Why The Right To Reply Bills Is Unnecessary

Feb. 24,2010
Why The Right To Reply Bills Is Unnecessary
By Quirico M. Gorpido, Jr.

Maasin City, Southern Leyte-The right of reply bills, if you would look on its surface level is like a duplication of what every newspaper/magazine has provided for the readers and those for aggrieved parties that want to voice out their sides. Any public official or individual can write a letter-to- the-editor piece if he/she feels that he was treated unfairly by a reporter or a columnist. On this regard the editor of a newspaper or magazine should consider his/her views and should publish the official’s side or any individual involved in a controversy. With the opinion section available in majority of community and national newspaper, any disgruntled public official can always send his views of controversial story involving him in case a reporter has failed to contact him to get his side. In this case the right to reply bills has become absolutely unnecessary. The intention of the bills has already been performed and done by almost all the legitimate newspapers and magazines in various areas of the country.
Nevertheless, if we look deeper into the provisions of the bills, it’s something different and totally connotes with a dictatorial implications. On the other hand, there are some public officials who do not want to give t heir sides of the stories. I do not know why. But mostly, they would like that their sides be taken also by responsible reporter as a form of defense in case the controversy has tainted their names.
One time I was instructed by the editor of a local weekly, in which I was a contributor to get the side of a public official involved in a controversial issue. Instead of giving his side for the next issue of the papers, he said he will not give anymore his side because he was already hit first. But I insisted that it’s better if he would give his side in fairness to him. He reasoned that the giving of his side would just be useless and would amount to nothing.
There was also an instance in the past of a controversial news report when a well-known personality in one of the municipalities here in this province was involved. On that first published story his side was not taken. A colleague who now works as a secretary to a well-known public figure, went to that town to get his side. Akin to my experience, that guy had refused to give his side. He has had similar reason to that of my subject. He said he was already hit and the unbalanced report has already tainted his name. These two men seemed not to the mind at all about the reports involving them. They just want to close their ears from all the intrigues that might be circulating around in the neighborhood. And this is not the fault of the newspaper alone but also of a reporter who seemed to forget his responsibility to balance his story, particularly a controversial story.
The main reason why the persons involved have refused to give their sides after the stories’ publications was because they really wanted that their sides be taken also by the reporter prior to its publicatons.Not after or later on. They wanted that their sides be published also side by side with that of the complainants’ statements who revealed such controversies. But in the national newspaper it’s different: an official or individual who was involved in a controversy would always give his sides the next day or even later. The important thing is that their sides would also be published despite being delayed.
In contrast, the right of reply bills authored by Rep. Monico Puentevella of Negros Occidental and co-authored by Senator Nene Pimentel, Jr., pending approval for both the Lower and the Upper House, is a wake up call to all irresponsible reporters who have the itching penchant to write one-sided reports to make it appear as sensational stories. Newspaper and magazine editors should also be sensitive enough not to publish one-sided news stories. Editors also have the responsibility to instruct his reporters to always get the sides of those who were involved in any controversial issue before publishing their stories. This should be the standing policy of all the newspaper and magazine editors nationwide, including all the journalists themselves.
Most probably, the authors of the right of reply bills were once the victims of one-sided news reports involving their names where their sides were not taken by the reporters. The incidents might have prompted the 2 officials “to retaliate to get even”. Their actions are a form of sweeping punishment to all media organizations because of the mistakes of a few, which is unjustifiably an improper way to do so.
The provisions of the the abovementioned bills have the subtle way of dictating and demanding the editors/publishers on how they should run their respective newspapers or magazines, including the TV, radio and websites. This kind of “right to reply bills” encroach the independent editorial policies of various trimedia outfits. With the passing of the right of reply bills, the editors’ prudence and personal discernment on how the newspapers or magazines should be presented to the reading public seems to become unimportant anymore. Public officials, irrespective of the kind of positions/jobs that they have occupied in the government, should not breach the democratic role on the newspapers’ operations and the kind of management’s format that they want to implement to make newspapers more attractive and readable to the readers.
With the “dangerous” imposition of the right of reply bills(God forbade!),the space for more meaty news stories that the editors would prefer to publish for the reading public and its advertisers would then be sacrificed for reply letters from several officials/individuals demanding equal prominence and length. This kind of new intrusion would gradually decreased the newspapers’ or magazine’s readership. Readers, who are critical and wise, don’t have the interest and the comfort to read all the public officials/individuals reply letters. If this new


