Right of Reply Bill could suppress posting?

**rst619** · March 17th, 2009 01:51 AM

Problema kasi sa atin "sensationalism sells". Ideally kasi hindi naman macurtail ng right of reply ang press freedom e. Isulat mo kung ano gusto mo isulat basta pag nag react ung subject mo, i publish mo din. O wala namang na curtail di ba?

kaya lang naman sila (publishers et al) tumututol, dahil daw may effect sa economic aspect ng business nila. imagine sabi nga ng iba e hindi na news ang reply na required i publish. Pero madali lang din naman kasi masolusyunan un e. Di ba nga sa newswriting 101 get both sides of the story? E problema sa karamihan ng reporter walang alam na sentence kundi "other side cannot be contacted for comments"

**rst619** · March 17th, 2009 01:56 AM

***double post

**empy** · March 17th, 2009 08:22 AM

i have to applaud the last few posts (except for OB's typical nonsensical troll post). the arguments in favor of a right-to-reply really have made me think about it.

i still feel it's extremely self-serving for a politician to create this bill, but at the same time, the media in general (not just in RP, but the world) needs to have more accountability and responsibility.

**tsupermario** · March 17th, 2009 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Gen. Miting

sabi nga ni Angelina Jolie sa movie na nakalimutan ko title pero sya yun nanay ng conqueror ng Persian Empire, "slander is not power".

alexander

**manunulat** · March 19th, 2009 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by rst619

Problema kasi sa atin "sensationalism sells". Ideally kasi hindi naman macurtail ng right of reply ang press freedom e. Isulat mo kung ano gusto mo isulat basta pag nag react ung subject mo, i publish mo din. O wala namang na curtail di ba?

kaya lang naman sila (publishers et al) tumututol, dahil daw may effect sa economic aspect ng business nila. imagine sabi nga ng iba e hindi na news ang reply na required i publish. Pero madali lang din naman kasi masolusyunan un e. Di ba nga sa newswriting 101 get both sides of the story? E problema sa karamihan ng reporter walang alam na sentence kundi "other side cannot be contacted for comments"

At the very least, IMO hindi dapat makinabang ang public officials sa right of reply if what is criticized is in line of their duty.

No criticism against public officials may invite laxity in performance.

**Horsepower** · March 19th, 2009 03:40 PM

just got a text message:

"Senator Lito Lapid doesn't understand y media is opposing d RIGHT2REPLY Bill. He believes every1 has d right 2 reply as long as "merong load."

**ab_initio** · March 19th, 2009 03:52 PM

i think the passage of this into law is an over kill... public officials enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their function. that's why in every accusation we hurl against them, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

**manunulat** · March 20th, 2009 04:11 PM

Public Officials are accountable to the people. The people are their critics. They should expect scrutiny from the people.

The right of reply bill may hinder transparency in government affairs.

Consider also the marginalized sectors. The bill may hinder too their valid actions protected by democratic laws.

Lastly, those who have less in life should have more in law. Those who have less in life appears not to benefit much in the right of reply bill. (As regards to the right of the accused, a poor accused may prefer to remains silent.)

**ab_initio** · March 20th, 2009 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by manunulat

Public Officials are accountable to the people. The people are their critics. They should expect scrutiny from the people.

The right of reply bill may hinder transparency in government affairs.

Consider also the marginalized sectors. The bill may hinder too their valid actions protected by democratic laws.

Lastly, those who have less in life should have more in law. Those who have less in life appears not to benefit much in the right of reply bill. (As regards to the right of the accused, a poor accused may prefer to remain silent.)

at the end of the day, public officials may find comfort that they enjoy the legal presumption of the regularity in the performance of their function. anyone who cries that a public official is corrupt has the burden of proving such because every public official's act is presumed to be regular. so why unnecessarily invoke again such privilege? there's one word to describe it:overkill.