[ad_1]
World journalism shook on the night of Thursday 5 November. In an unprecedented fact, major US television networks have left President Donald Trump speechless and without an audience; they took it out of the air without warning and without asking for permission. They did the same thing that Twitter did with its “fake news”: silence them live and direct.
(See also: The New Wave of Nostalgia Now Moving on TV)
The violent speech in which the tycoon accused Democrats of cheating with “illegal votes” was seen by most media outlets, including his great ally, Fox News, as a terrible and dangerous lie for democracy. The fraud he accused Biden’s team was devoid of evidence and the media acted against his words to not amplify his message. “Lie”, they explained. And they stopped the broadcast.
Taking it out of the air was, for many, an unprecedented act of courage; for others it was an act of censorship against the president of the most powerful nation on the planet. CNN didn’t interrupt him, but once he finished his speech, his analysts said essentially the same thing: he lies. What is the analysis made by some of the most prominent directors and media analysts in Colombia? Would they do it? Here are your answers (you may be interested in: Take this quiz and confirm if you are a James Bond movie expert)
Gustavo Gómez, director of “6 AM Hoy por Hoy” by Caracol Radio
There are no media or journalists who have an obligation to allow an official to say what he wants. It is valid to stop making a statement because it is not informative, because it is long and boring, or because it lacks journalistic substance. But cutting it because it is believed that the testimony is full of falsehoods or inaccuracies brings us closer to complex scenarios.
Do we start cutting out radio interviews when we consider the interviewee is lying? Do we remove from the screen a person who, we believe, is not real? Do we refuse to interview who we assume will not tell us what we believe is correct? After the first witch is burned and the first heretic dismembered, who sets the rules and limits? Who makes the official lists of what is right and what is forbidden? Who defines what freedom of expression is and when is it necessary to muzzle it?
I would not cut a president when he speaks at a momentous moment: I would listen to him and then take care of presenting verifiable facts that would show the public that he is lying, if so. And here, lying is almost the first requirement of politics.
After the first witch has been burned and the first heretic is dismembered, who sets the rules and limits? Who makes the official lists of what is right and what is forbidden?
Juan Roberto Vargas, director of ‘Noticias Caracol’
It seemed to me a difficult and burning decision and a courage unprecedented in the history of world journalism. I believe that at the end of the street, the editorial position prevails. If what is being broadcast is a presidential speech, I believe that by law it cannot be cut.
But if it is the media that, at its own risk and expense, broadcast a public statement from a president or any other senior official, that same media has the power to decide when to cut it and even more so whether it believes it should do so because editorially it finds that what the speaker says is a lie or is inappropriate, whatever the Head of State is doing.
Another thing, and another way of taking an editorial position, it is doing an interview with a president asking if what he is saying is “shopping cart” or if he is exceeding his duties, as we asked President Duque in “Noticias Caracol”.
(Read also: “You are fired”, the phrase with which Donald Trump is “fired”)
Enrique Santos Calderón, former director of EL TIEMPO
It felt like a bad decision, with a taste of censorship. “Worse than a crime, a stupidity”, Fouche would say. As cunning and sneaky as Trump is, he is the president of the United States, who has received 70 million votes. Everything you do or say must be reported and, if applicable, refuted. Cutting out a presidential speech like some networks did – CNN didn’t, for example – seems like a bad journalistic decision not without arrogance.. The liar always falls and it is the duty of the media to point out the lies, not to hide them. I would pass it on in full, noting at the same time, or soon after, where it lay. If a president lies, does he report?
Yolanda Ruiz, director of RCN Radio News
I was often asked what my decision would be. First of all, I say that the context is everything to make a decision and I do not know all the information that colleagues who have closely followed the election and the Trump administration have. Nor do I believe in magic formulas to be applied in all cases.
Even so, after many hours of reflection and doubts, with what is known and in the precise circumstances of the electoral uncertainty I think I would have stopped Trump’s intervention because it was important news that the company should have known. He would then issue an editorial statement pointing out the gravity of the events as the president had not presented evidence to claim there was fraud.
Néstor Morales, director of Blu Radio
I don’t like censorship and I don’t like it when it is exercised in the name of certain values. Censorship opens a very dangerous door, because it ends up hurting and a journalist is also paid to listen to those who think differently, not just those who agree.
I think that the exercise of journalism is also an exercise in tolerance, and Donald Trump won more than 70 million votes. This must be respected, as well as its political movement.
What was done against a right-wing president was the same thing that Hugo Chávez did 15 years ago in his country with the media, which shut them down.
I wouldn’t have cut it, which doesn’t mean I meekly accept Trump’s lies. What we journalists have to do is give precise and exact information on the validity or otherwise of the votes.
Yamid Amat, director of CM &
I was surprised by the reaction of the TV channels. I was surprised by the reaction of the journalists, because in the opinion of the United States – it has clearly been seen in this debate – it is managed more by the owners than by the journalists themselves. Although in the Fox case, the reporter had the same reaction as his colleagues, but I don’t think there was any prior agreement to cut the president.
I wouldn’t have done that. Rather, he would ask President Trump to show evidence. “Show the evidence” is what everyone says, what am I? Because accusing for free is not due and cannot be done. And it seems to me that the decision to air it is, to say the least, disrespectful.
After all, he is the President of the Republic, what should have been done, in my view, is to ask the President to present the evidence he has to make such an accusation.
Ricardo Trotti, executive director of the Inter-American Press Association
It is a mistake for chains to shut down a public person, even if they believe he is lying. The role of the press is not to judge or prejudice, it must inform and can think of lying, but it is good that the public has all the information to generate its opinion and make its decision. If the press does this with the president of the United States, you might think it does it with other people.
It seems to me that the press has been arrogant in judging. I think they are trying to use the metric by which fake news is generally measured. I believe that when the press thinks that a public person or president is lying, their duty is to show that lie, not to put it out. The press is there to create public conversations.
Cecilia Orozco, director of ‘Noticias Uno’
The fact that several networks and media outlets made the same decision to stop President Donald Trump’s statements indicates that somehow they must have had pre-emptive reflection and consultation between them.
In an act that, in my opinion, it was up to the country above the President, probably to prevent the situation of public order from getting out of hand.
The statements of the most powerful people in the world or countries cannot be irresponsible or impunity. In such a case, I would have agreed with that decision. It does not seem to me that this case can be assimilated to censorship, where by definition the accused is always the weakest, not the strongest.
WRITING OF CULTURE
On Twitter: @CulturaET
.
[ad_2]
Source link
