Right of Reply

FAQ’s on the race for equal space in media
By: Stanley Palisada

What is equal space in news media?

A reporter gives equal space to a person (or party) who gets entangled in a controversial story. Depending on the length of his news item, a reporter should allot X number of column inches or air time to that person (or party), or he forever holds his piece.

What happens when a reporter fails to provide “equal space”?

Anything short of equal space makes journalists liable for unfair reporting, a violation of a Right of Reply law where such exists.

And what is Right of Reply?

Right of Reply bounds media to give equal space to anyone (more often a public official) who thinks he is the aggrieved party in a news story.

Why is it dangerous?

It impedes Press Freedom because it controls content and exercises some form of news censorship.

Is it malicious?

Is any self-serving law not malicious? The ones behind it are public officials who want to legalize their influence over media to justify their actions.

How is this implemented?

It’s really a logistical nightmare, given the magnitude of the enforcers’ tasks, but some deem it more urgent than other government priorities like poverty alleviation or nationwide peace.

Who will implement it?

Maybe a technical committee composed of people, hopefully with unquestionable expertise to police news stories and insist on equal space?

Does the government have resources (or the time) to enforce this?

The TV network I work for gathers about 200 to 300 news stories a day like other networks, broadsheets, websites and bloggers. Surely reviewing all our work may take a few government minutes… which brings us to the next question related to time:

How will this affect the urgency of news?

Equal space will make newscasts longer and may eat up on “Telenovela” viewing. Please worry more about not getting news right away, unless you don’t mind hearing your “equal-sided breaking news advisory” days after it happened, or until some public official is reached for comment.

Is there really a need for a new law against biased reporting?

Getting all sides to a story is a duty of media, as guaranteed by the credo of fair reporting. Media needs all sides to give perspective. Not only is a one-sided story a desecration of fair reporting, it is largely unpalatable and no reporter wants his work labeled “tasteless”. Besides when media really misrepresents facts, a libel suit will suffice.

So is the press free in a world where Right of Reply exists?

As free as a caged bird!

The press enjoys a little flexibility with story angles as long as the context serves the common good. This flexibility is called Press Freedom. A law which demands equal space (or penalizes media for not giving it) limits editorial judgment and controls the exchange of ideas.

Is fighting Right of Reply just a journalist’s war?

Press Freedom is a journalist’s cause as much as it is public concern. Media is the proverbial “eye of the people and voice of the voiceless”. If its view of issues is skewed by a self-serving law, the public is deprived of the truth.

Is it right for the public to join the race to stop Right of Reply?

Why do you think a reporter holds the microphone in a news interview?
That microphone symbolizes the sanctity of the right of the public to demand accountability from its servants. Allowing public officials to control that microphone is a transgression of such right.
More importantly, that microphone embodies our individual entitlement to free speech and expression. Allowing public officials to merely hold the microphone is symbolically… unconstitutional.