“We all know that the new generations of journalists They will live very difficult times. In the profession and in the country: the climate of the times, the rapid changes and the consolidation of new cultural models, create challenging crossroads that must be crossed. It is an era in which social networks instantly create their own reality and collapse it the next second, with their own rules, in which insults, ridicule and disqualification are an inseparable part of their nature. On the networks, false information travels without a passport. All this under the protective – and cowardly – mantle of anonymity,” warned the general editor of Clarion when speaking at the graduation ceremony of the students of the Clarín Master’s Degree and the University of San Andres.
And he stated that for journalism, this context puts known paradigms in crisis and forces us to walk on mined ground.
The National Academy of Journalism, of which I am a member, produced a document earlier this year outlining twenty enduring principles of journalism. He did it to reaffirm that, despite all the threats, journalists have rules that we must comply with.
I will not reiterate all the principles now, but I recommend read them carefully. And, of course, incorporate and apply them in professional work.
I will now allude to principle number twelve. He says: “Professional journalism rejects plagiarism, bribery, extortion and other similar practices. No journalist should accept payments, remuneration, gifts or privileges that could influence the content of their work.”
Journalism is basically critical and naturally has tensions with the established powers. There is no democracy without free, vigorous, powerful journalism that freely expresses its opinion without interference or disqualification. Let him use his constitutional rights freely.
Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to accuse journalists of being “enveloped,” an inelegant formula for saying that they receive bribes for saying what they say. Is a very serious accusation, much more so when it is done from the top of institutional power, without exhibiting any evidence of such a grievance. A harmful method that must be unmasked because its central objective is undermine and tame independent journalism.
I believe that these disqualifications reveal, in the most benign consideration, ignorance of the work of journalists, and in the worst, a sign of intolerance and inability to accept dissent, in addition to showing a worrying authoritarian streak.
Other recent governments have already used the same fallacious arguments to put pressure on independent journalism in any way. The objective has been then and is now to subordinate ourselves to the power in power. We have vivid memories of those times.
These repeated attempts to claim to have a single voice favorable to official thought are similar, although they come from different administrations. Going from that media firing squad that was 678 to a new 876, which we hope does not consolidate, would constitute a regrettable setback. Let us remember that those attacks that lasted for years sought to “murder” professional reputation. For this reason, the reappearance of this disqualifying climate caused the Academy and other organizations to warn that they were going to make the same serious mistake.
Journalism has their own serious problems to resolve in these times. The media are shrinking, they are mutating rapidly and continuously without, yet, a sustainable formula having been found. And that the digital world requires speed of continuous adaptation to new languages and new platforms. And permanent innovation so as not to miss the train of history.
But it also means that journalists We must reflect reality as it is and not as we would like it to be.. Extreme political polarization requires intelligence to avoid falling into the easy trap of taking sides, which multiplies confrontation, and to apply the basic rules of what to do when faced with news.
Credibility and decency are our symbolic capital: that is where attacks are directed to damage those attributes. Its preservation and defense is essential in the face of the temptations and setbacks that journalists will face in their professional careers.
Only the quality of journalism and the trust of audiences in our work They are so far the only guarantees to hold on to in this raging sea of uncertainties.
I want to finish by citing another of the principles stated as a guide by the Academy:
“It is the obligation of journalists to respect the laws and the system that bases and protects our profession, republican democracy, guarantee of pluralism and respect for minorities. A democratic debate is one that admits the plurality of voices and views that coexist in a society.”
Let us fulfill that commitment with dignity.
