Rights versus responsibility

Negligence will always come back to haunt us and we will have only ourselves to blame.

Media practitioners and media companies are up in arms over the proposed law entitled “ the right of reply”. In essence the bill provides that anyone who has been attacked, maligned or criticized will be given equal time or equal space in the same publication or program used to air or print such comments.

Being a media practitioner, I was very tempted to tell Senator Aquilino Pimentel and Congressman Monico Puentevella that I would whole heartedly support the bill, IF, they would insert a similar provision wherein any person maligned or preyed upon in a privilege speech made by any Congressman or Senator of the Republic will also be given the right to reply in Congress or the Senate floor with the same immunity from suit enjoyed by legislators.

I make this point because truth be told, there is really nothing original about the “right of reply bill” since it is once again a by-product of a recently slaughtered and cremated piece of American legislation entitled the “fairness act”. To be fair, the Philippine version is more true to form, because the American original would have created a lot of nightmares in the realm of politics, religion and gender where fairness could be twisted because of a difference in opinion or belief!

Just imagine the flood of complaints and demands for equal space or time because someone “feels” you are a sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, a religious bigot, anti-Muslim, anti-catholic or anti anything!

*      *      *

When I said that “Negligence will always come back to haunt us”, I refer to the fact that the “Right of reply” bill is a direct result of the failure of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) as well as some print media companies to truly and honestly practice the privilege of self-regulation.

For the longest time there has been a growing outcry and a crisis in the country concerning the conduct of media practitioners and the extent to which commentaries and exposes went from fair play to foul and personal. While those who have courageously fought injustice and corruption with their very lives are to be praised, there are an even greater number of media people who have conducted themselves shamelessly.

When members of media resort to cursing and verbally abusing people without fear or punishment, when the self-appointed regulators and owners resist or refrain from imposing sanctions and discipline, then we only have ourselves to blame when the tables are turned on us. By failing to establish a code of conduct, by failing to model what is fair and professional conduct the “Gate-keepers” must now take responsibility for actions foul or pure waged against media.

We can all scream “bloody murder” or call it a violation of the freedom of expression, but just like objections to the “VAT” bill, the bill on “Reproductive Rights” etc we may soon find ourselves faced with the determined power of legislation.

The good old days of clout and public opinion have waned because Media today is no longer about individuals pursuing their vocation but rather corporations in pursuit of promoting or protecting their political or business interests. Yes we still have our individual minds and separate views, but we are all just parts of corporations and conglomerates with bigger agendas and bigger stakes.

At the moment, the first “legal” salvo is the “Right of reply” bill. As it stands, media representatives are making a big mistake in the way they have opposed the bill. Their best defense is their worst offense by saying that media already has a system of addressing a person’s “right of reply” because they are playing directly into the hands of the legislators who could counter by saying: So what are you afraid of?

The issue should not be about the presence or absence of venues and opportunities for the “right of reply”. Rather, it should be about the certain deluge of abuse and the vast expanse of ambiguity that will tie up the newsrooms and courtrooms. In other words: the cure will be deadlier than the disease.

The conflict at hand is matter best addressed by crafting an accord, a declaration or even a totally different law that places emphasis on conduct and accountability far more specific than the ghost and myth we call self-regulation.

We cannot persist on our rights under a system that has collapsed or is chaotic. As Spiderman is often quoted as saying: With great power comes great responsibility. There is also the modern day saying: If you don’t use it, you lose it. Self-regulation is a privilege that can one day be removed through legislation. Self-regulation can be thrown out on the real issue of anti-trust and conflict of interest or public safety.

If we are to be champions of the masses then we must be the first to recognize that abuse is possible from all sides including ours. If we demand recognition and action from those in government and in power, we too must be willing to recognize and act upon the wrongs committed by our own.

Many of us have always declared that: “The truth shall set you free”. It is time that we look at the mirror and face the truth. Otherwise we will be no less the liars and the hypocrites we criticize daily. 

In fact it is this notion that “self-regulation” is the privilege of media that has led to the abuse heretofore being addressed by the proposed legislation. If media wishes to maintain the freedom we so passionately defend, then we must also exercise the same intensity in responsibly regulating our ranks as well as our peers.

We as an industry crown ourselves as the fourth estate, yet we are an estate in conflict. Our interests are in conflict between protecting the freedom of expression and the profit of the organizations we work for. Our system of self-regulation is a mythical code rarely practiced and entrusted with the very people who are supposed to be under regulation; owners or representatives of media companies and business.