With the very Christian and be an objective reference, Channel 13 has just delivered a memorable piece of inexplicable concept of democratic press. "How did they live Pinochet's death two women politically opposed? "in the program On everyone's lips, he wanted to introduce the former dictator from two perspectives: that of a supporter of Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet another. With this, our Catholic channel intended to base its impartiality, objectivity and attachment to what is supposed to be a quality press showing two contrasting looks on the political figure of ex-dictator Pinochet, who finally opened the possibility of a reunion.
What Channel 13 has not understood and not understood as never remains as erratic and diffuse editorial is that a democratic press is not one that presents the opposing views supposed objectivity of a certain reality. Or perhaps we should discuss whether or not the sun rises in the west just because someone says so? A democratic press is one that is defined as such, among other things because there is no democratic press: this is called propaganda.
for a real democratic press the figure of Pinochet and his government can not simply portrayed as a debate on the positive side of the dictatorship versus the negative side. Because the debate of whether a dictatorial government is good or bad is not debate: any dictatorship is bad. Debating whether the government of Allende was good or bad, I bet it was bad, but a democratic press is unable to provide the same quality of debate to a dictatorship. Because if so one would expect to see a debate "objective" about whether the government of Hitler was good or bad. Expect them to give him minutes of screen to all those who deny the Holocaust and Nazi militarism defend as an effective national policy recontrucción.
(Originally published in the blog 15/12/2006 Ne-Yo)
0 comments:
Post a Comment