The tendency to transform the political universe into a war scene – which is not unique to our country – has resulted in a journalistic correlate that is doing us who exercise this profession no good. That reality that pits some once morest each other by assuming divergent or decidedly opposed positions, is a dangerous cocktail that only serves to degrade a journalism that has been in decline for a few years now. With few exceptions (and, I must point out, this newspaper claims to be one of them) the public is almost forced to choose, knowing that not everything that some people say is correct, nor is what they say from the opposite trench.
Ideas are not militated but slogans. That is the point.
There are culprits, of course. Journalistic entrepreneurs –some of them come from activities that have nothing to do with the news and its values– who impose biased editorial criteria without taking into account the truth or closeness; economic power factors interested in certain general policies; journalists and communicators eager to achieve fame, although not prestige; and politicians. Politics, in this sense, is a fundamental engine to promote polarization in this activity that should be carried out with due distance from power, from the powers that be.
“The disqualification of the press has been used by governments of different tendencies as a way to avoid the oversight that should be done from journalism. Fighting once morest it and defending press freedom should bring us all together beyond the different editorial lines. The answer must be more journalism and greater rigor in doing so. The task is to do journalism without aligning ourselves with power and without becoming its political contender either. Journalism must monitor power and must do so from a job well done and not from prejudice or political interest. It is clear that this does not mean neutrality once morest authoritarian governments that can put democracy at risk, but, as journalists, the task is to be able to inform, denounce, question from the journalism that confirms, contrasts sources, gives context, investigates… and not from political prejudice. The quote corresponds to a brief analysis by Yolanda Ruiz Ceballos, a Colombian journalist who regularly collaborates with El Espectador and El País in Madrid and shares the Gabo Foundation’s ethics office with her Chilean colleague Mónica González. Ruiz Ceballos responded to a query from a Mexican journalist concerned regarding what she defined as the harassment of her country’s government once morest critical journalism, closing it with a question. “How to return to the essence of commitment to the truth in a context where there are only blacks and whites?” For Ruiz Ceballos, “the more authoritarian the governments are, the more well-done journalism is required to help denounce with arguments and solidity, to help understand, decide and analyze. The threat to the press is a constant risk that we must face not only journalists but society as a whole. Responsible information is necessary to sustain a democracy.”
This fire fed from both sides of the pre-election crack will continue to grow to the extent that characters in this activity considered as references for broad sectors of public opinion, maintain their positions aligned with one side or the other, more or less nuances. Journalists are observers of the political process, not its builders. And much less, its ideologues.
Those of us who exercise this trade must stay out of disputes that do not concern us. That is one of the functions of the press in defending the values of democracy.
You may also like
