There is an important point to make regarding the free press in Venezuela. The unprofessional nature of the media at the time during the coup in 2002, is still the case today in Venezuela. So, if we want to defend to free press, we have to demand professionalism, balanced approaches of at least the two sides of the history, and contrast of valid opinion makers. I don't even ask the simple principle of objectivity or impartiality, that is almost impossible in Venezuela's journalism. The commitment of the media owners is not to defend the free press, is to defend their political preference in how the society must be ruled. That is damaging the democracy in my opinion, when the decision making process is diverted from the population into the preferential concepts managed by the media itself.
In Venezuela the level of distrust between journalist is such that the opinion programmes do not invite the key opinion makers to be summated to questions, they limited to invited their own partisans and cross referencing each other by video flashbacks. The few cases where an official opinion maker was invited, the levels of insults and grotesque management of the programme was horrendous.
How to defend the free press when a rational minimum approach is discard in benefit of the personal-passionate militant journalism, ones in ultra defence of private property and profit making, and others in ultra defence of communal property and social justice. Do we need an arbiter? who can do that role? maybe a extraterrestrial being.
No comments:
Post a Comment