tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post7230586763703845112..comments2023-08-25T17:10:20.774+08:00Comments on Phoenix' Eyrie: Libel and the freedom of the pressAzure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-60198379994369735372007-07-06T12:15:00.000+08:002007-07-06T12:15:00.000+08:00Hmm... Ok, Manolo, thanx for clearing those points...Hmm... Ok, Manolo, thanx for clearing those points up. <BR/><BR/>The fear in my case really was that there won't be an effective check to Philippine Media's power. Few developing countries in the world have a Fourth Estate as influential as we have, with many of its members crossing the boundary from merely Gatekeepers - itself a significant power, if you subscribe to the notion that information, and the access to it, is an important aspect of 21st century life - to Strategic Constituents.<BR/><BR/>But, yes, at the end of the day, there is a reason for the Consti itself enshrining the right to a free media. Any democracy that has the gall to call itself a liberal one like we do must subscribe to this unless it wishes to reinvent itself farther to the left or right.<BR/><BR/>Its just scary when you think that one aspect of society can even have the potential to exercise immense power without an effective check. Belief in the inherent goodness of man is good and all, but I'd like to know I have a bit of kryptonite tucked somewhere for when a protector becomes a rabid beast.Azure Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-21698865566956988782007-07-01T10:57:00.000+08:002007-07-01T10:57:00.000+08:00competition, for one, is a check-and-balance, a th...competition, for one, is a check-and-balance, a thoroughly abusive or senasationalistic media outfit will lose readers/viewers eventually.<BR/><BR/>i think the case of the president's husband is complicated, but these are the main issues at hand:<BR/><BR/>1. he maintained he's not a public figure, and therefore, not bound by the wider latitude usually given media to scrutinize and comment on the actions of public figures. <BR/><BR/>2. there is the question of whether his being the president's husband means that fiscals will jump to accomodate his cases, and whether judges will try the cases more vigorously; and since libel is a crime, the state becomes a party to the case and the police power is used to haul journalists off to be charged -which has a chilling effect in general, but particularly so when bail is paid but the accused aren't allowed to leave jail quickly.<BR/><BR/>3. therefore, whether a report is actually not libelous or not ends up beside the point -in which case, however well, or conscientiously written, a story ends up being no shield against harassment at all.<BR/><BR/>4. it's precisely because of this that libel, the grounds for it, and its classification as a crime, should be reconsidered. also, the distinction between the more thorough scrutiny public officials or those who choose a higher profile in the public eye, have to endure, and the greater protection those who live quietly and out of the public eye, should receive.mlq3https://www.blogger.com/profile/07311749590012410086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-25862759048021617892007-06-29T02:51:00.000+08:002007-06-29T02:51:00.000+08:00Ok, Manolo, so you're saying that Media won't mind...Ok, Manolo, so you're saying that Media won't mind if the nature of libel was changed from criminal to civil? <BR/><BR/>Because, if I get you right, the issue wasn't about Mike Arroyo filing all those libel suits but about the nature of the offense itself, which would have involved the State. Which is, lest anyone forget, headed by his wife.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if I got the wrong impression, but it would seem like Media was reacting rather negatively to the slapping of libel suits because someone - nevermind that it was an Arroyo - had the gall to do so, not because of the character of the charge being levied.<BR/><BR/>Because from what I understand, democracy is also about checks-and-balances, not only within government but among the different "Estates." The... assault on libel by the whole of the Fourth Estate looked to me like Media wanting to exercise its rights without any possible check.<BR/><BR/>Call me idealistic (I can still be, after 8 July 2005? Uh-MAZING), but any responsible reportage by any media organization should be in itself a shield against libel. The law was clear that the defining issue was one of intent, not of truth, and any responsible treatment of an issue by media SHOULD preclude any question of any malice or intent to disparage that someone's honor, no matter how despicable the person, in public.<BR/><BR/>If anything from media was shorn of malicious intent, shouldn't there be no chilling effect? Any journalist or commentator should be confident that the law would be on their side, and therefore anything government does would not only fail, but be added mileage to the whole issue; "Big Brother Bears Down on Poor, Hapless Guardians of Truth", news on 6.<BR/><BR/>And being media in a country where its clear who the people listen to more, the bar of public opinion would be on media's side. I think we both know how powerful that can be. It helped save the Inquirer, after all, despite everything Erap did to bring it down.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm just worried, because media has become so powerful, and I don't see any means of checking this power outside of even the remote threat of libel. Who watches the Watchmen of the Fourth Estate?Azure Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-63590260243065608702007-06-25T15:20:00.000+08:002007-06-25T15:20:00.000+08:00i think it needs pointing out no one -not even med...i think it needs pointing out no one -not even media- is proposing abolishing libel as an offense. the argument's over whether libel should be a criminal offense or not. no one is questioning the right of an offended individual to sue for damages. but the involvement of the state, which is required when something is categorized as a crime, is another story.<BR/><BR/>even in the usa, the discussion revolves around that question. the chilling effect comes from the involvement of the state as a party to the filing of criminal charges.mlq3https://www.blogger.com/profile/07311749590012410086noreply@blogger.com