It’s just probably because of our – mediamen’s – over-blown
sense of self-importance that in trying to defend ourselves from attempts to gag
us such as Nene Pimentel’s right to reply bill we fell into the trap set before
us.
Nene starts from fashionable and the seemingly politically
correct assumption that media has a fundamental commitment to truth, justice and
the democratic way of life and that this commitment imposes on us the heavy
burden of being "responsible" in our role as disseminators of news and as
outlets of opinions.
Nene says media has to be fair. "All that the right of reply
wants to do is accord the persons criticized the right to reply not absolutely
as they want to but within the constraints of reason and the law. And therefore
we are trying to balance the right of the press to offend and the right of the
people to defend themselves," he said in his latest defense of his hobby horse.
It’s the old – or rather new, as we will show – shibboleth
about the press/media being a public trust. We have news for Nene and our
colleagues who subscribe to this nonsense.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution (upon which our
"No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression of the
press…" provision in the Bill of Rights is based) seeks not to ensure the truth,
justness or fairness of what is said or what is printed. It is meant to secure
that all kinds of advocacies, opinions and views – from the stupid to the
enlightened – are allowed the fullest expression.
It is only in very late contemporary times that
near-monolithic and near-monopolistic media outfits, whether of national or
local reach, have emerged, resulting in the transformation of discourse into
inoffensive twaddle.
The two preceding centuries of printed publication were
characterized by publications with strong advocacies which were decidedly
political. It was in recognition of the necessity of the competition of ideas in
a democratic society that the freedom of speech, of expression, of the press and
the right of the people to peaceably assemble to seek redress of grievances – a
constellation of clearly related political ideas -- was enshrined in the US
Constitution and other constitutions patterned after it.
We go back to this bedrock philosophy underlying the
constitutional guarantee for a free press because this newspaper did not start
out with any illusion it was being "fair" or "responsible."
We did not set out to set up a public trust. We were angry.
We wanted to fight. Our message was Ferdinand Marcos was a thief and a tyrant
and ought to be overthrown. Marcos tried to shut down this paper and terrorize
its owners and staff. But to his credit he never demanded we print his side in
the name of the right of reply.
Now, they want us through legislation to be "fair" and "responsible?" How
things have changed. And only in a span of 23 years.
