When put in such an interesting predicament, "you have the moral, legal, professional, umbilical or scatological right of reply," says Professor Gary Mariano, chairman of the Philippine Press Council (PPC). Speaking before the general membership meeting of the Philippine chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), Mariano explains what the right constitutes.
"The Right of Reply is all about protecting and preserving press freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, on one hand, and media accountability on the other. It frees the press from prior restraint, punishment, information and circulation, but it also assumes that the press is not always right," Mariano explains. Individuals or corporations have the right to respond to unacceptable remarks made about them in the same medium that supposedly maligned them. The aggrieved parties can exercise this right by writing a reply, rebuttal, rejoinder, retort or correction to the editor.
Mariano reports that if the editor ignores the letter, the letter writer may file a complaint to the PPC, who has authority over newspapers or broadcast stations that are members of the Philippine Press Institute. To date, the Right to Reply or Bill 1120 introduced in 2004 by Senator Nene Pimentel still has to be passed into law, but even now under the PPC guidelines, an editor, publisher or station manager who fails or refuses to publish or broadcast the reply of the party that claims to have been unfairly treated by media shall be fined P10,000 for the first offense, P30,000 for the second, and more than 30 days’ imprisonment for the third.
Truly, no society can succeed without a trusted media industry; the availability of unbiased information is an indispensable condition for the development of a democratic society in which abuses can be denounced. It is the cornerstone of accountability and therefore, of business as well.
Del Mundo contends that the media is a primary stakeholder, and the communication industry simply cannot take itself out of the debate on what ails the sector. He suggests several things that can be done. First is for the private sector to continue to support efforts to raise the standards of journalism by sponsoring training programs in key areas of specialization. Second is to build trust with the media by providing stories that will be of interest to their readers or viewers, and not simply spinning stories that are obviously scripted flattery. Third is to look at global trends – civic journalism, interactivity, among others, and adjust to the challenges that these new modes bring.
For my part, I don’t intend to start a debate on who is to blame for inaccurate reporting (irresponsible consumers of media vs. irresponsible journalists and editors) but instead, to start a discussion about if and how we can correct the course.
In the July 3 issue of The New York Times, a staggering headline reads, "China law seeks to curb foreign media, too." It reports that China’s legislature is considering a law by which the new media – Chinese or foreign – can be fined "if news media produce unauthorized reports on outbreaks of disease, natural disasters, social disturbances or other so-called sudden incidents that officials deem false or harmful to China’s social order."
A representative expressed that the Chinese government "appreciates and even relies on" the media to report actively on sudden incidents, and the law should not stop them from exposing corruption or cover-ups of such events as long as their reports turn out to be accurate." Critics say that this law is a "step backward for press freedom." The question remains, "Should the Chinese media be fined for reporting what turns out to be false, as a means of ensuring accuracy?"
Where do business communicators fit in the discussion about ethics in the new media environment? Professional communication is a practice that is done within legal bounds, ethical standards and the dictates of good taste. Thus, professional communicators engage in truthful, accurate, and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding. They make every effort to strive for accuracy and accountability and to cause no harm – including participation in new media like blogs, wikis and chatrooms.
From an influence perspective, I am not sure how many people understand the real impact of new media. The reality TV phenomenon, for example, proves that viewers just want to be entertained, whether it’s true, fair, ethical or not. Should communicators just sit back and allow media to go unchecked? What would the consequences be if someone attempted to police the accuracy of new media? Do we believe that people generally have the good sense to know what to believe or not?
What the movers and shakers (journalists and business communicators) of the communication industry need is self-regulation. All it takes is responsible practice, where mutual trust and reciprocated respect are the basic foundations. It sounds simple, but it really is not. Both parties must collaborate closely to make it work. And as media and business move to make things happen, here are some creative measures that communicators can do when they feel beaten by media:
• Firstly, analyze the situation very well. Identify the point of most influence. In which case, go to the greatest point of influence on sales and reputation and take action from there.
• Answer the issue. Regain the initiative by returning to the attack with well-armored troops.
• If you have decided that your message should be read or heard, refuting slander, exaggeration and sensationalism – but media is unappreciative and not picking up your statement – use advertising or seek help from PPC. The media has a duty to publish your ad. If they refuse, you have an even better story to tell.
• Make sure you are covering all the angles or they will find out the weaknesses in your statement and mount a counter-attack.
The bottom line is, there’s no substitute for truth. It’s the only way toward real freedom from recklessness, irresponsibility, and unprofessionalism from both media and business.