Citizenship of media and the right to speak

ACCORDING to Article 16, Section 11 of the Constitution, “the ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines.”

It is common knowledge that a free press is indispensable in a democratic society. The government may not interfere with what people say or write and, provided they do not break the law, everyone can say and write whatever they want.

This question now enters one’s mind: Can ownership of media organizations interfere with the standards of professionalism in journalism?

A writer once wrote, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Oh yes, ownership has continued to - torial policies of any media organizations. It is so bad in some media organizations that the ethics of journalism are exchanged with the opinions and decisions of the proprietors of the organization.

In addition to ownership concentration of the mass media industry, it is worth noting that content provision, packaging and distribution have also become a standardized production and marketing process in which the messages communicated are contained and directed in both quantity and quality to meet the economic imperatives of media owners.

*** Press freedom is an integral part of freedom of expression. In the Netherlands, it is clearly laid down in their constitution. Everyone may say or write whatever they want, provided they do not break the law. Defamation and inciting to hatred and discrimination, for example, are forbidden. The court decides after the event whether someone has broken the law.

Their Media Act states that public and commercial broadcasters have editorial independence, which means that they are responsible for the form and content of their programs. The government may not interfere. Broadcasters decide for themselves what they will broadcast on radio, TV and the internet.

In the US, even though their constitution guarantees freedom of the press, the government does regulate some media. Print media are largely unregulated, and newspapers and magazines can print nearly anything as long as they don’t slander anyone. The Internet has also gone largely unregulated, despite congressional efforts to restrict some controversial content. Broadcast media, however, are subject to the most government regulation. Radio and television broadcasters must obtain a license from the government because, according to US law, the public owns the airwaves.

The government thinks that it has an obligation to stop someone from “falsely shouting fire in a theater,” but also opened the gates to all manner of government violations of the First Amendment injunction that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

For both government and media, the only sane advice that should be coming from the public is “for them to get involved and then use their power in the most correct way.”

Social media has a strange role in America as both kingmaker and career wrecker.

*** In America, newspapers and magazines are largely protected from government interference by the First Amendment. Let us refresh our memory.

In 1971, the Nixon administration attempted to prevent The

New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the - ments on US policy in Vietnam. The US Supreme Court refused to block their publication, noting that prior restraint was a violation of freedom of the press. On the other hand, the press cannot print stories that are known to be false or are intentionally damaging to a person’s reputation. Content is also controlled by obscenity statutes.

The main issues are: press freedom and law on media ownership. Problem starts when one is abused to intimidate the other.

Government can criticize media. Media can criticize government. The sad fact is government can close down media but no way media can close down government. Unless media will practice its strange role as both kingmaker and career wrecker.

One criticism against the media is that it is focusing more on the acts of omission and commission of the opposition rather than that of the ruling dispensation. Even if its mandate is to check on governments, its vision is quite blurred when it comes to accomplishments.

Both government and media are guilty of the same offense. For the government, unwelcome

news is “fake news” while some media outlets think that derogatory news is “real news.”

Self-regulation is supposed to be in the best interest of these media companies. It would increase the they encounter online. It would also have the added benefit of keeping government regulators at bay. Who determines how loose or how tight the regulations should be? In the end, the ultimate anti- dote to fake news and bots is the rationality of the human mind.

I remember how John Milton urged in his “Areopagitica”: “If out in the marketplace of ideas, human rationality will most likely choose the truth. Regulating what can enter that marketplace could impair or destroy this process, by inadvertently keeping truth from public awareness.”

The key in combating fake news and personal attacks is to give our rationality maximum access to all information, including the truth. And in my opinion, this means resisting any attempts by government to limit the information that reaches us.

*** How will Henry David Thoreau weigh in on the present-day information mudslide? I bet he would be shaking his head practitioners must navigate the turbulent waters of fake news and fabled island we call the truth.

What is the truth? Where and

Alarming is the fact that journalists and their readers, despite the huge ocean of information at their disposal, are still missing the truth. Instead of capturing and conveying deeper principles, they are reporting mundane details and happen- ings that sell rather than educate.

It is up to us recipients to demand accurate reporting of the such news in newspapers, but we would be wise to seek it elsewhere as well. Hearing the wind, looking at our books, critical minds controlling them both, only then - tions and stand with dignity on the “solid bottom” of truth.

Within the context of sup- porting libertarian transitions, the goal of media development today should be to move the media from one that is directed or even covertly controlled by government or private interests to one that is more open, transparent and has a sizeable degree of editorial independence that serves the public interest.

Good work, good deeds and good faith to all.