’s hand to discern what they see and hear.