Senate Bill 2150 and House Bill 3306 forge the master key that will unlock the gates for the dismantling of the safeguards of press freedom in the country. These bills seek to legislate the citizens’ right of reply to derogatory news reports and commentaries in both print and broadcast media.

These bills are falsely claimed by their sponsors to expand freedom of the press. In reality they attack the independent and private media at their most vulnerable spots: editorial control over their space for news and for precious revenue-generating resources. These are aspects of the right of reply legislation that have been glossed over in the debate arising from the information gatekeeper functions of editors.

Under these bills, “all persons who are accused directly or indirectly of any crime or offense or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private shall have the right to reply to the charge published in newspapers and other publications or to criticisms aired over radio, television, website or through any electrical device.”

The bills provide the legal framework for the allocation of space in private media to parties offended by defamatory articles. They not only convert private media into a dumping ground for replies from aggrieved parties seeking redress from attacks in the press, they also legislate the confiscation of space in private media to make way for a flood of demands for free space to reply to attacks. This legislated confiscation of media space will effectively reduce the space for news and commentaries which will be crowded out by a deluge replies from offended parties. This space seizure leads to undermining two things: the editorial independence and financial viability of independent media.

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., principal sponsor of Senate Bill 2150, claims the bill is not an infringement of freedom of speech, and should be seen as “an expansion of the right of the people to express the other side of controversy in which they are unduly maligned.” He misstates the issue when he says that the right to reply underscores the fact that freedom of the press “is not a monopoly of the members of the Fourth Estate ... it belongs to all the people.”

This is a false issue. The media have never disputed the right of parties offended by press reports to reply. They do not accept that they have a monopoly to freedom of expression. But what they resist is the imposition of legislative dictatorship on the constitutionally mandated right of editors to determine the contents of their media. If the bills’ authors would have their way, they would not want the replies edited by editors. The bills would make editors redundant as gate keepers of information on public issues. Guaranteed space for reply articles throws wide open the gates of private media to a flood of replies, which are the output of publicists and paid hacks whose editorial judgments will replace those of editors. Editors cannot allow such usurpation of their prerogative by freeloaders who have been given a franchise to occupy media space by legislative fiat.

On the issue of expansion of the right of people to express their side in a controversy, it should be asked what sort of people would benefit from the expansion sought by the bills. Content analysis of media space shows that the class of people who have most access to media space is not the common people but public officials, mainly politicians and legislators, who are enjoying advantages of press exposure with their privilege speeches. In no way can these bills expand the right of reply of people attacked by legislators shielded by parliamentary privilege to which the victims of their defamatory attacks have no access.

The bills are weapons for legislators to get back at journalists who expose their shenanigans and abuses. The legislated allocation of media space necessarily cuts into space for legitimate news. These bills ensure free space for legislators and politicians to fight their political enemies and settle scores with them.

These reply articles will push out news stories and reduce space for advertising. Advertising revenue is the lifeblood of independent newspapers in a democracy. Without advertising revenue, no independent media can survive the rising costs of publication and broadcasting.

The financial situation of newspapers and broadcast networks is even more precarious now in the context of the global recession. Advertising revenue in most media networks all over the world has slumped. The compulsory allocation of space to non-paying right of reply articles undermines the financial viability of independent newspapers and broadcast networks.

One of the most lethal ways to gag independent media is to attack their financial lifeline, not censorship or government takeover. Ferdinand Marcos tried to strangle this lifeline before declaring martial law by coercing business to withdraw advertising from the Manila Times. Joseph Estrada tried to browbeat the Inquirer to submission by coercing the advertisers to withdraw ads from the Inquirer. Both failed.

Pimentel claims that compulsory allocation of space to right of reply articles can enhance the credibility of the media. How, by unloading rubbish on them? There’s no surer way to lose credibility than this. The media do not need his gratuitous advice.

Mechanisms providing for right of reply are already in place, although they do not fulfill the aspirations of Pimentel and his cohorts in Congress to act as editors through the apparatus of thought control that their legislation seeks to install.