Okay people.
Since you managed to find your way to this blog, I know that there are more than a thousand out there who have read my entry on Brian Gorell outing Bryanboy as Chikatime. And the more than a thousand people are most probably, I’d say 99 percent Filipinos. Because why would my non-Filipino readers care about Philippine gossip in its purest form?
So since I have your eyes, please take time to consider the implications of the Right to Reply bill, which has been approved in both Houses of the Philippine Congress.
Victorina has a good entry on why people should not support the bill.
And Filipinos shouldn’t. The bill is essentially ridiculous and dictates upon media where and what they should publish, should a politico or business (!) (never mind a private individual) feel that they are being alluded to by someone expressing their rightful freedom of expression.
Public figures! Businesses! These are entities that should be criticized if they do wrong without fear of being repressed (or dedication of the same space where the story about them appears) because they are the haves in society and are accountable to the public. (The businesses may argue that they are private, but they profit and use natural resources. I say they belong to the public sphere.)
Since I am planning to vote in this coming election, these senators will not have my vote for sure:
Aquilino Pimentel, Gregorio Honasan II, Edgardo Angara, Joker Arroyo, Richard Gordon, Panfilo Lacson and Juan Miguel Zubiri
Ah yes. My Congressman is also in favor of the bill in the Lower House. He won’t be getting my vote.
6 Comments
March 13, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I LOVE your blog!!!!!
March 21, 2009 at 1:10 am
I am in favor of Rights-to-Reply Bill. I’m all for it. Our media practitioners are so oblivious of their responsibilities.
I site headline hugging news articles that is so childish.
Ces Drilon Kidnapping News blackout
Glorieta Bombing
Justice Sabio whistleblowing
Joey de Venecia on ZTE
… and many more that is rediculously funny
Our media practitioners should be reined in by way of Rights-to-Reply Bill. Rights-to-Reply bill is their education because our media is still in infancy.
March 21, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Renato,
I posted your comment because I am all for healthy debate on issues but I obviously totally disagree with you.
The Right to Reply bill media’s education? How about media’s right to report on government and society’s problems without fear the right of the freedom of the press? One cannot be a public personality and expect to keep their privacy, especially if they are spending public funds.
And the examples that you gave are not ridiculously funny, they even strengthen the premise that the Right to Reply Bill should be junked.
March 23, 2009 at 7:26 am
i’d like to ask why right to reply is wrong (the concept, not the bill)…
in principle, isn’t possible, that a person accused in the mass media is not given a chance to present his/her side?
why can’t we guard against this possibility?
i’m not saying that the actual bill is OK. i’m only saying that the bill in question may be really poorly constructed.
but what I AM saying is that in principle, we should let accused parties be heard, in the event that the media chooses NOT to publish their side… right?
why is this principle wrong?
March 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dear Keren Pascual,
Aka the spammer who took time out to copy paste various text in my comments section,
I can’t believe how much time you have on your hands! Bring your spamming somewhere else and not on this blog! Better yet, make your own blog.
March 23, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Hi Gabby.
In my opinion, the right to reply bill is redundant. Currently, people can already reply if they are accused of something or wish to defend themselves. If a particular news organization refuses to carry the reply, they can be accused of bias, and, more often than not, their competitors gladly carry the reply.
Yes, you are right. The current bill is poorly constructed and absurdly so. Same media space where the story was run? Impossible. They don’t even do that in the US and the US has the freest media. And again, if one is not identified but feels like they are the aggrieved party, how can that be monitored?
Part of a democratic media is editorial prerogative. This gets endangered is someone or something can dictate what one can or cannot publish or air. Then media’s role as a watchdog is hampered.
I hope that clarifies my stand on the matter.