If everyone lies all the time, the consequence is not that people stop believing lies, but that they stop believing anything. The idea, formulated by Hannah Arendt, more current than ever in this era of social networks, only accentuates the relevance of the press. Journalism has a duty to preserve a space of truth in public life.
The truth is not always obvious. It is necessary to select, from the immeasurable pile of facts, those capable of telling a true story. There is no possibility of escaping interpretation, which involves subjectivity. The journalist follows paths marked by pitfalls. Even more so when the outcome seems, in the eyes of millions, to assume epic proportions. There, the greatest danger does not lie with the scoundrels, who lie for pay, but with the virtuous people touched by the wand of pride.
John Burns, from the New York Times, twice awarded the Pulitzer, got to the point: “In our time, it has become common for young reporters to expound as their moral code the desire to produce a better world. It’s a beautiful thing, but it can nurture a missionary complex – even arrogance – capable of stimulating a blindness to inconvenient facts, in favor of others.”
The press outlet or journalist who proclaims himself to be perfectly objective engages in self-deception – or, more likely, in an attempt to deceive others. But the incessant search for possible objectivity, the founding ideal of journalism, is mandatory. The journalist who arranges facts with the intention of generating a political effect (a “better world”) inadvertently betrays this ideal. Worse: it contributes to the professional manufacturers of lies who aim to spread disbelief in the information ecosystem.
The first antidote against missionary temptation is skepticism towards political leaders, without exception. Root out belief in redemptive leaders. Distrust ideological certainties. Compare discourses with practices. Pay attention to facts that complicate easy narratives.
The second antidote is to internalize the basic principle of democratic systems: the concept of pluralism, which rests on the celebration of diversity of ideas. The attitude requires conviction, as it contradicts the human inclination to seek confirmation of our way of thinking. My “better world” does not necessarily coincide with my neighbor’s “better world”.
In the recent past, those defeated in electoral disputes performed the ritual of congratulating the winner. Much more than an empty protocol, the gesture expressed recognition of the legitimacy of the elected ruler and, above all, respect for the will of the majority that had voted for him. The implosion of the protocol, as an effect of polarization, teaches society an anti-democratic lesson: voters located on the opposite side become traitors, “enemies of the people” or “enemies of the country”.
The has a duty to teach the democratic lesson. Without ever abandoning the scrutiny of candidates and the absolute condemnation of attempts to violate the rules of the game, it needs to respect the distinct truths of all citizens. Candidates sometimes slide into the realm of illegitimacy; the electorate, never. In the end, it is about admitting that the voter has the prerogative to make the last mistake in the attempt to create “a better world”.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
