Comment is free, but the facts are sacred

by Galkin Daniil





There will never be a moment in time when people are not interested in the media, whether it be for news, entertainment or education. Naturally, this gives print, radio, TV and Internet journalism important functions, such as influencing public opinion, socialization, as well as setting the agenda and following the pillars of society and the state.


Just as doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, so any journalist who calls himself a professional must return to this quote from the famous article "A Hundred Years" in the Manchester Guardian: “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred”. I believe that the state and the media should live parallel to each other, where the state reads and studies the media in order to fully understand the reaction of society to its activities and does not take control of the media in order to influence society with its propaganda and its values. 


As a journalist, I understand why the state wants to control the media. After all, this is such a wonderful tool - you can not only broadcast your ideas to the people, but also pay a newspaper or a television channel to carry these ideas to the masses, praising them and showing an ordinary person the illusion of people's agreement with everything that happens in the country.


In my opinion, this is wrong and is against the principles of journalism - to be unbiased despite everything, to present facts despite one's opinions and beliefs. Relations between the media and the state should be as close as possible to the liberal model, presented in the Hallin & Mancini book “Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics''. In the era of globalization and increasing relations between states with each other, including cultural and commercial ones, the media should not represent the interests of the state - it should represent the interests of the people, and the interests of each person, and not just the inhabitants of their state.


In Russia, because of governmental control and censorship, journalists are afraid to write not only about their opinion, but also about confirmed facts that denigrate the government. According to the Levada Center, published in 2021, every fourth journalist (more than 25% of respondents) spoke about the problem of professional burnout and self-censorship. Respondents associated this with the fact that in many situations they are afraid to say and write what they think.


In 1985, the USSR adopted the policy of glasnost or glasnost - the removal of censorship regulations created during and after the Stalinist regime. Up to this point, the media tried to look for loopholes to criticize the Soviet regime, celebrate freedom of speech and still receive subsidies from the state, now the freedom of the market and speech has become a new reality that has burst the bubble of public silence.

Then people were able to say what they really thought, and for the state, which suffered from the Iron Curtain and censorship, it became clear that people did not really think the same thing that Soviet newspapers wrote - they were unhappy with the lack of democracy, free market and free media. Glasnost became the main battering ram that destroyed the idealistic regime, which tried to silence its own inhabitants.


Today, it is more apparent than ever - the government should stand aside and let the mass media do its job as professionally as they can.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to the silent ball

Is silence really that golden?