Responsible press

No one can disagree with the President’s call for a responsible press. Although democracy thrives best because of a vibrant,alive, vigilant and free press, press freedom like any other freedom guaranteed by any charter of democratic society must be exercised conscientiously, thoughtfully and with malice towards none. Media people are expected to be aware of such responsibility in the exercise of their profession. Renewing the appeal for them to be "responsible" therefore seems unnecessary, unless the President has a different notion of a "responsible press".

Indeed such appeal may be taken as a subtle and indirect way of telling mass media that to be "responsible" they have to give her enough support instead of incessantly and unfavorably criticizing her policies and actions in running the affairs of the government. In between the lines of her statement can be gleaned the pointing finger of blame on media for her critically low public pulse rating. Easily derivable from her call is the conclusion that media is irresponsible because of their lack of cooperation as shown by the reporting and unfavorable comments on "rehashed" charges about government anomalies, corruptions, deceptions, cheating, etc. that have a "destabilizing" effect on her administration and the economy. Her statement about the power of mass media to "topple a government or make or break the economy" confirms this conclusion.

More disputable therefore in the President’s latest appeal to media is the meaning of a "responsible press". To be a responsible press must it really be non-critical and fully supportive of the administration? Should media suppress anything negative about the government because it will be harmful to the economy even if true? I don’t think so.

Mass media’s main reason for being is to let the people know matters of public interest especially governmental affairs affecting them concomitant with their exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right to information. It is in giving out such information where the press carries a lot of responsibility.And that responsibility simply consists of primarily determining the items to be aired or printed precisely because it has to account and answer for anything it publicizes. If no public purpose can be served or if the common good will not be achieved by the information, comments or opinions to be publicized then mass media has no business publicizing them. A case in point is the Subic rape case. Some items regarding the case need not have been reported for they only create undue publicity prejudicial to a fair and impartial administration of justice.

Admittedly mass media’s primary subjects cover any person or event They can report on or comment not only about public officials or public events but also about private individuals and personal affairs. In the latter case, newsworthy private individuals usually have acquired public stature as in TV-movie and sports celebrities or the events surrounding them are imbued with public interest. In the exercise of press freedom, mass media’s foremost responsibility is therefore to guard against violating the more paramount rights of the subjects they cover.

In this regard, the rights of public personalities are more limited than those of private individuals. First of all, by choosing to be public figures they have surrendered to a large extent their right to privacy. Secondly when it comes to defamatory statements against private individuals, truth is not a complete defense. Even if the libelous statement against a private person is true, media people who publish it may still be liable if it is done maliciously or out of spite with no other purpose than to damage the reputation. But for a public official or public figure offended by a libelous statement, truth is a complete defense. In other words, conviction in libel suits filed by public personalities against members of the press may be obtained only by proving that the defamatory words are (1) false and (2) made with the knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for whether or not they are false (Vasquez vs. CA 314 SCRA 460. Public officials and some personalities who have acquired public stature for their close relation with public officials should take note of this jurisprudence.

A responsible press therefore means a press that affords the people their right to information on factual matters of public interest rather than a press that refrains from publishing such items simply because they are critical of the government and may have a "destabilizing" effect. Of course some media people may have overstepped the bounds of responsible journalism.. But if there is full transparency on the part of government, if the administration has not suppressed information of public interest or aborted proceedings where truth could have been amply established even if it hurts, such "irresponsible journalism" may not have happened.