The curious univocal voice of the media

Is that the voice? And why does it seem unanimous? Can the message be univocal? Is that what I hear? As if all news agencies have a single source, and come from a kind of world journalism center. Can we draw an analogy with the idea of ​​party centralism? What about the diversity of opinions?

For this very reason many have been waiting for men who come from outside. Half of humanity? A visibly growing desire for political ” outsiders”, people who do not have their profiles pre-established by the booklets of the bureaucracy of power. For many, this is unforgivable since only citizens who have been in their inertial offices for decades have the right to indefinitely extend their mandates. One can discuss his methods and manners, but the irrational hatred of Trump also goes through this confessive class corporatism.

Bypassing those who define themselves by schemes of the day before and who make diplomacy and agreements their breadwinners alienated from public opinion. We believed in changes, but we forgot about a vital topic: the gear has its procedures and when threatened, it starts the process of self – regulation , the one that sustains the deviations in the Republics.

We have been subject to being systematically uninformed – through the selection and censorship of news – while the intellectuopoly moves forward without expressive questions. The increasingly audible silence of intellectuals has become taboo. They come through consensus that no one asked for, unsustainable agreements that were imposed without prior consultation, opinions that come together in the form of a single block of thought. This also happens below Ecuador. Installed, there is a singular information regime that has now started to dictate one side of events.

There is nothing new, every silicon valley has openly engaged in the American election campaign. And they used electronic pages to suppress or exalt information.  Supposedly neutral digital babysitters who now have the power to state whether there is a fact or it is just the divergent version of one of them. News is now marked as “false” or partially false “, which is basically the same.

It is not just a matter of contesting the current or future election results (since the error will persist) as if only one side did not have the right and even the duty to exhaust the legal measures offered by the legal system. The fact is that the system agreed with whom – evoking democracy – waved and won support from well-known tyrants and dictatorships of convenience. Just to be an example: how can one explain, above all, the meek connivance with the theocratic, misogynistic and homophobic regime of the ayatollahs and their confessed nuclear aspirations?

While billions were distracted by the multiplicity of conspiracy theories, the plot would come ready. Democracy is in agony and has nothing to do with polarization – an effect taken for granted. It is rather an innocent architecture stitched together by a status quo that is intended to be hegemonic and does not allow contestation. It is the supremacism of good intentions. False canons of devotion to the common good have been created that fight for us (sic) against the selfish agents of the private world, these bad people. From this perspective only one motto is prevalent, the establishment that represents the monopoly of the good cannot lose. The very same goes on here. They may fulanize , but the problem is not and never was in the personalities, but in dangerous distortions of the evaluation criteria. If the corporate elite did not catch on badly, it would publicly endorse – as it is well known that they do it with little mouth – Pelé’s famous phrase that “the people don’t know how to vote”. Exception made – if confirmed – to the current US election.

Meanwhile, the network of united broadcasters has already decided who won, there, where justice can still reverse the announcement and prevail, calculations can be redone since we are facing polls that are happily auditable by independent agencies. They may or may not change the result, but it is important to point out that what happened in these elections was much more than the electoral dispute. Confidence in information systems that was already unstable has been broken, a few more steps have fallen in the citizens’ credibility index and this behavior will forever mark an era. From surveys to headlines, the era of instrumentalization of information, once exclusive to the regimes of totalitarian states, has now focused on the owners of major social networks. Even worse, censorship can be legitimized as a private action, well beyond the control of the State itself.

The democracy that works must not, cannot be confused, contrary to what its representatives claim using empty slogans. The new terminology abuses language devices: when the opposition is organized, the consortium calls it polarization, when hate finds ways, and endorsement, to express itself, it is never the responsibility of violent movements – true armed paramilitary gangs – that use looting and intimidation as weapons of political pressure. The story is lavish in showing headline archives that today exposed should incite regret, such as “Hillary Won” and “Al Gore is the new president”.

If the news media still wants to preserve the status of an institution – and, undoubtedly, it should be considered one of them – it is urgent that it revise its criteria for partisan voluntarism. That twist or distort their political desires as individuals. It may be appropriate for talk show hosts or comedians, but it is certainly not reasonable for commentators especially when they cannot control their stadium emotions in public. Or ostensibly use simulations and early projections that, just 4 days ago, had already announced victory and graduated one of the candidates.

Who will be responsible if, due to inconsequential advances in results, more divisions in society are instigated? Or does it not matter now? Now, polarization goes through this type of vehicle crowd that should contain and embody the tacit and sober neutrality of those who expect analytical rigor and a hermeneutical truth woven through a dialectical interpretation of the facts. It is increasingly rare to encounter non-ideological analysts. Even if they are devotees of some rating system, they should state their conflicts of interest when presenting their theses to the viewer public. That you have the opportunity to express your opinion, as long as you explain your bias. By refusing to expose this tendency to the public, what is done is political party propaganda, emulating exemption and neutrality.

The free press only becomes effectively “free”, emancipated and independent when the awareness of its institutional role is above the passions, private interests or the taste of some ideological bias.

Without this care, we will have more and more partisan writing committees installed in the media – and outside of them – shrinking spaces for reflection and debate that advance knowledge.

There is still time – scarce – for self-criticism.