In 1919, there were no newspapers in Buenos Aires for almost two weeks. In union solidarity with a strike by the employees of the large stores, the graphic artists did not print the newspapers because the advertisements from these stores were there, and the dock workers also did not unload their goods from the ships.
Radio didn’t come on the market until the following year, so the city was a news desert. The newspapers didn’t appear again until employees at the Gath & Chaves store went back to work.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
The day after, a chronicler wrote: “The newspapers, which were said to be exaggerations and mystifications, turned out to be the source of truth, and their lack gave us the reign of falsehood, which, fortunately, was in most cases comical and caused only a few shocks.”
Without news, “we have left the public without knowing what is happening or what will become of them, like a child locked in a dark room.”
Our emotional skin. In the United States, studies have been carried out in similar situations that show that the news serves to integrate us, to escape personal problems, to gain social prestige in conversations, to establish indirect contact with moral and life codes of the outside world, to insure against the uncertainties of modern society and to be a way to escape boredom and seek stimulation.
Our emotional skin is full of news, especially now that we are in an extraordinarily communal phase of the information ecosystem. Nobody informs themselves, the Eternaut could say. Our membership groups are also our groups that provide information, review and interpretation. Information is, above all, shared information.
What happens if society wakes up one morning without internet? The catastrophe would be unique. All systems that articulate our lives rely on the network of networks.
In Spain last May, the power went out for less than a day and the abyss of lack of communication opened up. “Is a life without news worse than a life without light?” asked the journalist Cecilia González in the magazine Anfibia after experiencing this blackout on a train. That day made it clear that collective action is very difficult without a common information base.
Therefore, the most visible impact of journalism on society is neither informational nor interpretive, but emotional. It integrates us into a community of shared information. Being informed means being integrated into a group. To be uninformed is to a large extent to be disintegrated.
This reliance on news for our emotional health leads us to care about our mental well-being. In this environment of information overload, news “avoidance” is one of the most studied topics. Due to anxiety, overwhelm, fatigue, and many other reasons, many choose not to seek information directly in order to care for their emotional well-being. Among the avoiders there are many women, many young people and many poor people. In families and even couples there can be a division of labor in information work.
However, it is impossible to avoid information because news is social and every community interaction brings news. What level of isolation does one have to have to avoid the news in a world where the news finds you, not the news? Those who avoid the news get it the same way, secondhand, on an endlessly broken phone, through their social relationships.
Run away from the news. One of the reasons for this “minimalist” news consumption is that the negativity of journalism is tiring. It’s okay to tell me all the stones in our shoes, but don’t forget that we have to walk. Additionally, you might look for a solution approach to bad news, not just a problem approach.
This is why some of the best media outlets in the world care about their community and emotional value. One of the oldest is The Guardian, founded in Manchester in 1821. Today there are editions in the United Kingdom and the United States and a presence worldwide. In 2015 there was the first female editor-in-chief. Her name is Katherine Viner and she asked journalists an unusual question: “Use clarity and imagination to build hope.” This means: “We cannot limit ourselves to criticizing the status quo, but must also explore new ideas that can replace it.”
It is always said that in the age of networks you have to generate very short, superficial, emotional and entertaining content to attract the youngest. But editor Viner says something different: “Young people in particular long to feel the hope that previous generations had.”
What I like most is how Viner defines hope: “It is the belief in our ability to act together to create change.”
Hope gives strength. Based on these ideas from Viner, The Guardian created a commercial campaign with the slogan “Hope is Power” that runs on YouTube.
Therefore, journalistic quality is not a formal rule, but is related to shaping the future of the community to which one belongs. This does not mean denying reality, but rather thinking about the approach that creates the energy needed to move forward.
A medium is not a minister, rabbi or priest, but as another Guardian editor said more than a century ago: “The newspaper has both a material and a moral existence.”
Therefore, it is destructive when journalism contributes to undermining trust in the institutions that coordinate our collective functioning. It is true that we live in a country where the sovereign is largely poor. But the incitement of broad opinions against politicians, legislators, judicial authorities and even governments is permanent. This is typical of the populist journalist, always ready to elicit applause from any fan.
Therefore, the most important thing in journalism is not dealing with information or opinions, but with emotions. This is the most important professional dimension. If we want to maintain the bond and be valuable to the community, we must not lose the balance between truth and hope. Without this, societies can fight over their future.
This week the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Conscience to two journalists: Andrzej Poczobut, imprisoned in Belarus, and Mzia Amaglobeli, imprisoned in Georgia. Also still imprisoned in Hong Kong is Jimmy Lai, editor of the popular Apple Daily, who was imprisoned by “efficient” China.
These journalists behind bars remind us that journalists in dictatorships lay the foundation for future democracy. They are persistent lights of hope.
About The Author
