My group of old fogies 60 years and above, who frequent coffee shops and hotel lobbies in Metro Manila often asked ourselves this question: Are the women of today more gorgeous and more beautiful than we had them decades ago?

Santa Banana, with all the recession-proof cosmetics and dresses on display and found in newspaper advertisements, why should not women of today look more gorgeous and beautiful? And if they are not, there?s always Vicki Belo?s clinic to enhance everything?the behind and the front.

But, I say to myself, women of long ago may not have all the diets, the cosmetics, the dresses and the enhancers they have not, and Vicki Belo, but I?ll have the women of my generation anytime. At least, women of my time are not as plastic and artificial as they are now.

If you think I?m jurassic, I am. I still believe in courting, love letters, and dating to find out what kind of woman I want to marry. And I believe I?ve chosen the right person, who has been my partner in life for the past 53, going on to 54 years.

***

If there?s anything salutary over the brouhaha and debate over the right-to-reply measure, it?s because of the abuses of the irresponsible sectors of media. This is something I cannot deny in my over half a century in media, going full circle in print and broadcast (radio and television).

Lawmakers behind the bill claim that something must be done to enhance press freedom and the right of free speech and expression against an abusive and irresponsible press. Thus, they have come up with the measure to enable those in public offices and individuals who have been criticized and attacked in media, be it print or broadcast, to reply in the same level as when they were attacked or criticized. This means that if the attack was the banner story, the reply should also be the banner story. And this has bothered media because as the bill would have it there?ll be nothing else to print or broadcast, even if there are breaking news more urgent for the public to know.

If it?s any consolation, there are now efforts on the part of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to water down the bill to avoid replies from taking the place of more important events and news.

But, going back to the core of the issue?responsibility?it?s virtue that cannot be legislated. Yes, as a journalist myself of long standing, media responsibility is something that must be self-imposed. The problem through is that while we have the KBP (Kapisanan ng mga Broadkasters sa Pilipinas of which I co-founded in 1973 and was president for two terms), its Code of Standards covers only its members, which is not even one-half of the total radio and television networks nationwide.

The National Press Club, which is supposed to be a national club for Philippine media, is now controlled by a lot of ?hao-shiao? or bogus newsmen passing themselves off as members of the press. So, how can you expect to impose ?responsibility? on media nationwide?

The answer lies on self-regulation or ability of media to police itself, which is like asking for Utopia in media. Santa Banana, this is where the problem lies, but the enactment of the right-to-reply bill is not the answer. It?s like throwing the bath with the baby just because the water is dirty.

***

There?s another aspect of this controversy that those behind it seem to be ignorant about. It?s in the need to distinguish between print and broadcast media.

Anybody can publish a newspaper or magazine ever mindful of the limits of press freedom not to trample over the right of others, and more importantly, not to commit libel or slander.

Broadcast on the other hand, is a privilege, not a right. That?s the reason why radio and television must have congressional franchises since underlying this privilege is the fact that government has the right of eminent domain over the airlanes. As such, if you look at the radio and television franchises, there?s a provision there that mandates the rights of others to reply or answer. But, this is not so in print media.

Just as I said earlier,there?s need for self-regulation in print media and some kind of self-policing mechanism. That?s precisely what we did way back in 1973 when KBP was organized. To enable KBP members to get out of the umbrella of Martial Law which censored and suppressed media at that time, we opted for self-regulation and it worked.

Lest I?m misunderstood, I?m not proposing here some kind of state regulation since that would trample on press freedom. What I am suggesting is that we, in media, print and broadcast, national or provincial, should impose on ourselves self-regulation. That?s the only way to defeat measures like the right-to-reply bill which would legislate responsibility.

Personally, I?d rather have an abusive press than none at all.

***

Another problem of Philippine media is the fact that most of newspapers and magazine, especially in the provinces, is that media, print and broadcast?are owned by vested interests, like politicians and businessmen to further their own agenda.

Thus, we see in the provinces a newspaper pushing for the interest of its owner and radio and television attacking a competitor or rival politician, even to the extent of hiring so-called ?blocktimers? for this purpose. And this accounts for a lot of extra-judicial killings of so-called members of media in the provinces where business and political rivalry are so intense and keen.

And that?s why I?m opposed to another push in Congress to decriminalize libel and simply to punish erring members of media with stiff fines rather than send them to jail. My gulay, decriminalizing libel will only give premium to more irresponsibility by already irresponsible sectors of media. And even worse, more extra-judicial killings of mediamen by politicians and businessmen who want to protect their interests.

In the minds of politicians and vested groups, who are targets of an irresponsible sector of media, it?s faster and even cheaper to engage guns-for-hire than go to judicial processes to convict an erring journalist for libel. Thus, if libel is decriminalized, my gulay, we?ll have more extra-judicial killings of media in the provinces.

***

Patriotism seems to be on the rise. Some quarters frown on President Arroyo?s chasing after US President Obama when they feel she can just invite him to take a look-see at our beautiful country. Others have strong reservations about foreigners coming in and taking over businesses. And many look with disdain at compensation packages for expatriates who practically do the same work as their Filipino counterparts.

A much-needed, albeit rather overdue, feeling of national esteem and pride? Hopefully, yes. One thing that makes us particularly great is the spirit of bayanihan?the communal unity we share with one another, when we work together to attain common objectives.

The word bayanihan is taken from bayani, hero. Thus, it requires that we be heroes to one another, and like in the classic tradition of carrying a house, each man carries a portion of the weight and in effect, becomes a hero to everyone as all others are heroes to him. This ?other,? which predates the ?self? is a concept that many of us are comfortable with. We?re not just being heroic to others in our lives; we?re espoused to be heroes for our country.

A perfect example of this is Brigada Eskwela, an annual activity where school officials solicit and engage the support of the whole community in sprucing up schools for the opening of classes.

Recently, the DepEd headed by Secretary Jesli Lapus, awarded top implementing schools that have mobilized the most number of individuals, local government units and non-government organizations for the repair and maintenance of schools through the Brigada Eskwela program. The effect of this program has been tremendous, to say the least.

This is the kind of bayanihan that should inspire us to look for other ways to spell a difference. The DepEd has shown the way.