IMPACT OF SILENCE IN JOURNALISM

Abstract

Sometimes, the omission of certain sources’ information can be the best way to combat fake news and propaganda. However, some reporters involuntary are helping liars to spread false information and ideological commentaries with their news. Is it really an obligation of journalists to report everything provide for a clearly deceiver spokesperson?

Enrique Castejon-Lara

Major studies in Mass Communication recognize noise as a perturbation of message transmission. Noise, in this case, is any external content element that affects message comprehension. So that, noise is not the same thing than silence. An omission in a news chain may be part of the meaning of the own messages.

In that sense, in certain occasions, quietness can have stronger connotation than any word that journalists can write or pronounce. For that reason, reporters have to decide when omit sources’ quotes that can contribute to create an interested confusing information environment. He or she, ethically, cannot become a diffusion agent for fake facts promoters.

However, constantly we can read stories on newspapers, hear on radio or watch on TV broadcast reports about false facts only because they were announced by “important” sources. Today journalistic principles reject that old fashion rule. Prominence of a spokesperson is not a guaranty of truth.

Therefore, the major strike that journalist can do against information manipulators and propaganda agents, is introducing a deep gap in their deceiving communication strategies no reporting their false news. Only in that way, fake-fact promoters will understand the huge strong meaning of silence in journalism. A blocked liar source has, definitely, a big impact on honest journalism.

Furtive Press as the Last Defense of News Freedom

Venezuelan case

Furtive Press as the Last Defense of News Freedom

Enrique Castejon-Lara

Abstract

The increasingly worldwide press restrictions by intolerant regimes —including those called “democratic”— are forcing journalist to use social media as new report trenches, but using prudently semantic writing strategies to evade political and illegal reprisals. That is the specific case of reporters in Venezuela.

When a government rules out constitution and laws, and does not respect citizen rights, journalistic mass media have the moral obligation of acting against it. That is the main principle stablished by Press Social Responsibility Theory (Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm, 1984). But, many times, as in the case of Venezuela, journalists do not have the possibility to accomplish efficiently that ethic command, because their lives are on risk and the media’s owners have been menaced by the regime. Usually, the unconstitutional governments, like that one in Venezuela, not only manipulate law and justice institutions, but also control printing paper, ink supplies, and broadcast frequencies. So, the “combat sceneries” for contemporary newsmen are really “asymmetric”, and deeply difficult.

That is the reason why Venezuelan reporters are increasingly using social media as alternative means for reporting true facts. At this moment, in that country, those online resources are their trenches against censorship and political reprisals. However, they even so are exposed to government officers’ aggression. In the last three years, many domestic journalists have been jailed without previous arrest warrant, and, in some occasions, their passports have been “confiscated” when traveling out the country. Similar things have been happened to some international reporters, especially those working for news agencies like Reuter, AFP, and EFE, and television networks like CNN and NTN24. Some of them have suffered Venezuelan government aggressions and censorship.

In that sense, social media are not effective enough for Venezuelan reporters, and, of course, for Venezuelan people. The arbitrary acts of the government are invaded those “freedom spaces” where citizens hope find the truth of what is really happening in their country. A regimen “mercenary army” of false users (bots) of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and other social media are virtually flooding them with fake news and psychological messages to undermine people hope to demoralize them. However, not all is good for the regime. Fortunately for freedom, opposition and so active people on line are helping journalists to spread the truth. In that case, the government strategies are not obtaining the results they want. Maybe, the Venezuelan regimen never expected a persistent and huge amount of spontaneous citizen reporters acting together to unveil their traps and propaganda.

That is today situation of press in Venezuela. Newsmen are trying to disclose true information from social media trenches, but using alternative writing methods including semantic strategies to evade regimen reprisals. They, now, are practicing a new way to report, a kind of “guerrilla” journalism that can be named “furtive press”.

Sources:

CASTEJON LARA, Enrique. Interpretative reporting. CreativeSpace (Amazon), 2015.

SIEBERT, Fred S.; PETERSON, Theodore, and SCHRAMM, Wilbur. Concepts of what the press should be and do. University of Illinois Press, 1984.

FACEBOOK PUSHES JOURNALISM BACK… AND FORWARD!

Enrique Castejón-Lara

Abstract:

Journalists have begun to realize that they not need longer use the deceptive "communicational" strategies of social media, based in “linking traps”. Facebook’s recent decision to push back the traditional journalistic media in its time line, has provoked a very important change in journalism behavior. Many news organizations are calling their reporters to resume their own traditional information techniques to avoid readers frustrations.

Facebook has compromised its own information channel value. When it set the news from traditional media —with no chronological alternation chances— behind users’ personal messages in their time line, maybe thought that such decision will be “popular” enough and will make people happier. However, that drastic change will limit audiences’ possibilities of obtaining a trusty and opportune news source when immersed in the habitual torrent of confusing information, rumors and fake facts.

In that sense, although Facebook has pushed journalism to the end of its “messages stream,” traditional news reporting is progressively capturing back a bigger interest of people for “professional information”.

So that, in this case Facebook’s decision is acting as a news catalyzer. People, confused by the awkward social media’s information flow, look traditional journalistic sites for clarifying stories.

On the other hand, Facebook also has helped journalism to realize that it really does not need the “social media’s tricks” to gain audiences. It only requires his traditional and trusty news diffusion tools.

Recently, the Inter American Press Association promoted a webinar named “Journalism beyond Facebook,” that was lectured[1] by Edgar Fonseca-Monge. Basically, Mr. Fonseca talked about the new limitations impose by that social medium against traditional journalistic sites, and how that “adverse situation” could represent for journalism a new opportunity to increase audience loyalty.

IAPA webinar established that, before Facebook’s decision, journalists only have to reinforce their traditional mechanisms and techniques to capture, with true stories, the interest of people.

In short, Facebook maybe has helped decisively journalism to go back to its original purpose, when it pushed news back in its message time line. Why? Now journalism is, again, forward!

References

Castejon-Lara, Enrique. Interpretative reporting. CreateSpace Independent Publishing (Amazon), 2015.

Fonseca, Edgar-Monge. Journalism beyond Facebook. Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), webinar February 2018.

---

[1] February 1, 2018.