Source: www.lsdi.it
To reaffirm the tenets stubbornly self-justification with which the journalists themselves and try to reproduce the mythology of the profession can never lead to the re-establishment of trust - Quest 'ultimate fact has changed its nature: it is no longer blind and institutional - A journalist can not claim just because it proclaims journalist but must build it article by article, under the eyes and continuous monitoring of citizens - reflections from Villach and Narvic Paul - The fact and the representation - The Cartesian doubt
----
In a post entitled "The Relativity of 'information and the confidence lost in journalism" (reported almost entirely translated) Narvic indicates an interesting reflection of Paul Villach on Agoravox , on the relativity of journalism and' information, which leads strongly put into question - he says - the 'promotional tenets of the theory of' information disseminated by the media "* .
Villach - adds Narvic - is the questioning of this dogma is not the restatement of principle, the condition for the re-establishment of lost credibility of journalists in respect of citizens.
Villach, especially, does not take as gospel the theory of self-justification of journalism - built and promoted by journalists themselves - which claims to distinguish "journalism" by "communication" (l 'el virtuoso a supposed' other questionable):
terms of "communication" and "information" did not become more than the two masks for the same strategy of influence: "communication" is the word of advertising, "information" is that of journalists.
This reflection - continues Narvic - binds largely to what I'm doing on the conditions of survival - if any - of journalism. Wanting to keep this artificial distinction thus hoping to recover its lost credibility of journalists is a false issue and an obstacle. The trust has changed its nature: it is no longer institutionalized, but must be built.
Facts are facts
Villach Paul quite rightly pointed out the utter emptiness of this discourse of self-promotion of the journalists, who assign to themselves nothing less than a mission of general interest in protection of democracy (without I have received no mandate for this, from anyone, if not themselves). The mission of the journalist would "general interest" , why would account 'the facts' . What distinguishes him, of course, by advertising, as the bearer of any special interests. "Facts" are "information" , everything else is "communication"
... The journalist appears as a sort of scientists' current that can access the reality of the fact in itself . The fact is therefore accessible at all, and a fortiori in the short time of 'news?
Whatever its goodwill and its rigor, the journalist, not more than anyone, would not be able to access a "fact." He does not have neither the time nor the means. Even the scientists in their laboratories, with all protocols of observation and analysis that have developed in decades, know they can not do is, at best, describe a "representation of reality."
The paper is not the territory
Contrary to the claim of journalism, access to this fact can never be anything but an approximation.
Sure, 'method of doubt ", the plurality of sources, the multiple findings, the' analysis allow a more stringent compared to the 'fact' as a 'asindote tends towards the' abscissa ol 'ordered. But as that did not ever meet, so the "representation of a fact" does not ever be confused with 'the fact'. And he wants the journalist to go on the 'land' - a word that he loves so much - but do not ever take any time other than "a map." E 'map' will never 'land' it represents. If
'the information is a fact' , that 's use of "methodological doubt" by the journalist can return, so here confident citizens, invited to meekly accept this reality. The journalist has doubts for him, and he has no need to doubt yourself.
But if 'the information is a representation of a fact ", filtered through the prism of the eye of a journalist, the' attitude of the citizen will be completely different " in this case the 'methodological doubt' Descartes must be the rule of conduct for the training and the free expression of opinion. "
In these two cases, the project company which they are each very different, and so the role will be that journalists are called upon to play.
If journalism emphasizes the scientist to consider the current events, now that would give the public some assurance about its methodology and its ethics. If instead of recognizing only provides a representation, admits to submit to 'critical approach of his party and must accept the fact that permanently remains worthy of the trust that is reposed in him only in a permanently provisional.
Why should you trust journalists?
There are two answers to this question: why the 'label' inside journaliste " would be a reliable indicator of content that responds to a number of requirements and standards established and approved, or because one could see for themselves through their experience and their own criteria that the journalist was trustworthy.
In the first case, it would give confidence to the journalist as you would with a doctor, the 'architect ol' lawyer. The comparison is valid? These professions are regulated in effect: Requires skill in the conditions of entry, on presentation of the degrees, are codified best practices and professional ethics, is a professional body established to monitor and sanction the 'application, the citizen should complain about any lack or failure of some provision has the potential of using **.
It 'clear that journalism does not respond to any of these conditions: no degree is required, no coding practices nor any professional ethics must apply to the journalist, because there' is no instance of professional control, no sanction against ethical violations and no appeal is possible for citizens dissatisfied. According to the formula RUELLAN Denis, journalism is "the professionnalisme du flou ' ***.
But when 'The newspaper operated such a professional revolution by agreeing to a clear definition of the expertise needed, to codify the practices and methodologies, professional sound, to bow to a mandatory ethics, controls and sanctions, to submit to the remedies available to citizens, would be able to recover its lost credibility?
There 's more blind trust and institutional
You may doubt it, because all professions subject to such a framework also suffer the assaults by the question of citizens,' the user or customer. Commit journalism on this street is a impasse, because it confronts as the others in our society "post-modern" to the general discredit of all the elite and all the talk authoritative.
must accept the fact that confidence today can no longer be institutionally blind, but must be constructed and maintained in an interactive relationship with another person who never leaves a crumb of his critical spirit and his right to trial.
And then there 'is no longer "culture of fact' that takes , there 'is no professionalism of' ethical self-assertion, and no information, there are more "watchdogs of democracy" self-appointed. C 'is rather a relationship of trust to build, through the witness and dialogue. E 'on the condition that the journalists will rebuild credibility article by article, under the eyes and continuous monitoring of citizens.
Much more than in the recomposition of the conditions for the viability of the media in full deployment, more than in the 'identification of new roles to play in the new world of' designated information from the Internet, the challenge is that the survival of journalism.
It 's a cultural revolution that most journalists are not now ready to accept, without realizing that it is through this rejection they condemn their profession to disappear.
----
* This quotation from Villach - Narvic to Lsdi said in an email - "does not refer in particular to a text or a 'specific work, but should the' set of speeches by journalists to ensure the promotion of their profession. In my thoughts - he adds - I refer directly to 'work RUELLAN Denis, "The journalism professionnalisme du ou le flou" (see Lsdi, The journalism profession rather fuzzy ) and the work of researchers in journalism and science of 'information that are neighbors who bring out the' existence of an ideology of journalism and a speech made by journalists to justify to the 'outside their profession. E 'for example, the speech of the "watchdog of democracy" and the "4th power", the discourse on' objectivity, the separation of facts from the comments, etc... "
** While in Italy this framework of ethical and professional standards and parameters formally exists, we can not say that this network of formal institutions to ensure, in fact , increased reliability of journalism Italian than described in this article. Or not? (Ed.).
*** Professionalism in the sociology of work, means " a phenomenon with cultural, economic and political" which refers in some way to the "concept of social closure," that is "an attempt to monopolize the market not only knowledge but also the status of a system of stratification. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment