<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Right of Reply Bill to Include Bloggers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/</link>
	<description>Digital Marketing &#38; Tech Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:33:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: gretchen villasis</title>
		<link>http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-4523</link>
		<dc:creator>gretchen villasis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmedia.com.ph/?p=297#comment-4523</guid>
		<description>am in favor of a right to reply bill myself, but more in the sense that people who are maligned without stated proof should have the right to reply to allegations. My sense is, it should be the court who will decide where there is cause for a right to reply application, and the criteria for whether the right to reply is awarded is whether the original material included proof or evidence that is factual or true under normal conditions.
To my mind, this will stop the rumor -mongering and will force lazy journalists to do their jobs properly, which is research articles well, and gather evidence, not just depend on invented quotes and publish suppositions based on their own analysis that in itself is again not based on facts. I am sure everyone agrees that for many of our broadcasters (particularly radio and television), most of them will just shoot off statements without understanding the need to be clear, true and factual about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>am in favor of a right to reply bill myself, but more in the sense that people who are maligned without stated proof should have the right to reply to allegations. My sense is, it should be the court who will decide where there is cause for a right to reply application, and the criteria for whether the right to reply is awarded is whether the original material included proof or evidence that is factual or true under normal conditions.<br />
To my mind, this will stop the rumor -mongering and will force lazy journalists to do their jobs properly, which is research articles well, and gather evidence, not just depend on invented quotes and publish suppositions based on their own analysis that in itself is again not based on facts. I am sure everyone agrees that for many of our broadcasters (particularly radio and television), most of them will just shoot off statements without understanding the need to be clear, true and factual about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flip</title>
		<link>http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-2406</link>
		<dc:creator>flip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:14:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmedia.com.ph/?p=297#comment-2406</guid>
		<description>I am in favor of a right to reply bill myself, but more in the sense that people who are maligned without stated proof should have the right to reply to allegations. My sense is, it should be the court who will decide where there is cause for a right to reply application, and the criteria for whether the right to reply is awarded is whether the original material included proof or evidence that is factual or true under normal conditions. 
To my mind, this will stop the rumor -mongering and will force lazy journalists to do their jobs properly, which is research articles well, and gather evidence, not just depend on invented quotes and publish suppositions based on their own analysis that in itself is again not based on facts. I am sure everyone agrees that for many of our broadcasters (particularly radio and television), most of them will just shoot off statements without understanding the need to be clear, true and factual about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am in favor of a right to reply bill myself, but more in the sense that people who are maligned without stated proof should have the right to reply to allegations. My sense is, it should be the court who will decide where there is cause for a right to reply application, and the criteria for whether the right to reply is awarded is whether the original material included proof or evidence that is factual or true under normal conditions.<br />
To my mind, this will stop the rumor -mongering and will force lazy journalists to do their jobs properly, which is research articles well, and gather evidence, not just depend on invented quotes and publish suppositions based on their own analysis that in itself is again not based on facts. I am sure everyone agrees that for many of our broadcasters (particularly radio and television), most of them will just shoot off statements without understanding the need to be clear, true and factual about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dingexx</title>
		<link>http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-2185</link>
		<dc:creator>Dingexx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:59:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmedia.com.ph/?p=297#comment-2185</guid>
		<description>This law is useless..They made this law for there own good not for everybody...What a bullsh*t law..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This law is useless..They made this law for there own good not for everybody&#8230;What a bullsh*t law..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jim</title>
		<link>http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-2116</link>
		<dc:creator>jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmedia.com.ph/?p=297#comment-2116</guid>
		<description>Hi Carlo, 

Good examples. But what if it were you who is the subject of the topic?

When Reyna Elena attacked you in her blog, don&#039;t you want the Right of Reply so your side will be heard on the same blog that maligned you? Don&#039;t you think that&#039;s fair for you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Carlo, </p>
<p>Good examples. But what if it were you who is the subject of the topic?</p>
<p>When Reyna Elena attacked you in her blog, don&#8217;t you want the Right of Reply so your side will be heard on the same blog that maligned you? Don&#8217;t you think that&#8217;s fair for you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francis Simisim</title>
		<link>http://www.newmedia.com.ph/right-of-reply-bill-to-include-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-2091</link>
		<dc:creator>Francis Simisim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newmedia.com.ph/?p=297#comment-2091</guid>
		<description>That does sound very punishing to us Filipinos, our country will just live on law suits if it gets passed lol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That does sound very punishing to us Filipinos, our country will just live on law suits if it gets passed lol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