kind of editorial encroachment on the newspapers’ and magazines’ leading styles would not be stop the earliest before it would flaunt its ugly heads, both publications would eventually lost its advertisements which is the bloodlife of any kind of publications anywhere in the world. It will also cause for a great reduction in its readership follow-ups throughout the country and the world.
Is the right of reply bills serve in the fulfillment of the objective or a vision of a newspaper or magazine? Certainly not. The proposed bills run in contrast that becomes an obstacle in the realization of the publications’ mission. Newspapers and magazines publications including TV, radio and the websites must be given a free-wheeling functions guided by its respective editors/publishers’ distinct editorial polices and management styles unique in themselves. This is coupled with common sense, intuitve judgment and the wisdom of experiences in handling the publications including the broadcast media.
Again, if any public official or individual who feels that he/she is unfairly treated in a news report, he/she should not hesitate to write his/her side and send it to the opinion section/letter-to-the –editor section for consideration. The concerned editor should in turn publish the aggrieved party’s side for fairness, which may either deny or refute a report implicating his name, by presenting some proofs. This should also remind all reporters not forget to balance their stories by getting the sides of all those who were involved in the controversies.
In case the concerned public official or an individual was not satisfied, he can still go to court to file a libel suit against the editor, the publisher or the reporter. All these things can be done freely in a democratic country like ours. But passing some kind of bills like the “right to reply bills” which dictates the editors and publishers on how their respective publications be formed or layout is equal to the curtailment of their independency and their prerogative rights of newspapering.The bills which are going to be the “journalists’ both distraction and destruction” on their jobs or calling, are also an utter violation of the freedom of speech and of the freedom of expression as enshrine in our 1987 Constitution.
Who will benefit from these proposed bills? Columnist Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ Catholic priest declares in his column, “Freedom Not To Speak”PDI March 2, 2009: “There is another element of free speech jurisprudence which makes me think that these bills (the right of reply bills) are now protective of public officials, and especially of lawmakers than anybody else…The proposed bills practically negate this reason for treating public officials differently in libel suit. With these proposed bills, maligned public officials will have a cheap way of defending their honor by using officially hijacked space or time at the expense of printed or broadcast media”.
On the other hand, on March 7, 2009 issue of the Peoples Journal, Pimentel claimed that in other countries there is peace because of the existence of the right of reply bills. His statement seems to imply that the right of reply does not exist in the Philippines. Does Senator Pimentel, one of our brilliant lawyers in the country, fails to notice that the right of reply does exist in our country? He should have known it as one of our legislators. Does not the opinion section of every community, national newspapers or magazines nationwide accept letter--to-the-editor pieces? It would be much better if, aside from the opinion sections, all community and national newspapers/magazines must have also a specifically letter-to-the-editor sections where a public official or any individual can speak out their minds/views or their sides of anything involving them or their names for justice and fairness. In other words, all existing kind of newspapers and magazines must have 2 opinion sections: the first section is for the columnists’ articles and the other section is for the letter-to-the-editor pieces. Whenever space would allow, opinion editors must accommodate more as many letter-to-the-editor pieces as possible after font size diminution, without abridging a single piece’s length. This is actually what the Philippine Daily Inquirer is doing, but its editors would tend to cut some portions of submitted letter-to-the-editor pieces. Now to satisfy the letter-writers, PDI editors should change their style of editing by just correcting grammatical errors, words usage and straighten some sentences that are found awkward and redundant.
Furthemore, the right of reply bills is a mental shackle that dulls the creativity of a person’s gift of writing which in turn would constrain the articulateness and expressiveness of any writer’s train of thoughts and ideas express in words. In other words, the right of reply bills destructs and destroys the writers’ way of wholesome creativities that need to be expressed in uncontrolled fashion. The Journalists’ Code Of Ethics as guide to all journalists/writers of their public functions is enough and sufficient.
We hope that Congress, composed of the Upper and the Lower House lead by speaker Prospero Nograles, whose official occupants have possessed prudent minds and judicious discernment of things appropriate and proper, coupled with the liberality of the hearts, should consider the welfare and general wellbeing of our trimedia outfits in the country. They must listen to the Voice of the Press. Again, as representatives of the people they have the duty and the responsibility to defend our individual freedom of speech and freedom of expression as one of our Bill Of Rights provided by and enshrine in our existing Constitution. They must have the wisdom and the political will to disapprove or even veto these constrainedly dictative bills.( Quirico M. Gorpido, Jr.)