He visited Guatemala at the initiative of the Central America Project. During his stay he shared reflections on the role of the press and the challenges facing journalists on a global scale.
Where do you think we are at this time? What is the present of journalism?
There are many challenges; There are political and commercial challenges too. Many media are looking for a sustainable model and many have not been successful. And there are also many pressures of politicians who want to undermine the public’s confidence in the independent press and also want to undermine the sustainability of the media. It is a dangerous moment because we cannot agree on the facts, and the elements that were used before to establish or determine the facts have devalued.
It is dangerous not only for the press, but also for democracy and also, and more importantly, for the progress of society.
Isn’t it a paradox to have so much access to knowledge and see those dangers?
Yes, it is a paradox. There are many media that have emerged and some Internet sites that say they are news media, but they are means that spread bad information and falsehoods, and misinformation, and all that. Many people go to those Internet sites to confirm their pre -existing views. In addition, not all governments have a transparency policy.
Many are hiding the information and we have seen a decrease in support for democracy in many countries, and the rise of many aspiring autocrats or, worse, dictators. They have no transparency policy; So, it is a very difficult environment for the press and also for the dissemination of truthful information.
And that ends up promoting these autocratic positions, right?
Yes, a great diffusion of falsehoods, conspiracy theories and crazy ideas.
That occur as if they were news …
It’s true. For commercial interests, for political interests or any interest. There are people who have found a way to disseminate false information and they have the ability to take advantage of the dissemination of false information.
How do you see the future of journalism?
I am optimistic. I always try to stay optimistic because I believe that our mission is so important that we should never fall into defeatism. We have to continue innovating, adopt new methods to communicate with the public. We have to have a radical transparency policy, so that the public see that we have not taken the information we are disseminating from context. Ah, and it is also important that we cover all people in our countries and in our communities.
Citizens want to be reflected honestly and precisely in our coverage and we have to reflect their struggles, their expectations, their hopes, all that. I think there are methods to gain public confidence.
What are the recommendations for people to distinguish the information disguised from the one that has used the correct method?
Judge the media history, if they have an accuracy history in their coverage; There is a history of impartiality in coverage. Also if there is a transparency policy. Do you know who the owner is? Where do finance come from? Who are they? Who is the author of that article? And then, there are several methods to judge the credibility of the media.
Is it worth the medium to have an ideological guide on how to address the issues and then transmit your worldview?
We have a tradition in the United States, it is a wall between the opinion section and the news section, for example. And then, I believe that journalists who work in the news section should maintain their independence regarding politics, ideology and all that. Many readers want us to be allies of their ideology, but I believe that we must be allies of reality. And we have the obligation to investigate thoroughly in the facts, to verify the information and to disseminate it in a fair, impartial, independent way. But when we discover, we should spread it without blinking, without fear.
But today we encounter that narratives are built to demerit the publication that includes evidence.
I think we have to continue with our work, we have to fulfill our mission to readers and listeners or spectators, they have to look for us in the long term. They have the right and the opportunity to judge us. They are readers, and forces us to give them information about our methods, about tests and all that, and about our professional history. Who are we and what is our experience? What are our knowledge? And the actors, the public can judge us.
Do you think journalists compete with current influencers?
It is not competence for the public, obviously, and I believe that we have much we should learn from the influencers, the podcasts and the other means that have arisen. Many of them have been quite successful in communicating with readers or listeners or anyone.
What should we learn?
They convey authenticity, and traditional media are institutions and so far we have not had the ability to communicate our authenticity. We have focused on the investigation of the facts, a thorough investigation in the facts, on the verification of the facts and everything. And we think that, if we have done the investigation, the public should trust us. There is a way of communication and many influencers and podcast transmit more authenticity. They do it as if they were talking to their relatives, with their friends. And have a different way of communicating with the public.
And where do you find that balance between the authenticity and rigor of the journalistic method?
For example, if I am addressing a subject, for example, with my mother, I could address a complicated issue, but I would talk in a different way with my mother as we publish it in a newspaper. I would speak in a more accessible and more informal way.
Have we been too high?
I think so, we have communicated elitism and there is a gap between the public and the traditional media. There was always resistance in many media at the beginning of the digital era. We were third and clumsy in our reaction to the great changes in our profession. We did not want to adapt to those changes. We should recognize that the strategies and tactics of our profession should change almost every five years or less, because the consumption of information is changing.
For example, young people are not consuming information in the same way that I consumed information when I was young. This is a more visual time. Now there are many people who prefer to receive their information with video or audio, instead of reading a text. The media that adapt to the changes will survive, and if there is a democracy, we will have an independent free press. Much depends on democracy, and if there is no democracy, there are more risks to the press. It is almost impossible to have an independent and free press in a dictatorship, or if there is an autocratic candidate in the government, it is much more difficult.
The survival of free press depends on democracy and democracy depends on free press as well. Free press is a cornerstone of democracy and there has never been a democracy without an independent free press.
Where do the media and freedom of expression in the United States walk?
It is a very dangerous moment because I believe that Donald Trump is an aspiring autocrat. He has already launched several measures that are authoritative and he always, during his first government and his first campaign, was attacking the press and has continued attacking the press. He has trimmed the funds to the public media. He has filed several personal demands against television networks and is taking advantage of his power as president to obtain a legal agreement to receive money from those television chains. So, it is a very dangerous moment for the media in the United States.
But it seems that people are satisfied with these attitudes.
They are not satisfied with the attitude regarding the press. Obviously, there is a lot of resentment and much grievance against the press. Many people think that we are members of the country’s elite, although most journalists do not receive salaries that correspond to the elite, obviously. However, I believe that there were other reasons and, for example, many voters thought that Joe Biden was too weak, too old, that there was a messy situation on the southern border of the country, that there was too much immigration and a massive influx through the southern border of the country.
There were many complaints about the high inflation rate compared to other countries, although it was not a high inflation rate, but in the United States it was a fairly high rate. And many people also thought that too much money was being spent for Ukraine in that war and that the Government should have spent that money in US citizens. And there was also a negative reaction to the politically correct, gender things, diversity, inclusion.
Many citizens think that democracy has not translated into an improvement in their daily lives. And they prefer to have a strong man in the presidency.
In addition, technology has made us very aware of the immediate, and that hurts democracy, by forgetting the causes of what happened?
Obviously, today there is an information flood and citizens always receive information all day, every day, every second, alerts of any kind, and they also go to the Internet sites that confirm their pre -existing points of view and are looking for a reaffirmation of their point of view.