Press freedom and the right to reply - II

Should Senate Bill 2150 be enacted into a statute, the press freedom for the Fourth Estate is bound to be diluted, both its letter and its spirit. Considering the almost unbridled right of expression now to the point of abuse and over-indulgence, any law on the right to reply will hinder, nay, handcuff, the journalist's advocacy through the print, radio, or tv.

As part-time pen pusher, one appreciates the full-time practitioners' concern. However, biased, slanted, or malicious reporting crops up in non-subtle manner, other than mere inaccuracy or minor lapses of facts, and whose themal core is no longer constructive criticism.

There were actual samples of biased reporting… With their 13 names enumerated over a non-issue and a canard in sweeping generalization, Mandaue Mayor Jonas Cortes kin and kith were libeled when a lady reporter parroted like a fisherman's uncultured wife. Firing a shotgun blast of supposedly public indictment - but really with neither weight nor heft in truth - the lady journalist allowed herself as unsporting tool of two catty politicians bent to destroy Hizzoner whichever foul ways and means.

Without specifics, or even plausible allegations, the Cortes family was slurred as "Kabanay Unlimited" forming a "shadow government", by gossip-mongers in the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP). The SP lawyers dithered between imputing the Mayor's relatives as "lobbyists for suppliers of materials" in three groups; as "informal settlers" of City Hall… allegedly delaying the implementation of programs and projects of the City"; "who have control over key departments and divisions at City Hall"; and, "are even calling the shots".

Like all big lies being peddled recklessly with neither proof nor citation of even vague instances, they only depict the purveyors of such gossips as undeserving of being lawyers worth their oath. And irresponsibly passing on gossips and bandying unfairly the 13 names as "violators of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" to the biased beat reporter, thereby violating the sanctity of the pen. Even hinting them as "public officials and employees" is ignorance per se.

 The SP detractors made capital that the Cortes family relatives whom they falsely indicted do not have appointments, no office, no power to exercise or make use of, like cars, gas, travel, cash advances, etc., and yet, the public is absurdly and stupidly prejudiced because of the absence of accountability. "Gibali hinoon ang tirada!"As if any LGU chief executive is deprived and/or prohibited from having consultations with or advice from his kin, relatives and friends without costs to the public coffers.

Why did this beat reporter not give a fair shake to the Mayor's libeled kin and kith? Incidentally, just to make the victims look so many, others not related to the Mayor's family were also falsely slurred: Attys. Briccio Boholst, Omar Redula, Eutiquio Sanchez Jr., and Hidelito Pascual, and Engr. Antonio Sanchez who are with legitimate appointments and are all qualified. The rest used to be involved with the "transition team", two are members of the council of elders; and all have been volunteers with no official duties, no salaries, no perks, no power including cash advances, and no offices.

 Finally, what makes the beat reporter unfairly biased and not just a disinterested journalist was her admission that Hizzoner's staff distributed "lists of Ouano's family members who worked at City Hall and the salaries they received". The question is: To balance her reporting to make it fair, why did she not also enumerate the latter's 13 family members who were actually appointed by skirting nepotism during the previous administration?

Thus, what possible reasons that envelope the incidents on the matter? What did Atty. Bebe Pascual mean when he asked the VM: "Wa pa gyud mahurot ang kinurakot sa inyong amo"?

* * *

Email: [email protected]