EYE ON ETHICS

A “right of reply” bill has been approved by the Philippine House of Representatives; a less repressive version is pending in the Philippine Senate. Nearly all Philippine media groups, including the major broadsheets and broadcast networks, are opposed to it.
_____________________________________________________________________

No one among those opposed to the Right of Reply bill on principle will argue that shoddy reporting doesn’t exist. There have been too many instances (in some cases involving media practitioners themselves who’re attacked by other practitioners) in which the right of reply, which responsible journalists must honor, is denied those who have been maligned in the media either through bad reporting, malicious comment, or both.

The right of reply is among the ethical principles reporters and other media practitioners, especially editors, should recognize and honor by, first of all, getting the facts right through multiple sourcing. Journalism is a discipline of verification, its very justification being accuracy first of all, which also demands fairness (presenting both or all sides) as well as balance (providing all sides in any question equal space in the case of print and equal time in the case of electronic media). Operationally, news stories try to achieve this by reporting the denial by someone accused of wrongdoing as well as the accusation. Opinion writers also need to at least provide the other side of the argument.

This is easier said than done, and no doubt many individuals have been damaged by the failure of the press to verify “facts”, and to be fair and balanced. But the major media players in the Philippines (e.g., ABS-CBN 2, GMA 7, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, the Manila Bulletin) have put in place internal codes of behavior in addition to expecting adherence to the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics among their staff. Some have media ombudsmen; others have correction boxes as well as readers’ advocates. These don’t always work (But what does? The courts certainly don’t.)—which means that greater efforts must be exerted to better educate journalists (at the school level and on the job), not government regulation. The education of journalists in the Philippines requires most of all a focus on the community press, where ethical and professional standards are lowest.

Making responsible media behavior a matter of law, however, is something else. The Constitutional argument is less vital than the fact that legislating ethics (an oxymoron, ethics being a matter of voluntary compliance) eventually leads to government regulation, and therefore to even less information than the little now available to a public that desperately needs more. The Right of Reply bill is in this category of insidiousness. But it also endows whoever claims to have been unfairly treated (and the bills don’t say unfair treatment has to be proven) with the editorial prerogative to decide what gets to be printed, in the same manner that the decision of the Makati Regional Trial Court last year declaring the arrest of journalists at the Peninsula Hotel legal endows the police with the editorial prerogative to decide what events may be covered by the media. (The Philippine National Police Chief, Jesus Versoza, is now de jure editor-in-chief of all Philippine media.) On the practical side, during heated political periods when accusations are flying thick and fast, with a right of reply law in force the media could very well be so flooded with demands for replies that little else can be published, thus denying the public the information it needs. What’s needed as a companion of a responsible press is a public aware of the responsibilities of the media, which will demand compliance with the media’s own standards, not coercion through prison terms and fines. Mutual education—of the press and the public—should ensue as a result.

The solution for citizens aggrieved by the media is not a right of reply law. Aggrieved citizens need to demand that the media adhere to the media’s own standards, even as they utilize those means of redress that are already available. Among the latter are the letters to the editor sections, the corrections box, the press councils, the media ombudsman, and media monitoring publications, particularly PJR Reports (which is widely read and anticipated in the journalism community). When all else fails, and the aggrieved feels that the damage he or she has had to endure demands retribution plus, there’s the draconian Philippine libel law, under the provisions of which, and in synergy with the power of politicians and the bad decisions of biased judges, journalists have actually spent time in prison, even as, all over the Philippines, many are killed for the capital offense of bad reporting.