What is journalism for if it is not to inform the weak, the defenseless, the poor, the unprotected, those who have or know the least, in an unequal society where a few have too much and millions have nothing or very little?
What is journalism for if it is not to prevent those who have the least from being victims of injustice, abuse, looting by the state, politicians or corporate power?
If we live in an egalitarian society where we all start from the same place or have the same economic weight, journalistic balance should be a norm. But when the reality is so unequal, the focus must be directed against those who steal, abuse, dispossess their lands or houses from those who have the least.
How can the journalist be balanced in an extremely resource-rich country that has more than 60 million people in poverty and many in extreme poverty? poverty? In a nation where many of them earn 8, 000 pesos ($ 400 dollars) per month, while others earn up to two or three times more than the president’s salary ($ 120, 000 ) monthly?
When we talk about being balanced, we are not talking about lying, accusing without grounds, cheating, inferring or assuming something that is not; We are talking about reporting and denouncing fraud, abuse and corruption at all levels, including within the current administration in Mexico, not simply slandering or trying to manipulate; but unfortunately, that is what some media have done with the text “Sowing life, the chocolate factory.” A tendentious note that does not reach the category of report.
Last week, the president of Mexico underlined in a morning conference that Carmen Aristegui, a famous journalist who until a few years ago had earned the respect and admiration of millions of Mexicans for her work, said that she had never been on the side of the people or their movement.
This statement was given by the president after commenting on the aforementioned text, published among other means in Aristegui Noticias and Process , where a conflict of interest is inferred between the children of López Obrador and the flagship program of his administration. The president said that the report was a lie.
The reporters, authors of the article, hours later told Julio Astillero, in Astillero Informa , yes, that indeed the report only infers, concludes or deduces without proving at any time that there is corruption or conflict of interest with the president’s children.
By For her part, Aristegui replied that yes, it was true that she was not in favor of the López Obrador movement, but that what she was doing was “journalism” and she could not be in favor or against the president’s movement. However, his work shows the opposite, especially after having published a note that does not meet the journalistic standard, nor of Aristegui Noticias , nor from any professional and respectable news outlet.
So, how can one not not be in favor of the people when for decades thousands of people have sacrificed their lives for a better democracy, where thousands more have disappeared and been silenced for fighting, protesting and seeking justice? How can we ignore this part?
How can we be balanced when living in a country that is already a grave and so far cannot turn the curve of murders and disappearances that we continues to charge narco or organized crime since the infamous and bloody government of Felipe Calderón, including 10 daily women?
How You can be balanced as a journalist in a country that has clearly been at the peak of corruption and fraud to benefit a few, while another segment of the population is dispossessed of their lands and many have to risk their lives as immigrants to survive. and feed her family?
When López Obrador told Aristegui that she had never been on the side of his movement, it meant that she had never been on the side of the people. Surely the current president of Mexico does not care which side Carmen Aristegui really is on the political spectrum as sui generis as the Mexican. That is already known. In such a way that the ruse that “does journalism” is questioned if the “for whom” is not added. It may be that she practices journalism, but it is increasingly clear in favor of who does it. For example, coincidentally when his great reports such as that of “The White House of Enrique Peña Nieto” saw the light, it did cause some satisfaction in the people, but in reality it did not change anything for those below. Today the one directly pointed out in that report is seen all over Europe walking with his current girlfriend, after his divorce from the other involved, Angélica Rivera, with whom he was married for political convenience to create an image of a successful presidential family, as was the original plan of the campaign strategy to impose that idea on a society that never believed in it.
Journalism should be a tool to contribute to justice at all levels of a society that says democrat, without biases, or biases, or lies that harm, blame or point to any sector, including the powerful sector. But that is not why we can close our eyes and be indifferent to so many injustices.
In short, if journalism does not contribute to a more equitable democracy, in a society full of inequalities, corruption and fraud of the powerful towards those who have the least, then what is journalism for? If the journalist does not serve the people, he better dedicate himself to something else.
Agustín Durán is editor of the Metro section of Real America News in Los Angeles.