As of February 25, 1:38 a.m., 130 journalists already signed the unified statement against the right of reply bill sponsored by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel (Senate Bill No. 2150)  and Rep. Monico Puentevella (House Bill No. 3306).

I was among the signatories to the statement (i.e., #40) because the points it raised had been articulated by concerned media groups and journalists like me a long time ago.

As early as November 23, 2005 when I was still chair of the University of the Philippines Department of Journalism, I attended a hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media to put on record my opposition to the right of reply bill. In my position paper, I wrote the following points:

The bill’s objective to compel media organizations to publish or air replies of aggrieved parties is impossible to implement…The proponent’s [referring to Sen. Aquilino Pimentel] concern for those who are victimized by unfair media coverage is being addressed by various self-regulatory mechanisms like the Philippine Press Council (PPC), the ethics body of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI). Founded by the PPI in 1993, the PPC can compel a newspaper to print a rebuttal. If the concerned newspaper refuses to do so, other member-publications can print the reply.

As it is, the bill has negative repercussions on the workings of the press. Editors, normally referred to as the gatekeepers of information, should be allowed to choose which stories get published, aired or uploaded and which stories are given due prominence based on the time-tested elements of news.

Instead of coming up with bills that seek to legislate how the media should function, it would do well for legislators to help strengthen self-regulation in media by creating an environment conducive for the effective practice of the media profession.

At the UP Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series on December 3, 2007 (or two years after I opposed the bill in the Senate), the right of reply bill was discussed in passing during the open forum. Among the points I raised are the following:

Everybody has the right to reply and they should be accorded with the necessary opportunity to have their letter to the editor or whatever statements they have, aired or uploaded in the case of on-line publication. Our main point of contention is that we cannot provide equal time or equal space to the so-called aggrieved parties because you will end up imposing objectivity. It is very much like the Code of Ethics. You do not have to legislate it. We are for self-regulation in media.

You may read the full text of the unified statement and the list of signatories after the jump. Continue reading Uniting against the Right of Reply Bill →