OFTEN have I heard in whispers or in the nature of a pun that the best way to deal with media and media men is to simply outlaw them. Likely, bearers of such notion predicate their summation on the free press as truly being abusive, irresponsible and admittedly corrupt; or pregnant with vested (business) interest to protect. A review of the number of major dailies, local papers, community papers, major television channels and cable channels, plus 200 radios nationwide (60 in Metro Manila) only purveys the robust nature of our freedom for expression in all forms – including text messaging.

But however, high and mighty are the "homilies’’ media or a free press claims to serve as basis for it’s existence in a democratic society or an evolving (fratricidal) libertarian republic, like any other institution, it bears the thumbprint of every human imperfection in conduct – coverages, editorials, opinions – and traceable weaknesses in management biases. Excesses are, after all, part of the frailties of every mortal activity. Media, for that matter government, are not exempt. This is precisely why certain ethical standards, policies, procedures, regulations, or laws and constitutions are established to somehow essay the moral standard for the public good. This is invaluable in order to steady every decision and action taken on any and all of their respective functions.

Media and government are responsible to an overlapping, if not one and the same constituency. A citizenry that grades fairness, objectivity, accuracy, and justice as benchmarks for credibility and a passing grade. Both institutions theoretically premised (established) on the conscience and duty "to serve’’ and "to protect’’ the very same conceptual polity – the Filipino people. It is therefore a given, that variance and clashes between both "funnels’’ or mediums for the formulation of public policy as inevitable, and in practice, becomes an indispensable process for defining the greatest good for the greatest majority. The idea of a free press is coached not only in the freedom for expression but more so in the logic that no single individual or corporation/institution is able to control/ censor public opinion and or monopolize it’s facilities. Abuse must be addressed by more freedoms to clarify and counter intrigue and falsehoods. If government today, has the privilege and advantage to make use of public media facilities (3 TV stations, 50 plus radio stations, etc.) in the exercise of "freedom of the praise,’’ then it should be willing to compete in the arena of criticisms and abuses.

Historically, roles of both institutions have been expected to be adversarial. But note, that in the (Thomas) Jeffersonian prescription – a free press is more important than government. Better, it is said, to have an abusive media, than an abusive government.