Monday, May 18, 2009

WHAT MEDIA IS DEFENDING ...






Representative Walden Bello sums up media's sentiment against the Right of Reply Bill pending in Congress. "This is a threat to the Freedom of the Press. It certainly has a chilling effect," Bello said, who is also a media practitioner himself as a writer/columnists for two on-line major news organizations.

Bello was among those who participated in a Round Table Discussion on the Right of Reply Bill initiated by the House Committee on Human Rights headed by Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada.

The controversial bill is one of the priority measures of the House of Representatives, clearly suggesting that despite the strong opposition of various media organizations, the bill will ultimately be subject to a voting by the plenary and in the House of Congress, the bottom line in passing any piece of legislation, is not the essence, not even the principle and not even the justification, but always and always, the battle of the minority and the majority, a number's game. A matter of how many legislators say yes or no to a proposed piece of legislation.

I participated in the RTD held at the Ramon Mitra Building on the invitation of officers of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, to which I am a member and a one time, Committee Officer on Justice when the late Press Undersecretary Jose Capadocia consolidated the NUJP chapters nationwide and placed the organization in the forefront of defending press freedom in the country.

It's disturbing to even have to explain to lawmakers how and why media works and exists as it is. The role of media as the Fourth Estate need not be explained at all. How and why we select the stories and dispense with editorial and content prerogative every single day, is something that should not be defended at all.

Under a democratic country, this sacred right of media to freely exists is guaranteed by the Constitution. We have not changed the form of government, right? We are still in a Democracy, right? --- or are we just assuming we still are?

The long list of media killings and harassment points to the glaring truth that confronts us in our faces---that slowly, this sacred right, sacred duty as members of the Fourth Estate, is being taken away from us, that the time has come for media organizations in the Philippines to unite and fight for our common survival.

The sad reality is, the very institutions like the House of Congress, that should be with us in upholding our rights, are the very ones crippling and wanting so much to control it through proposed measures like the Right of Reply Bill citing a seemingly innocent reason and justification that the bill assures fair play and balance reportage.

Many of those in favor of the proposed bill were open in admitting that once in their careers as politicians, they were "victimized" by media by not airing their sides, attacking them, exposing them and not giving them "enough space" and "opportunity" to defend themselves.

Many cite "suffering" from what they refer to as baseless and unfair attack of local media, referring to reporters, announcers/commentators in the provinces. This could really be true, some local media in the provinces maybe taking advantage of his position to unfairly attack a public official without giving him the chance to answer. But if one will really investigate and unmask what goes on in the operation of some local media, those in the provinces, one would see the fact that the ones behind these so called "media-attack dogs" in the local media, are also created by POLITICIANS themselves!

Many local politicians, congressmen for that matter either own, operate or pay block-time slots to attack their political nemesis. Most of the "media" practitioners they are complaining are actually, those "created" "engaged" "commissioned" by the politicians themselves.

Let me stress the point from the example given by Representative Elpidio Bargaza of the 2nd District of Cavite, and who said during the RTD, that some of his barangay tanods/ kagawads suddenly showed up in his office, with a huge MEDIA/PRESS ID, from tanods to reporters, he stressed, insinuating that after the interview, something else follows. To those of us present in the RTD, this question he raised, "Do you not have a mechanism of disciplining your ranks?"

Oh we do! We have! And this works independently in every media organization. This yields results. Media is not perfect but we do watch our own backyard, for the bottom line will always be the very essence and purpose of our existence.

Bargaza claimed he too was "victimized", his side not taken even after one report of the PCIJ on him came out in NEWSBREAK some years back. He demanded a public apology and was told, that's not the policy of the media outfit.

He was advised by the editors to write his side of the story and he was assured, the letter will be printed in full. But did he take that option? No he did not.

Did he even write that letter to defend himself in what he claims to be a false story, a total lie, as he insisted? No he did not.

There was another point too. If he chose not to answer through the same media outfit, he could have called for a press conference. I am certain, he has, as member of his official staff, a Public Information Officer or a Public Relations Officer, who could arrange and initiate this, and in some cases, could in fact speak on his behalf.

Now, guess again, he nor his official staff did any of these options available at any given time, at their disposal even.

Now what right of reply, are they talking about?

The congressman from the 2nd district of Cavite explained that he "easily forgives" and in fact is supportive of media. But can he too forget, easily? Apparently not, for he is still more inclined to support the bill once it goes to Plenary for the Division of the House, the voting process, the bottom line of the fate of this proposed piece of legislation.

Tañada said he will definitely raise the point that no committee hearing took place before the drafting of the proposed bill. Except for that dialogue outside Congress, at Melos Restaurant in Quezon City, there was no formal committee hearing held that should have been the venue for interested and affected sectors to ventilate their points and issues before any legislation of this kind is drafted.

But Tañada stressed, it will always be decided through votes in the plenary session."Even if we want to refer it back to the committee level, baka matalo kami, mas marami sila" said Tañada.

Also, this point also deserves some space.

Weng, who was seated besides me told me that one congressman present in that dialogue said that the proposed Right of Reply Bill will determine the fate of another bill---decriminalizing Libel Cases in the Philippines. Weng quoted the congressman to have bluntly uttered this statement "Walang passage ng decriminalization ng libel kung walang right of reply bill" or simply said, no right of reply bill, no decriminalization of libel.

Ano yun---BARTER TRADE?

To date, NUJP's signature campaign has gathered 700 signatories. Related activities initiated by NUJP and other media organizations continue to sustain the campaign against the approval of the Right of Reply Bill into an actual piece of legislation.

By all means media wants to air all sides. The truth is, it's not even wanting to air all sides. It's SOP, a must!

However, in cases where stories lack the side or even sides of one party or other parties involved in an issue or a story, say, a controversial and really earthshaking story or expose, and the story gets printed or aired, standing on its own.

The question here is WHY?

Because the information gathered was factual and can be verified and and validated.

The most simple, bare yet most sacred definition of news is that it is synonymous to one word: TRUTH.

NEWS IS TRUTH.

That's why instead of the Right or Reply Bill, we insist that the Right to Information Bill, now pending in the senate for more than a year, be given priority.

Media in the Philippines is not perfect. Never was and probably never will.

But at the end of the day, we all strive and seek for that common goal: to report the TRUTH.

This is the very essence of our existence, guaranteed by the Constitution, our sacred duty to the Filipino people, protecting their right to be informed--especially when the information that should be available to them is shielded by people who should be accountable only and only to the people who elected them in public offices.

Take away accountability, you take away the Truth. (end)

No comments:

Post a Comment