Editorial is the opinion space of the direction of the press vehicles. Ombudsman column is the space for defense of readers’ interests, in the light of journalistic principles. In recent years, however, Folha’s ombudsmans have converted him into opinionated columns. The current ombudsman took the practice to the extreme ,. The procedure reflects a new phenomenon: the preaching of censorship by journalists.
In your criticism of the Sheet Which defended Bolsonaro’s freedom of expression, Ombudsman simulates expressing an almost universal opinion of readers. Deep down, it’s something else: digital guerrilla.
Currently, compact currents of political opinion are manufactured in the “hatred offices” controlled by pockets or lulism. In the assembly line, party leaders define targets and arguments that are later viralized by associated influencers. Finally, supporters reproduce the discourses designed up.
The counter-editorial is organized as a collage of selected comments. Univocal message: a Sheet He cheats on his readers by sustaining the principle of freedom of expression even to Bolsonaro.
Ombudsman speaks for the voice of a reader: “No democracy survives if it does not know how to protect itself from those who use it as a staircase to destroy it inside.” It is the alibi ritually employed by the ban on Lula’s interviews in prison (2018), to the order of censorship to Crusoe magazine (2019) and the vetoes to profiles of the Bolsonarist sewage, to the embargo on the use of social networks by Bolsonaro. According to the censor judges, we live in permanent exceptionality.
There is no greater hypocrisy than the far -right rhetoric for freedom of expression: the Brazilian’s homesickers, applaud Trump’s arrest orders against students who criticize US foreign policy. If their scam had worked, they would bump newspapers.
But in both poles of the political spectrum, the categorical imperative is to shut up the other’s mouth. The Lulist left, who defends the Cuban and Venezuelan tyrannies, has already asked in choir the censorship of the press (password: “social control of the media”) and today is engaged in the mission of censoring the networks (password: “curb undemocratic discourse”).
The real news is the journalists-censors. In the recent past, a professional journalist capable of crying out for censorship was something rarer than bad food in Italy. In the days they run, they form crowds. How to decipher the phenomenon?
I suspect their roots to be attached to both the economy and culture. At one end, the financial weakening of the professional press, in the age of virtual platforms. In the other, a decline in loyalty to journalistic principles, in this era of the ideological colonization of universities.
Journalists trained in environments intoxicated by digital activism have lost respect for the concept of plurality. They learned to subordinate any principle to their ideological sympathies. They forgot that freedom in the words of Rosa Luxembourg, “is always, and only, the freedom of those who differ from me.” They do not realize that tomorrow, inverted political winds, will be the victims of the censors. The counter-editorial documents a time.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
