COTANGENT - Articles by Daphne Cardillo |
|
COTANGENT
By Daphne Cardillo
Subverting the
media
This right of reply bill reminds me of a
little incident over a decade ago when Col. Dionisio Santiago who was at
that time the Commanding Officer of the 803rd Infantry
Brigade invited me to write my impressions of the military, a criticism
in particular, in their newsletter The 803rd Gazette.
And that he’ll write a response to my
article and print it in the same issue of their paper.
Of course I did not write anything
as he suggested for even as he spoke of that kind of arrangement, I felt
being curtailed of my freedom of expression.
I felt being trapped, and that any
criticism I may write about the military will simply be written-off, or
somewhat whitewashed, with his reply printed on the same space.
It would be a different story if the reply
will be published in a separate issue.
That incident somewhat gave me a spill-over
atmosphere of the Marcos years when there was a “loyal opposition” that
was tolerated to exist to give a semblance of a democratic space in that
period.
But that kind of opposition was useless and
ineffective, for it did not carry the real sentiments of the people
needing government the most, nor advocate for real change to take place.
The issue that I’m trying to address here
is freedom of the press which is the vanguard of a democratic society,
and that the newspapers and other media outfits must be independent and
must exercise the right to choose what stories to publish or broadcast.
Otherwise, we shall be going back to a
totalitarian and oppressive regime where the only information that can
be heard and read are those that the administration permits, and
anything on the contrary will be silenced in any form.
In the early stage of a working democracy
like what we have at present, where the executive, legislative, and
judicial departments are still under the heavy influence of an incumbent
leader, the media is the last source of power that can check any
irregularities and excesses in governance, and the defender of the
people in their fight for equality and freedom.
Senate Bill 2150 and House Bill 3306
however strip media’s independence and freedom, in which both bills
“require the media to publish or broadcast the reply of a party offended
by a news story on the same space and with the same prominence as the
offending report.”
Media is compelled to publish replies of
those “criticized by innuendo, suggestion, or rumor for any lapse in
behavior in private or public life.”
From the look of it, the right of reply
bill serves only those who are in power and wants to hold on to that
power.
And, it also turns the media, newspapers in
particular, into a blog or worse a rumor mill.
And a comedy of sorts; for when a story
reports of unexplained wealth by a certain politician, he’ll be allowed
equal space to deny the allegations even if evidence has proved rightly
so. Anyone
then can deny anything, get equal space as the offending story, and
truth will be blurred in the long run.
We don’t need the right of reply bill even
if those hardly hit by the media reply by killing media practitioners.
It only promotes intransigence among
persons in question, especially public officials who do not want to be
checked of wrongdoing.
It only promotes glib talk and further
muddles an issue.
And it violates the essence of a free and
independent press, and thwarts the role of the media in preserving
democracy.
Editing is a serious work that requires
sound judgment and independence, and the right of reply bill will only
make a mockery of that editorial judgment and prerogative as media tries
to present social and political realities to the public.
And in a fledging democracy like ours where
those in power are in collusion with each other, subverting the media
will be like keeping the ruled majority in an unending state of
oppression.
___________________________
|
| © Articles in this section are copyright of Daphne Cardillo |