Professional Documents
Culture Documents
How Right of Reply Differs From Right To Reply by Jose Carillo
How Right of Reply Differs From Right To Reply by Jose Carillo
http://josecarilloforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6819.0
The following observations on journalistic usage were made by Forum member
Sphinx in an e-mail he sent to me: I have always wondered which is the correct
way to put it: the right to reply or the right of reply. The latter sounds quite
awkward to many of us, yet journalists have no problem with that expression.
Also, in todays issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (Young Blood), the writer
wrote: I remember you telling me that youll say yes in a heartbeat if I were to ask
you to marry me. My sense is, it should have read ... youd say yes if I were to ask
you... or just ... if I asked you... for short). This is because would agrees with
were. It might have been ok if he wrote ... youll say yes if I ask you.... The editor
did not correct that.
Please comment.
My reply to Sphinx:
Both right to reply and right of reply are grammatically and semantically correct
phrasing, and I think the latter sounds awkward to you only because you've been
conditioned to think so. In fact, other peoplelawyers in particularwould likely
contend that its actually the former, right to reply, thats awkward if not
downright wrong usage. And even if journalists appear to be comfortable in
interchangeably using right to reply and right of reply, I think they are often
contextually wrong when they do so.
The phrase right to reply is, of course, the generic expression for the natural
impulse or prerogative of anyone to respond to whatever question or claim is made
that pertains to him or her. For instance, if someone frontally accuses a public
official of being dishonest and corrupt, that official obviously has the right to
indignantly reply that the accusation is false even if theres a strong basis for it. The
right to reply is simply a personal rightcall it a human right if you willwith no
legal niceties inherent in the phrase.
Another newspaper (The Manila Times) correctly used the phrase in its headline,
Authors nix right of reply in FOI bill, and in the news storys lead sentence,
Authors of the freedom of information (FOI) bill will not accept any proposal that
would incorporate the right of reply (ROR) into their measure But then in an
inexplicable about-face in usage, it later reported that The proposed right to
reply provision, meanwhile, would require a newspaper, or broadcast station to allot
the same amount of space or air time for the reply of a person as that used in a
news report that may have pictured him in a bad light.
A third newspaper (Philippine Daily Inquirer) used the wrong phrase in its headline,
House minority bloc to support FOI bill with right to reply provision. The lead
sentence of the report used the correct phrase, The House minority bloc will only
support a Freedom of Information Bill that has the right of reply provision, and
once again later in the story, but quoted verbatim a legislator who incorrectly
used right to reply three times.
Given this messy state of usage, I think there ought to be a concord of sorts for
consistently using the phrase right of reply in the context of the Freedom of
Information Act.
Now, lets analyze the grammar of this sentence you quoted from an essay featured
in the Young Blood section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer: I remember you
telling me that youll say yes in a heartbeat if I were to ask you to marry me.
Your feeling is that theres something amiss about its grammar, and that the
sentence should have been (1) I remember you telling me that youd say yes in a
heartbeat if I were to ask you to marry me or (2) I remember you telling me that
youd say yes in a heartbeat if I asked you to marry me.
How right of reply differs from right to reply by Jose Carillo
http://josecarilloforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6819.0
So which construction is correct, the sentence you quoted from the Inquirer or as
you have reconstructed it in the two versions above?
Im aware that this is a rather long and complicated as well as almost abstruse
explanation for why that sentence construction from that essay in the Inquirer is
correct, but I was constrained to come up with it to adequately answer your tough
question regarding the matter. I hope youll find the explanation helpful in
understanding the special usage involved in that sentence. (2013)