Threatened by what the lists of purported officials involved in the P10 billion PDAF scam from different sources may reveal, our legislators have suggested to hurriedly pass a law on the right of reply. They wanted to make sure that when the time comes that their names are published in the newspapers or broadcast on radio and TV, they have the backing of a law to have their side published or broadcast or telecast. Yet they have not seen, of course, the importance of the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill that was filed a long time ago. Isn't it convenient to pass a law only for the benefit of a few and inconvenient for those that benefit the general public? That is what this scamper for the right to reply is pointing at and it is a sad thing for the country that expects too much from their government officials.

Actually the passage of the right to reply law is not necessary at all. It is all provided for in the standards and ethics of journalism or mass media operation. A newsman and reporter have the obligation to get the side of every party involved in any issue. Any violation can lead to his or her credibility problem. A media outfit by its name should be neutral in its reporting of what is news. It can do this by presenting the side of each of the party involved when available and must state it in the same report when not. The only way one can take sides is in the commentaries and block times. What law should be passed is one that prohibits media outfits from becoming the mouthpiece or apologist of politicians which has become a reality especially among local media outfits. You would think that sometimes local media has become mouthpieces if not hacks of politicians. This happens especially when the employees of local media outfits are also government employees for reasons that have yet to be made clear. It is not clear if media personnel double as government employees because they are not paid well by their media outfit or whether local government political leaders employ mediamen in their offices to make sure that their administration don't get unsavoury reports or commentaries from these media personnel.

The matter is complicated by the fact that management of these media outfits just seem to look the other way.When this happens media loses its very mission of seeking and reporting the truth. When this happens media loses the essence of its existence. When this happens government loses transparency that the public deserves from its operation. It is not freedom of reply that needs to be passed into law. It's returning media to its sense and getting it back to its former grandeur. When this happens it is as if the right of reply law has also been passed. Legislators should therefore not fret over whether they can get media to air or report their side to any issue. They can get it by asking for it because a good mediaman will always accommodate his or her request. And there are still good mediamen. All they need to do is look for that real mediaman and real media outfit because the right of reply is ingrained in the ethics of good media practice.