Allow me to add my small voice to the simmering debate on two congressional initiatives on the right of citizens or any other aggrieved parties to reply to allegations printed or broadcast in media through the so-called ?equal time, equal space? rule. And let me say, as some of my colleagues already have, that the eventual loser would be the same citizenry that the bills to regulate media purportedly aim to protect.

But before anything else, let?s make a distinction between the main forms of news media in this country, namely, print and broadcast. Having worked both worlds, as it were, I think the foremost difference is in the medium, or mode of transmission.

Print journalism of whatever scale is ultimately like an ink-and-paper version of the soapbox, which anyone could mount and say anything upon in olden times, provided that no law against indecency, defamation or any such inviolable right of another person is violated. In the end, as long as the speaker on the soapbox makes no illegal claims or opinions, he is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and the rest of the citizenry can choose whether or not to listen to or believe what the speaker says.

This is the reason why print journalists put so much stock in their credibility as sources of news or opinion. Because print journalists live or die (sometimes literally) by what they put in the newspaper, they make it a point to check their facts, verify their own sources and do their own homework.

The fact is, newspapermen have to live with what they write?and because of the relative permanence of newspapers compared the more ephemeral nature of broadcast, they have to be a lot more careful. Ever since print has been overtaken by broadcast as the news and entertainment medium of choice of the masses, newspapermen have also had to come to terms with not competing with TV and radio as far as the immediacy of news is concerned, something that makes (or should make) them more careful and circumspect in their reportage and opinion-making.

But print?s lack of immediacy also gives its practitioners time to police their own ranks and vet their reports more, the better to attain the credibility that they seek. After all, journalists of whatever medium know that, like the boy who cried ?wolf? or Chicken Little, they can only make the same inaccurate or patently false allegations so many times without losing all their believability?and ending up in the courts, jail or suffering some worse fate besides.

Print?s ultimate ancestry in the primordial freedom, in a free and democratic society, of speech and opinion is made clearer when you consider that there is absolutely no restriction whatsoever (except the aforesaid legal ones) on the number of newspapers that can be put up. The reading public decides, eventually, which papers to spend their money on, even if any fool with a printing press can put up any trashy rag that only resembles a good newspaper by its use of paper and ink.

That the best-selling print offerings are cheap tabloids that sell sex, scandal, violence and showbiz ?chismis? is the public?s decision, but they may also decide to purchase and read better offerings, as well, should the mood strike them. And anyone who puts up a newspaper?or who decides what goes in it on a daily basis?has to also decide what to offer the public, for business or other reasons.

The readers vote with their wallets, eventually?and they do so rightly or wrongly, because that is their right. And because the law of the land allows anyone to speak up without fear of illegal retribution (or should, anyway), newspapers have flourished unfettered since the time of Benjamin Franklin in places where the freedom of speech is protected.

* * *

In contrast, broadcast?s mode of transmission is the airwaves, which are claimed by the government as its own in the name of the people. And because the bandwidth where these airwaves lie is not unlimited, the government has assumed the role of regulating the narrow strip of ?real estate? that too many want to occupy.

This is why anyone who wants to put up a broadcast outlet requires a congressional franchise, a de facto government permit to operate?which implies that what the state giveth, the state can taketh away. The fact that most broadcast outlets are now operating on ?temporary permits? from the National Telecommunications Commission that are regularly renewed highlights the fragile nature of broadcast?s right to air.

Of course, in practice, broadcast is free to air whatever it likes?and is often freer (as in less inhibited) than print. But the fact is, even if broadcast journalists are superficially less subject to hard-and-fast rules of traditional journalism and commentary, they perpetually have the Damoclean sword of government regulation above their heads.

Broadcast groups have also won some relief from this threat through the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas and other entities, allowing them the right to self-regulation. And journalists of any medium know that it would have to be a terribly foolish (or ruthless) government that would attempt to shut media down?even media upon whom it has an implied regulatory power.

In the real world, government?s implied regulatory power over a supposedly self-regulatory broadcast industry is palpably present. There is a very fine line between self-regulation and self-censorship, especially if you are a broadcast outfit holding a temporary permit to operate that Congress or some other branch of government can theoretically revoke.

But, at the end of the day, even this difference of media transmission only emphasizes the fact that an aggrieved citizenry?or government, or its officials, when they claim to represent the citizenry?has many avenues of redress against the media without Congress passing laws seeking to further curtail an already endangered freedom. As far as legal redress is concerned (meaning, redress by way of legislation), we already have libel laws that media entities can disregard at their own peril.

And forcing the media to run replies using equal space, time and prominence (something that real journalists already do, as a matter of habit and out of respect for fairness) by legislation is just plain wrong-headed. It is a weapon deliberately aimed at journalists to stop running adverse reports or comments against government officials because they would then be using up all their space and time by publishing or airing the replies.

Furthermore, and more chilling, our legislators?whether they know it or not ?are really saying that the public must not read, see or hear anything that could be considered unfair, regardless of the truth of the allegations and the public?s right to know about them. And when Congress deems that it should decide what media should report?and what the people should know?then we?re really in trouble. (Concluded tomorrow)