If the media has the duty to keep public officials honest, who keeps the media honest? Truly, there are rumors going around that there is such a practice of AC-DC (attack and collect; defend and collect). Is it fair to give media a license to just publicize/ broadcast, all loose pronouncements, accusations, personal attacks on character or reputation, without supporting facts or documents, shaming, in downright, insensitive, scandalous, vulgar manner?
Of course not, common sense will tell you that the impact of such a broadcast is immediate, especially in the age of internet. Anything can go viral, in seconds, and the damage may not be repaired or corrected. To paraphrase, Machiavelli: “ A lie repeated several times, will somehow become the truth or people will believe what you make them believe!”. The best example is Hitler, who used propaganda to fool even the wise Germans, and mind you, he has loyal believers, up to the present. Everything can be stage managed or choreographed, as in the movie: “WAG THE DOG!”
Each individual media practitioner is challenged to carry the burden of upholding the tenets of a civilized society, protect and respect the innate rights and dignity of the people. Media practice is a noble profession, whose practitioners have the training on the job or through education. The “urge to earn,” must be balanced with the practitioner’s sense of responsibility, morality, fairness, and honesty at all times. All media practitioners share the responsibility of bringing to light all issues of public concern.
Purely private matters of individuals, with no bearing on public matters, are different. The “right to privacy”, is to be respected at all times, even certain very private matters of public figures are off limits to media. Like when P-Noy requested all media to give him space to pursue a “private lovelife”. Public figures like movie stars, may have difficulty in staving off the obiquitous,”paparazzi”, they have a very thin line to protect themselves. It will depend on the situation, as declaring that their children are not part of the public figure package. Thus, if you are not a public figure, the general rule is that you are off limits to media, unless you yourself actively seek publicity.
In the case of Ayer Pro. Pty. Ltd. Vs. Judge Capulong, Enrile sough to enjoin the inclusion of his role in the making of the “people power “film, since it would violate his right to privacy, the Supreme Court ruled that for as long as it is truthful, historical, with no reckless disregard of the truth of Enrile’s role, it is not unreasonable and actionable.
So, the reverse is true, if anyone feels aggrieved by any unfair broadcast of private matters, it is actionable. The liberal rule regarding criticism of public conduct likewise, must be reasonable, in good faith, with justifiable ends.
In the exercise of his rights and the performance of his duties, media must “ act with justice, give everyone his due, observe honesty and good faith.”
________________________________
Author’s email: whelmayap@yahoo.com