Media gives voice to the voiceless. Yes, even with the intervention of editors and publishers’ opinions, the powerless seek it out to even the odds.
True, as with any good thing, like sex and food, it can be misused or abused, but abuse, or its possibility is never an argument against anything essential. And media is essential.
So what happens when the right of reply is introduced? It silences the voices.What if, the families of murder victims or people in fear of their lives approach media to complain about a murderous candidate?
Owners of media establishments will now have to think twice about giving free and equal airtime to said murderous candidate at their own cost.Making media think twice and resort to making business decisions rather than decisions for the common good results in less opportunity for those who otherwise cannot defend themselves in a playing field that is less than level.
Public officials get into media just by breathing in the right places.
This gives them even more exposure. Considering also that some of the rich and powerful have means beyond the law to fix their problems, this right of reply smacks of preferential treatment.
This COMELEC rule kind of snuck up on us. While we were busy fighting off this travesty in the Freedom of Information Bill, the election body came up with this rule. Well played, COMELEC, but you haven’t figured out the repercussions.
Elections are supposed to be played on an even field. But when the weak and powerless lose the few tools it has left, this election game of who has the most to spend just became all the more unfair.
By: Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles
(Source : PSSST! Centro)
To know more about Trixie Cruz Angeles, check out: I AM TRIXIE CRUZ
No comments:
Post a Comment