NewsRecord Weekly Publication

Friendly Observer

By Arthur Keefe

Publish and be damned

The decision of the Supreme Court to postpone implementation of the new Cybercrime Law gives time for public reflection and debate on a measure which was hurried into law without either. The issues raised are difficult ones and are being grappled within other countries, too.

 In essence, the issue is how to draw a dividing line between the public's right to know and the right of an individual to privacy and protection from unfair or inaccurate allegations. The debate is an old one, originally based on print publication (libel) or slander (speech), during the advent of TV and radio. Now, the Internet has made the existing regulations obsolete and new ways of both drawing the line and policing it are required.

In the UK, the print media recently used hacking into mobile phones to obtain information. This included politicians and celebrities, but the public were outraged when it extended to the phone of a murdered teenager and her parents. An inquiry into press regulation is now ongoing and the likely outcome is an independent but statutory regulator with legal powers to prevent publication or even to fine and close newspapers who break the rules of privacy. The existing arrangement where the press voluntarily regulate themselves (through a press complaints commission) has clearly proved inadequate.

However, there are many who are wary of such a body and believe public interest stories might be suppressed. An example often quoted is that whereas a private citizen might expect their personal behavior to remain private, should the same apply to a promiscuous legislator who is constantly and publicly moralizing about the behavior of others?

Similarly, celebrities who constantly seek publicity can hardly complain if news they might prefer not to broadcast leaks out.

The issue of the Internet is not really any different. It is a public statement just as is newsprint or TV. The difference is that the originator may be hidden and the medium is global. The problem therefore is one of enforcement. Is it only the originator who should be policed or the Internet provider (such as Google or YouTube) or is it even the humble Internet café allowing access?

Some countries, such as China and Iran are seeking to control content their citizens can see on the Internet. Not surprisingly, countries with a stronger tradition of freedom, such as the West and the Philippines, see this as a repressive form of state censorship. However, even they try to police a boundary when it comes to child pornography or so called 'snuff movies' (showing people being tortured or killed).

Recently, paparazzi with long lens cameras photographed Prince William's wife, Katherine Middleton, topless. The newspaper in UK (following their rules) refused to publish, as there was no interest to override her right to privacy. However, other newspapers all over the world did publish, presumably for commercial reasons, i.e. to sell more copies!

The Cybercrime Law in the Philippines is probably too severe, as it errs on the side of not allowing, even where there may be a public interest issue, or where the issue is one of opinion rather than inaccurate facts. Newspapers such as the Inquirer have a great record in disclosing public wrong doing, even if sometimes their initial story is not entirely fair or accurate.

To err on the side of caution may well play into the hands of those who prefer to hide their misdemeanors. Freedom of expression in the Philippines is a right to be very jealously guarded.

Related to this, but not part of the new law, is the issue of ownership and diversity. The recent failure of the mega-merger between PLDT and GMA is to be welcomed, as the TV media is already heavily concentrated, and this merger would have resulted in one company having 60 percent of the market.

In the USA, Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) is a joke for those who prefer unbiased and accurate news. However, it is offset by many other channels including the excellent CNN. Those looking to confirm their right wing prejudice can tune in to Fox, but those seeking a more balanced view have other choices.

In the UK, the same News International (NI) owns three of the best selling newspapers, although the telephone hacking scandal caused it to close another.

The same company owns a major TV provider, SKY. They recently unsuccessfully tried to buy another major channel.

Together, this concentration of both TV and newspapers control threatens a really independent national media. Although not strictly a monopoly, their wide influence even allows them to influence the attitudes of voters in elections, by selective and partisan reporting.

Anti-trust regulations in their various forms can prevent ownership exceeding certain quotas, but a group offering sympathetic coverage can be very persuasive when seeking government consent for mergers! Such matters should be subject to a public interest test, not just a commercial assessment.