Editorial on ‘reply’ exaggerated
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:15:00 10/13/2008
MANILA, Philippines - I think the editorial titled “Chameleon” (Inquirer, 10/4/08) went to extremes. In part, it stated: “Consider, for instance, a situation in which a newspaper has published an article …. If the story rated a banner headline, then his reply … has to be the banner, too, and not even a nuclear explosion in Metro Manila can nudge it away from the most prominent space on the front page.”
Totally exaggerated. If the story is a banner headline, the reaction of the offended party may be printed in the Letters section, which is reserved for readers, like the Inquirer always does. What the bill proposes to do is to make sure the reply is not lost in some inconsequential page that nobody bothers to read. That’s the essence of fair play and equal treatment. But if the Inquirer prefers running the reply as a banner story, that is the newspaper’s choice.
“Or consider a columnist who is not exactly enamored of President Macapagal-Arroyo: Under this bill, he must yield his space (and forfeit his pay) every time Ms Arroyo feels like taking issue with what he has written about her. And a letter to the editor will take the place of an editorial soon after a newspaper criticizes a government official.”
It disappoints me that the Inquirer said that. Editors have more brains than the editorial suggested. Well-written opinions contribute to a newspaper’s prestige and earn the respect and admiration of readers. If the president reacts to a critical commentary, a smart publisher will use that opportunity to dialogue with him or her. Nothing can be more exclusive to a journalist than getting the attention of and having a one-on-one with the president. Besides enhancing the news, any reaction that generates news is part of news gathering because the news outfit is in fact doing what it does best—reporting news.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Like a gun in the hands of the irresponsible and reckless, it can destroy reputations—of presidents and ordinary citizens alike. Giving an offended party the chance to reply, even just once and certainly not repeatedly, encourages honor and decency for it quenches the thirst of the aggrieved for moral relief. That’s better than apologizing for something which, proper or not, seldom happens anyway or—as some media practitioners are inclined to do—dismissing the reaction with a simple drop-down statement, “I stand by what I wrote,” which promptly ends the debate. Case closed. As a result, people go to court to seek relief.
The case of former Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo comes to mind. The late Max Soliven wrote a piece which Romulo found personally objectionable. He sent a reply but Soliven refused to publish it. I am not sure if it was because of the camaraderie of the old boys’ club among media practitioners that Romulo obviously failed to get his media friends to air his side to his full satisfaction. Romulo was forced to take out advertising in another newspaper to make his reply and paid for it. Not everybody can afford what he did. Tell me if that is fair.
—CESAR M. DE LOS REYES, via e-mail
Sec. 2 of the House version of the proposed “right of reply” law reads: “The reply of the person so accused or criticized shall be published or broadcast in the same space of the newspapers, magazine, newsletter or publication or aired over the same program on radio, television, website, or through any electronic device.” In essence, it reads exactly the same as Sec. 2 of the Senate version.—Ed.
|
