Since this morning, circulates in the Twitter recommendation to read The error of the militant press an article written by Silvio Waisbord, Professor of Journalism and Political Communication at George Washington University, and published in The Nation.
is an analysis of the militant press in Argentina, without elaborating on the characteristics of programs or the official media, which raises what for should be, according to its author, the nature of journalism. Reality, Utopia, lie? Here, some excerpts from the note were interesting and I thought:
- Despite being commonly used in Argentina's policy is not clear what "militant" when used for adjectives to journalism. Is it one that advocates a government or party beyond mistakes, secrets and contradictions? (...) Is it journalism that reports on issues that strictly fit into the political agenda of one party or the government? Journalism Is that legitimate self-appointed voice of the popular will, unaware that the "popular" is a civil society with many demands, needs, conflicts and interests?
- Ideally, journalists should be skeptical about the power and not be critical as political or ideological color of who holds power. Data should show the reality because governments and parties tend to produce and believe in their reality. Should investigate the folds of government because power inevitably remains dark places. Should put the magnifying glass on issues that need public attention and the news does not justify the reason as partisan. Should encourage citizens to know what ignorant instead of confirming their preconceptions militants. Should increase opportunities for the expression of citizenship and civic organizations and not be ventriloquist who are surrounded by microphones. Should mark the errors and omissions to any ruling and not to help cover any is the justification.
- The journalism hold power distance does not mean that officials never hit enter or have convictions and clear positions on certain issues. The difference is to report on the basis of commitment to democratic principles-equal rights, tolerance for diversity, respect for differences of opinion, access to opportunities for expression, accountability, transparency of public resource use, broad participation, or accession to government of the day and party platforms.
- present biased information is warranted to confirm the militants and rejoice certainties Allied officials. Critical thinking of journalism is replaced by the militant compliance. When opinion is abundant, scarce original journalism that collects and verifies data promises and policy statements. Analyze information or proprietary research is more expensive than what it says applaud the ruling or opposition.
- oppose journalism as public watchdog against "activist journalism" does not mean to assume that the press is effectively autonomous. Around the world, journalism is not an island, but part of complex networks informational, political, and economic. The autonomy of journalism, so celebrated from left to right, is difficult. (...) This reality, however, does not justify abandoning the search away from those who make decisions affecting the public. The credibility of journalism lies in cultivating areas of autonomy to report something that someone with power does not want to be known.
- Another sensitive issue is the financing of "activist journalism." Who pays for the daily production of news, information and opinion?
- If public funds are the lifeblood of journalism activist, obviously, this is still a problem and long-standing core of democracy Argentina: the discretionary use of state money to support the official newspaper and not precisely the journalism that serves the public.
- journalism always reports from a particular location, not from a utopian Olympus away from the political and moral life of citizens. Recognizing this situation does not mean abandoning the idea that journalism should strive to maintain distance from government and be critical of dogma perpetuated by those who recite their truths.
- data are sacrificed when the uninformed opinion dominates and ideological blinders are used to provide information that confirms prior beliefs. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, freedom of opinion becomes a farce when ignoring the facts on the basis of ideology or power. This situation requires that engage in advocacy journalism to have autonomy, to respect the data, and confront governments and citizens with information hiding, unknown, or refuse to know. This should be the real membership of journalism.
