N.B. – A student from the University of the Philippines College of Law emailed some questions about the “Right of Reply” bills pending in Congress and media self-regulation. Please find below my answers.

What is the SOP before a story or article is approved for printing? Is there a verification committee who checks all the facts in the story?  How is it done?

The vetting of stories is done by the editors. A copy editor focuses mainly on the form (grammar, syntax and diction) while the desk editors are responsible for both form and content. Depending on the media organizations, there are different kinds of editors which function as gatekeepers — editor-in-chief, associate editors, managing editor, section editors (e.g., news, opinion, sports, entertainment), city editor, among others. Fact-checking is a shared responsibility of both reporters and editors. Concerned readers also do fact-checking whenever they write letters to the editor, though such function is done after the fact.

If there are any complaints from readers, how is it addressed? Are the methods of handling complaints similar to all?

Aggrieved parties could send feedback (e.g., letters to the editor) to the concerned news media organization. If the latter fails to act on the complaint (usually done through publication of the complaint and/or a formal reply), one can complain to media groups like the Philippine Press Institute (if the print publication is a member) or the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (if the broadcast organization is a member). Media monitoring agencies like the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) may also be approached. If the complaint is meritorious, it is possible for the CMFR to investigate and write about the complaint. The handling of complaints could differ depending on the media organization. The Philippine Daily Inquirer, for example, has a Reader’s Advocate who can directly receive and handle complaints from readers.

You have mentioned self-regulation in your blog and you said that it could be done in various levels including the level of media audiences, how exactly can the consumers (i.e., the regular Juan de la Cruz) aid in the process of media self-regulation?

It’s necessary for audiences to be more active in terms of demanding a relevant and transformative media. They should consider organizing themselves into media advocacy groups (something that’s practically non-existent in the Philippines right now) whose aim is to monitor media content and make the necessary recommendations. If media organizations fail to live up to the audiences’ reasonable expectations and demands, such media advocacy groups could initiate creative campaigns to expose such failures, as in the case of boycott campaigns done by consumer advocacy groups.

Would you think it is possible for all media organizations to organize themselves and form an entity which creates and implements rules to combat abusive media among others – rules with corresponding penalty to be effective? Or maybe could we require organizations to join groups like KBP where rules to deter abuse are in place.

Professional and ethical standards in the practice of journalism are already existent. Legislating such standards would be anathema to press freedom as this could be subject to abuse by the powers-that-be and other interest groups. Unethical practices in media organizations are better handled through self-regulatory mechanisms like PPI and KBP. They actually impose sanctions on erring member-organizations. The basic challenge therefore is to strengthen self-regulation in media and not to resort to legislation to solve the problems besetting media practice.

There is a proposal to create an organized media advocacy group that will regulate and monitor the media for any errors or abuses – how does this work? Doesn’t this seem an impossible task to leave to just one committee, how can they assure that the interests of all persons who are attacked by the media are sufficiently protected?

Concerned media audiences should establish organizations with the main objective of monitoring media content (e.g., TV programs) and then identifying their strengths and weaknesses. The mandate could be as specific as looking for evidence of “stealth advertising” or as general as analyzing the separation of commentary and factual presentation. The members of the media advocacy group should know how to conduct media research (e.g., how to compute time allotment, how to spot stealth advertising) and should be willing to devote time and effort in monitoring the journalistic outputs of news media organizations. One group can never be enough, so having several media advocacy groups with varied mandates/objectives are preferred. There is no assurance that all interests of media audiences will be properly represented, hence the need for a critical mass of audiences to engage in organizing work.

Do you think there is a need for a right of reply bill (RORB)?

The proposed “right of reply” is not just an editorial nightmare but an affront to press freedom. Audiences have the inherent right to reply to one-sided or irresponsible reportage. Self-regulatory mechanisms are already in place to ensure that their complaints are properly addressed. Any weaknesses of such mechanisms should not be taken to mean it is time for legislation to take over.

What do you think of the proposal to replace the libel bill with the right of reply bill?

Libel and the proposed right of reply are two different things. There is in fact a proposal to amend the libel law by decriminalizing libel. Another argument is that the libel law should be repealed altogether.

If the scope of the bill was narrowed following the reply laws of some European countries i.e., replies could only be made to address factual errors but not to comment on opinions that the reader doesn’t like, that the reply should be given similar prominence while not necessarily be printed or aired in the same position as the original article. Would you be more amenable to such a bill?

The issue is fundamental: Why should we legislate media practice? Why should there be a law that, in effect, imposes upon news media organizations what should be published or aired? “Similar prominence” and “factual errors,” even if they are easily understood, are subjective terms and are therefore subject to abuse by the powers-that-be.

If ever, in what instance would you think a RORB to be plausible? What if its a proposal from concerned groups/citizen and not a product of personal pique?

Part of the responsibility of media is to raise the people’s consciousness. Just because certain audiences are demanding certain media content does not mean that the news media would give in. Reporting is not a populist endeavor. Published or aired reports, in theory, help in the shaping of public opinion. Armed with the knowledge of media literacy, I think that well-informed audiences can make reasonable demands to news media to provide the content that people need instead of what they want.