A conversation between the government and the press
"You comment first and then I respond," said the government.
"No way," said the press.
"Why?" asked the government.
"Because you did not ask me to do it; instead, you told me to do it," said the press.
The press continued,
"Need I remind you? The Philippine Constitution gave birth to me, after years of fearful silence and tyranny, intending to let me be as free as I can; hence, I am aptly called Free Press.
"On the other hand, the same Constitution limits your ability to govern as a public institution, through proper checks and balances established by the separation of powers, because of your inherent tendency to abuse and misuse derived powers from the people whom you beg consent from."
"I protect the masses from your excesses. I may be sensational at times and overreaction is a usual flaw of mine. But without me, who shall expose what recorded history has proven correct?"
"Who shall remind the people that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?' "
"And now you are telling me I am required to air your side of the story?"
"Tell me, have you really consulted the constituents of your district / region when you made this specific decision or, in general, make decisions on their behalf?"
"Did you ever visited the voters in your district and solicited their opinions and grievances, even if it is not during an election period?"
"Did you ever consulted the people of the land before making a final deal that would affect their lives, the lives of their family, and future generations coming out their line?
"Did you always make yourself available and accessible to the poor, the sick, and those who are weak in order for their small voices to be heard or do you go to your clubhouses and meet your golf buddies to decide the affairs of the state?"
"Have you gone to great lengths by traveling throughout the far corners of the nation to provide the chance for all walks of people, from the remote mountain provinces to the squalor the squatter area in urban settings represent, and even deep in the jungles full of conflict and misery so that their inhabitants may be able to air their grievances and make their petitions, or do you only do so when you are carrying guns or collecting taxes?"
"Well, I have done such things and I have gone to such places," the press answered.
"Perhaps you should first remove the speck in your eyes before you notice mine," the press suggested.
"Once you have done so, you may then ask me to give you a chance to reply," the press finally said.
In Defense of the Press
Although I do not agree with the notion of an impregnable press, I have serious reservation when it comes to restricting the capacity of the press to inform the public in the manner it so chooses, regardless of whether their reports are one-sided or not.
After all, it is assumed that the public, as a collective of individuals, can think for itself, has the capacity to decide for its own, and is able to detect whether they are being lied upon, regardless of such lies coming from the press or the government.
Unless the press, as a collective entity, stifles dissent by making sure that only one opinion (perhaps its own) is publicized, I see no reason as to why it ought to be compelled to present the other side, given that other avenues of response are nonetheless available.
Surely, the congressman who authored this bill should know that if the press can present one side of the issue, he can make the other side known to the public by asking the same to present his perspective (ergo, press conference), and even perhaps take advantage of the rivalry between news networks i.e., if ABS-CBN reported the story, then go to GMA for the response.
Common sense, is it not? But if for some reason the other side cannot be expressed through the press, would not creative thinking leads us to harness the internet, text messaging, public meetings, or perhaps regularly meet the citizenry to explain your side of the story, instead of potentially suppressing a constitutionally protected institution in society?
In the United States, accusations that the media acts in a biased capacity certainly restricts the power of the press to influence public opinion, for the people, as individuals, are treated as rational beings and assumed as having enough intellectual capacity to make fair judgments of their own.
In the Philippines, politicians seem skeptical as to whether the citizenry is capable of making such decisions and I certainly would agree if it is said that, to a certain extent, that is not the case. For indeed, some still vote based upon blood ties, popularity, and given favors, not capability, integrity, and other qualifying aspects.
This maturity difference does not change the fact that the United States suffer the same problem the Philippines suffers. Corruption and political favors in Chicago alone seems to be in the same magnitude as what we may have in the Philippines.
Nevertheless, the fact that Americans are to be trusted in their capacity to decide what is good for them remains unquestionable: the notion includes the ability to discern for their own which are facts, lies, half-truths, and hurtful truths, wrong they may be in the end.
In essence then, those who accept the consequence of their actions, whatever it is, are thus considered responsible enough to make decisions of their own, regardless of whether it is beneficial.
I therefore ask our legislators to treat their fellow Filipino citizens as equals with the capacity to discern lies from facts, and not only act as protectors of an ill-informed and immature public. For once you treated them as equals, you will see that the public is not so susceptible to whatever the press tells them. There is no need to treat them as children; for if they are always treated as such, they might never grow up.
On the other hand, the press is bound to be subjective. To mandate objectivity in the eyes of the law sets a dangerous precedent in terms of press freedom. It is the right of each individual to make partial decisions, as long as they would own up to such responsibility.
If the press has become too subjective that it bends facts and employs lies to benefit its own, I surely believe that the people would not stand by and get itself lied upon, dear legislators. So please show a little bit of trust in the people, would you?
If push comes to shove, the constitutionality of this law must be questioned before the High Court, and thus finally decide whether the infringement this proposal would cause is substantial enough to constitute a violation of press freedom.
The Filipino press, for all its sensationalism and its zealous conviction to keep the public realm informed of news and issues that could determine the fate of the nation, will always be susceptible to make mistakes and thus make partial judgments. It is not unusual for firebrands to abound in journalism where doing your duty usually mean injury, ridicule, and death.
For how can you not expect Filipino journalists to be prosecutorial in their pursuit of doing their public duty, when time after time, their colleagues are gunned down just because they want to let the public know of what is going on?
Polticians expects the press to calm down when it comes to criticism them. But good gracious, how can you expect them to calm down when tomorrow, the only thing that needs to be done is to prepare for the burial of a deceased reporter? Have those granted with power to protect and serve did their job of protecting our journalists?
Urgency and sense of purpose seem to choke the air of tranquility and the traditional path of hushing up events in the wake of brutal assaults on the agents of the press.
Perhaps, the press is also frustrated because in whatever manner the report is given, a significant portion of the public just do not comprehend the danger of indifference, inaction, and maintains its blissful obedience to men in power, as opposed to adherance in the rule of law.
In this case, the public, no, more accurately a certain portion of it, deserves to be lied upon.
Where did Congress get the tenacity to demand from the press to be fair, when their actions as representatives of the people are far from being fair?
Countless times have the Philippines been named by various international non-governmental organizations (mind you, not only once, but recurring) as failing its duty to pursue the path of good governance; the most recent reports states that governance is "worst in East Asia."*
Corruption, indeed, is so rampant and thick, a mice - the common Filipinos - can hardly breed.
If corruption is indeed rampant, then there are so many fish to pry! It is only expected that the press be seen as abusive and partial by those in power because those in power have not experienced the full measure of what being a democracy is; that is, they have not experienced a formidable institution, as a private conduit of information to the general public, in society holding them accountable for their actions; ergo, the consequence of a free press.
The traditional political culture of the Philippines a quarter of a century ago provided Filipino politicians with unimpeachable standing in the eyes of the public, with some Filipino journalists going as far as calling the lack of criticism of politicans a duty to nationalist ideals.
What a bunch of kiss-asses.
What benefit does this new legislation has which is applicable to the general public, anyway?
The press does not generally act as an inquisitional group to the common person, but always focus on those who influence society in general. So, I ask again, cui bono?
Now that politicians are being subjected to close scrutiny by a press that does not kowtow to the old corrupt ways, a press which does not collude with those who are in power, it is only expected for the press to be restrained, in any manner possible.
* - "WB: Corruption in RP worst in East Asia," June 2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080625-144628/WB-Corruption-in-RP-worst-in-East-Asia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment