I wish I could end my ambivalence over the controversial right-to-reply bill but I can?t. The truth is, I often can?t stand the self-righteousness of media people and their screwed way of blurring the lines between legitimate news reporting on the one hand and agenda pushing and sensationalism for profit on the other. And I just feel that it is high time for a not-so-subtle reminder that journalism ought to get back to what it is supposed to do?inform without bias, report without personal slant, disseminate without resorting to tacky gimmickry to make news more sellable.

In a nutshell, the right-to-reply bill says media outfits must provide the space for any person or entity who feels he may have been slighted or misconstrued by a previously published report. Doesn?t sound like there?s anything wrong there, is it? In fact, it is rather redundant as it only repeats what should already be a well-entrenched fair media practice. And at first glance, that?s all it says: ?Be fair,? following the often-forgotten clich? that there is always more than one side to a story. The intention appears to be simple and legitimate?never assume nor insist that any story tells everything. In the spirit of fair play, every party has a right to be heard.

In an age where media has become a platform for trials by publicity, the right-to-reply bill seems more than welcome. Every accused is given the right to be heard in court?why not the same chance when a person risks having his name and reputation destroyed publicly? In a court of law, if an accuser cannot prove his accusation, he can be liable for the payment of damages in case the defendant has filed a counter-complaint. In media, a person publicly accused of wrongdoing cannot get back at his accusers because they are covered by the mantle of press freedom. Why such injustice when getting one?s name and reputation smeared can be just as horrible as going to prison or paying a huge fine?

But the sad thing is that, based on traditional and well accepted legal definition and parameters, the right-to-reply bill does constitute an abridgment of the freedom of the press. And it does impose prior restraint. When the press is told that it has no choice but to publish stories and statements that, by its own standards would never see the light of day, freedom is curtailed. And when journalists start censoring themselves to avoid mentioning people whom they?d rather not give space to in retaliatory statements, there is prior restraint.

And it is curious why the right-to-reply bill comes at a time when aspirants to the 2010 elections are clearly positioning themselves. Is the bill a way to ensure that candidates will have a free platform in media? Especially among incumbents seeking re-election or higher office who often find themselves at the wrong end of news reports, the bill just seems too convenient. If they get lambasted, they can lash back?and they don?t even have to pay for the space because the law grants it to them for free.

Should we then quickly condemn the right-to-reply bill as unconstitutional and as an attempt by politicians to place themselves at an advantage come election time? The glaring truth is that, given today?s realities, there is a need to look beyond the traditional and well-accepted definition and parameters of press freedom. We have looked the other way and postponed this task for far too long.

The circumstances that gave birth to press freedom are no longer what they are today. It simply is not reasonable to insist on the seeming absoluteness of press freedom considering the abuses committed during the past decades and which continue to be committed today. I read the news everyday, never failing to notice how press releases from ?friendly? businesses are passed off as news reports and feature articles, the political bias of publications, the screaming headlines and half-nude women on tabloids that do not really figure in the news articles at all, and the never dying penchant for scandals, tragedies and violence. Is that what press freedom is all about?

For any institution to remain viable and relevant, it must evolve. Otherwise, it becomes an anthropological relic with no real substance and no positive contribution to society amid current realities. True, strong institutions can impose themselves on the will of the public. And media has such powerful tools at their disposal to insist, and make the public insist along with them, that they ought to remain untouchable. It?s ironic, really, how an institution that has developed the bloodlust for putting people on public trial insists that the same cannot be done about it. It?s almost like saying it is above the law.

I wish that I can end this column by saying ?in the final analysis? but I have to leave the issue open-ended. Legally, the right-to-reply bill doesn?t appear to have any leg to stand on. Yet, the message it is trying to relay, at least in part, is something we cannot ignore.

The author blogs at http://houseonahill.net, http://pinoycook.net and http://www.sassylawyer.com