“Nobody home” at op-ed

Jeers to Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Amando Doronila for providing one more argument in favor of a right of reply law by reacting today to a supposed letter to the editor which had not yet been published by his paper.

Appearing on the paper’s front page last April 18, a Doronila piece criticized President Benigno Aquino III for his attempts to boost his public opinion ratings by going “on a rampage against persons he has singled out as obstructing his campaign to stamp out corruption in the government.” Doronila cited as an example the case of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who was impeached “in a lynch-mob style vote by the House of Representatives.” (“‘Nobody home’ President on the ‘war’ path”).

In his column today (“Reading too much meaning in tea leaves”, April 20, p. A11), Doronila responded to a letter supposedly from former senator Vicente Paterno reacting to that April 18 piece. Paterno, said Doronila, was offended by his commentary against the administration. “Undertaking the task of supplementing the fractious voices of Palace apologists, Mr. Paterno tried to do the delicate job of reading meanings from tea leaves.” Doronila devoted 95 percent of his column to answer Paterno’s reaction, quoting from the supposed letter and arguing against the points Paterno raised.

“Mr. Paterno may have served as a minister of government that was intolerant (of) (the) independent judgment of newspapers,” Doronila wrote, recalling that Paterno served as a member of the cabinet of the Marcos dictatorship. “He seems still to be carrying that baggage. That era is no longer around—even if its political heirs are still around trying to bring back the legacy of that dictatorship.”

Doronila said that Paterno wrote the letter on the same date that his front-page analysis was published. However, as of this writing, the Inquirer has not published Paterno’s letter. It did not appear on the paper’s edition the next day (April 19). A search of the Inquirer website did not show Paterno’s letter.

Yet you have Doronila’s April 20 column immediately reacting to Paterno’s letter, which raises the question: shouldn’t the Inquirer have held the column until the letter to which it was reacting was printed?

The “Letters to the Editor” section is probably the easiest way for an ordinary citizen to gain a voice in the public forum; or, as is his or her right, to talk back to the press. The press should encourage this feedback mechanism by publishing as much of the readers’ reactions to what the press prints, for the sake of pluralism and inclusiveness, signaling to the public that journalists are listening to the people out there, not just to their sources, counterparts or the peers in the establishment. If the public forum were to engage only journalists and those other “credential-ed” individuals, government officials and politicians, civil society organizations, and or institutional representatives, the press would reflect only the views of this entitled segment of society, which would not make for rich discussion or vigorous debate.

Unfortunately, most newspapers fail to provide the ample space the “Letters to the Editor” section deserves. Publishers and editors should court this feedback by making this page attractive and demonstrating that indeed the readers and their views matter, and broadening the perspective on stories as well as commentary.

Journalists also tend to want to respond right away to defend or re-state their position, instead of simply letting the readers present their stand. Apart from correcting errors of fact about what was published, the press should be gracious enough to give readers their share of print space or viewers their share of airtime.

Comments are closed.