 |
| Fernando Barba, Professor of Diakonia |
According to José Luis Exeni, regular journalism is a risk, not regulate, a danger. Fearful risk, lawmakers and journalists choose the danger. And they decide abstain. The result is the absence or failure of standards. Thus, journalism is subjective to their principles. The best law, the most attractive, is not there. The bet "safe"-he says, is convinced, is the self-regulation. But this, when he gets his way, is inadequate.
Meanwhile, there are signs and proposals, tired of supporting the danger, challenge the risk. The argument seems consistent: The information is not just exercise of freedom, but also area of \u200b\u200bresponsibility. You have to balance both (convictions / effects) through regulatory instruments. The results are bills that, as a fatality, given the condemnation and rejection of the opposition. Fearful, the designers soon abandon their purpose and how the decision is also not a decision, the sum of the race is zero.
In this context, in response, or sometimes as an escape-variant that arises against the self-regulation. The reasoning is quite simple and blunt: the only criticism that supports the print, it can not become a sanction or control (especially from the branches of government), is that it is itself. Any attempt to carry out external the media undermine the necessity, possibility of their self-control. Thus, compared to the laws and regulations, journalists oppose alternative-when we do, our codes of ethics, rules of writing, style manuals, the reader ombudsmen, courts of honor, press councils. Self-regulation, which essentially would be the smart choice in this field, often ends up being just an alibi, perhaps an escape. The purpose: to avoid regulation.
Clearly, in any case, that concern: regulation, such as search charge or attempt to control and self-regulation, self-criticism or justification for exercise so that nothing changes in the practice of journalism, are based on a common course and quite old already discussed: the media not only accumulate defects, but (and this is what essential) effects, ie, have weight. And the best way to limit weight, which teaches the logic of the balance that is the basis of democracy, is to oppose a counterweight.
In this dynamic and under such circumstances with which to decide and act in relation to the subject, the only thing that seems to be progress is in the exercise of wear. The repeated contention between "new attempts to undermine freedom of expression" from the political system, and "mobilization and alertness" in the system of mass media, no longer a democratic exercise, but unsuccessful, boring . It is essential therefore to locate the problem in another perspective of observation. The challenge perhaps lies in relativize the discussion on principles and values \u200b\u200bof news reporting and dealing with its purposes and consequences.
The sum of risk difficult to regulate journalism and the dangers of not doing so, it seems necessary to concentrate our efforts analytical and policy not the definition of whether press freedom is more or less important than the right to information but to identify what decisions can exercise unfettered journalistic principles but also ensuring accountability reporting. That is, the issue is not whether you opt for freedom or for their consequences, but based on what daily actions combined-balance is achieved both.
According to Raul Trejo Delarbre, it is essential to rethink the basis of analysis: Would not it be smarter to leave the sterile conflict around untouchable freedom versus authoritarian temptations and overcome the worn dilemma between regulation versus self-regulation, to direct the gaze, rather, the daily balance on the journalistic profession, including ethics principles and ethics of responsibility? It is already known: "Ethics does not replace the law, but allows it less necessary to resort to it often." The issue, therefore, no longer a question of false security, but plausible results. In this area, it is said, the "Gag Law", real or imagined-are meaningless.
For his part, English Carlos Soria contends that the distorted debates on bills Communication Social, which abound are "reflex rather than reflection." That impedes understanding that, in this issue, which is at issue is not the untouchable status (but not sacred) should have the freedoms of expression and opinion in democratic societies. Of what it is, rather, is inquiring about the general nature and not all of those freedoms. That is, answer the questions that journalists refuse to hear and less to ask: "Is everything technically reportable is ethically and legally informed? All communications is communicating?". That is: Are there exceptions to the difundibilidad through the mass media? In short, the issue seems not having to do with the principles of right to information, but with limits. It does not address what journalism "should" do, but what "could" do.
Moreover Soria also notes that, if both stresses the idea of \u200b\u200binformation as a counter, it is urgent to insist on some uncomfortable questions in relation to the mass media in our country: "Who Media represent, in addition to represent themselves?, who has chosen the democratic means?, Who is the counterbalance of the counter?, Who controls the controllers? ". This leads to investigate the question of the legitimacy of the media, as well as about the roles they play in modern society hipermediatizada. Of course, in no way means opening the windows so that, as gale opportunistic creep is inevitable whenever censors the information. Nor to deny the need to exercise, from journalism, a radical critique of all public affairs, "but with respect (which is not the same reverence) and knowledge of things (which does not amount to assumption of knowledge)" .
According Exeni, another central issue that generally is left to analyze the effect of unilateral proposal of the "Gag Law" is the relevance or otherwise, in the nineties, the "integrated and sustainable explicit" information policies. In this regard, it is no longer the dispute between drivers of global planning (who longed-embracing National Communication Policies) against opponents of any form of planning (that put all their weapons in the logic that "the best policy is no policy "). Perhaps the way is viable public policy design for communication and decentralized public sector. And in journalism, regardless of the contents of legislation promoted by the powers of State will take no delusions that the need to replace, or at least update the rules at this stage, are obsolete and constitute the legal framework "in force" in this field.
In conclusion we can say that the passive attitude of the Media in terms of mission, responsibility and discretion with which must be handled and which in theory should be appropriate, especially television, have become third level altogether. The worst part is that at this point, do not envision the winds of change as it includes what are now the interests of the media, simply profit for a few owners and managers. These in turn do not understand what it truly means to make quality television.
criteria press officers, are a true reflection of what is asserted, as they pass in the end notes to be distributed and therefore the structure and content of news . There exists at least an interest in working at the professional level, there is an alarming lack of journalistic criteria and training. Also it seems that there is no capacity for basting a style not copying what the other does.
Under this perception is necessary a rethinking of the role of television in our midst. In mid-November 2005, the National Press Association ANP, conducted by the School of Communication Studies DIAKONIA and the Ombudsman, the first International Forum on Media and Social Responsibility. The aim was to put into question the performance that currently have the Media in their interaction with society, and promote this concept in the practice of journalism.
is clear that activities like this should be carried out more frequently on the understanding that if you develop self awareness on journalists, will be achieved gradually changing the mentality and attitude of the media. Similarly, it requires the active participation of the representatives of TV channels, so that once and for all, understand the task they have been doing wrong for over 10 years in their news programs.
Fernando Barba
Professor of the School of Communication Studies Diakonia - UCB
0 comments:
Post a Comment