Babe's Eye View article

A popular Beatles song called “No Reply” relates how distressing it is to experience what Filipinos describe as “deadma,” when one gets no reply or reaction at all from someone. To some extent, this can be related to the issue of the “right of reply” bill separately filed by Senator Nene Pimentel and Congressman Monico Puentevella that gives everyone the right to reply to offending news printed in newspapers or aired over radio and TV.

It’s understandable where legislators are coming from, considering that when somebody is written about and accused of wrongdoing, he must be given the opportunity to air his side and clarify the issue. People who have been the subject of negative news reports and commentaries complain that they do not get equal treatment because their side of the story is given less prominent treatment or at times, even entirely neglected or discarded.

People also rue the fact that retractions or corrections regarding erroneous stories, which were splashed on the headlines, are normally buried in the back pages of the publication with just a couple of sentences admitting the error of the news item.

Nene Pimentel cites the frustration of people when they think they are being given the “deadma” treatment—meaning the media outfit for some reason fails to air or print their letter or statement in reply to an issue. And since Filipinos have that Latin temperament of seeking revenge when they feel that their reputation is being shattered to pieces, this frustration drives them to seek redress through violence, which is why “a number of journalists have been killed over the years,” Pimentel said.

While the senator may have a point, this assessment is not entirely accurate either. After all, a lot of media outfits provide avenues for readers and people (who are the subject of reports and opinions) to air their reply, such as the “Letters to the Editor” section, although space constraints sometimes compels editors to shorten the reply, focusing on the most salient points. Columnists also accommodate reactions to their opinion pieces, although it is not always possible to do so at the first opportunity since there are space limitations especially when the current topic requires lengthy discussion.

At any rate, these are probably some of the reasons why both versions of the bill have a rather ticklish provision specifying that the reply to the offending item must be printed or aired in its entirety, without any editing and on the same length as the news item. Anyone who feels that he has been alluded to—even if he has not been named specifically—can invoke the right to reply, within three days (for the Senate version) and 24 hours (in the version of Puentevella).

Opponents to the bill suspect that it is only out to protect the interest of a few—specifically high-key politicians and personalities—and intimidate reporters from writing about legitimate issues that could expose corruption and other wrongdoings involving these people. Another objection is that it will just give publicity-hungry people an excuse to get free media mileage and grandstand at the pretext that they just want to “level the playing field.”

Media people are up in arms, saying the bill could muzzle press freedom because it virtually dictates what editors should publish—the same kind of suppression that happens when editors are ordered to kill or spike a story.

In 1974, there was a case between the Miami Herald and a candidate who sued the publication for refusing to print his replies regarding news items about him. The petitioner invoked the Florida “right to reply” statute granting a candidate equal newspaper space to refute attacks against him “in as conspicuous a place… provided the reply does not take more space than the matter replied to.”

But in the end, the US Supreme Court ruled the Florida statute violated freedom of the press, and that it is unconstitutional to compel a newspaper to publish something “that which reason tells them should not be published.” The ruling also said “a newspaper or magazine is not a public utility subject to reasonable governmental regulations in matters affecting the exercise of journalistic judgment as to what shall be printed.”

Some colleagues contend that senators and congressmen use the privilege speech against some people. And since legislators are so adamant about the “right of reply,” will they then allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to take the floor in the Senate or Congress and deliver an equally lengthy speech refuting allegations against him?

No doubt the “right of reply” is a highly contentious issue that must be discussed thoroughly and objectively. Taken at face value, the intention of the bill seems to protect people from potential abuses by irresponsible media practitioners and give the victims of false or malicious reports an avenue of redress. An opportunity to reply about a contentious issue can also help calm heated nerves and perhaps even avoid the need to file libel cases.

But proponents should also take into consideration the presence of libel laws and the self-regulation practiced by responsible media people plus the existence of the code of ethics for journalists. If the “right of reply” is to become law at all, the provisions should be more reasonable and not too stringent to the point that they already suppress freedom of the press by dictating what stories should see print. But most of all, proponents must first dispel suspicions that the bill is self serving, filed just to protect the interest of a few and not the general public. Otherwise, people will just be “deadma” and react to it in the same negative manner as the Beatles song said it: “No reply.”