here is the answer...
As a student of Laws on Mass Media, I strongly believed that the case filed by Pacquiao against Giongco is weak therefore it won’t prosper, because it is a PRIVILEGE.
As far as we discussed about the definition of privileged in the class, it is saying that when covering matters involving privileged communications, the newspaperman must take a fair and true report in good faith without remarks.
With this, I believed that the writer reported the article in good faith and without any purpose to malign Pacquiao. It was properly attributed, though he owes the information. If we look back to the article, we can read words like “sources” and “reported” which is a sign that it is verified therefore shows accuracy.
Also, Pacquiao is a PUBLIC FIGURE therefore he is not free from the criticisms that the public will do.
Looking back the definition of it from our previous lessons, “New York Times Doctrine” clearly states that “public figures” … like “public officials”, often play an influential role in ordering society. And surely as a class these “public figures: have as ready access as “public officials to mass media of communication, both to influence policy and to counter criticism of their views and activities.”
If we recall, Pacquiao used to run in a Congressional seat in General
“Pacquiao, who spent millions in an unsuccessful bid to win a congressional seat in his hometown in General Santos City, is reported to be a compulsive gambler and is known to bet hundreds of thousands in casinos, cockfighting and billiards.”
These words came out from the article of Giongco. This I believe constitutes a legitimate PUBLIC INTEREST, another bid for Pacquiao to loose the case.
I remember in our discussion about the legitimacy of a public interest, it states that it involves decency, violation of moral of the society, obscenity, violates sensibility and goes beyond the norms of society.
If Pacquiao involves in these acts, that he is in gambling, betting for cockfighting and so on, then this would interest the public, because imagine a “Boxing Idol”, named as the “Pambansang Kamao” and being idolized by most of the youths will engaged in these acts? Who would then just set this aside? No one.
Another reason for Pacquiao to withdraw his case now is that he has to prove whether there is a presence of MALICE in the article.
In our class, we defined malice as words or statements evil in nature arising from spite or ill will. As to the defamatory statements, we defined it as “WHEN THE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE EVEN IF MOTIVATED BY ILL WILL OR MALICE AND WHEN THE STATEMENTS ARE FALSE AS LONG AS NOT MADE AND MOTIVATED WITH MALICE CAN SEEK IMMUNITY.”
Why, does Giongco have any personal grudge to Pacquiao? Does Pacquiao know Giongco personally that he felt to be maligned? Did they have any activities that can be said they were associated with each other? These are the questions that can be raised to test and proved that there is absence of malice in the article.
These are enough reasons, as far as we discussed in the class, to say that Pacquiao’s libel case against Giongco is totally WEAK and really HARD TO PROSPER in the court.
I then strongly believed, after I closed this, I’ve applied my lessons, which I learned from our “Laws on Mass Media” class, enough to help the court or the public in their conviction to this libel case. - END
