Right to Reply

Friends, this is an article in Manila Times written by a friend, lifted and re-printed here in toto with permission from the author. Just food for thought, for writers and subjects of write ups alike. Your comments are welcome. Best regards, Mabel

Right to reply
by Geronimo L. Sy

The right to reply is the right to answer charges or allegations in the public arena chiefly those in media like newspapers, tabloids and other forms of print media including television, radio and now the Internet.

What happens oftentimes is that a newspaper exposes an alleged scam or wrongdoing in bold headlines and brings a person to ridicule. When the affected person defends himself or presents his explanations, his reply never gets to see the light of day. If ever, it is buried deep in small column spaces in the 'letters to the editor' or some obscure section. It is unfair and is harmful to the civilized order. The reputation of the person is effectively destroyed without a remedy unless he goes to court. In the meantime, the accusations may continue.

The best practice is of course to check and verify facts and to get the other side's story before publication. It is the elementary concept of due process enshrined in our democracy. However and sadly, this is not observed even by those who claim to be credible mainstream media.

It is in effect trial by publicity that creates a pre-judgment or mis-judgment in the minds of the public. It may be true that public servants cannot be onion-skinned when it comes to criticism for public acts. It is equally true that they should be given a chance to be heard.

It is like making 'sumbong' on a person who is not around and has no chance to explain or defend himself. We are colored by our perceptions and even if we sincerely believe that our experiences and personal assessments are accurate, the tests of time and humility have repeatedly shown that we can always change our opinions and learn new or undiscovered facts that will materially affect outcomes.

The right to reply is not censorship. It is not requiring approval before publication. It is a simple concept that gives the other his due. It is also a basic idea which we know by heart— the Golden Rule. Imagine if you were at the receiving end of baseless comments and false facts?

The right to reply requires then equal prominence and attention. The person replying need not buy ad spaces or pay enormous sums to make his story known. This will hopefully make media more circumspect and careful—whatever they say can and will be taken against them in that the same space will have to be provided for the retort. Theoretically, it will be headlines to headlines, sidebar to sidebar and notes to notes.

Speaking of public service advertisements, it is also an aspect of potential abuse when the so-called 'concerned citizens' take out a whole page ads for their agenda without benefit of retort or as earlier said, check and verify the facts first. Woe to the penniless man.

Owners and managers of media establishments need to respect and obey the rule of law like the rest of us. Just because they operate or control the medium does not mean they no longer need to respect the rights of others.

Perhaps the way this article is crafted seems to leave no doubt that the right of reply, if not practiced or observed, needs to be translated into law to give it full force and effect. Maybe this will be a step towards improving the media establishment. Fly-by-night operations will have to close if and when the law can catch up to them.