There is a fragment of the biography written by Larraquy Galimberti I remember vividly (much better than I usually remember passages from other books.) The sentence is more interesting than the issuer: Galimberti Bonasso and talk. Galimberti Cogote finally asks whether it is really a journalist or a partner. Bonasso asked what is the difference. Galimberti replied: "If you're a journalist rather than a companion, I must treat you with respect and contempt with which professional journalists treatment. Are the early 70's. Militancy is a kind of mandate and agency surpassed a thousand deviations, a solution and a dignified exercise. Independent journalism does not exist as a concept, the consolidated media journalists are operators declared military power, oligarchy and Proscriptor. If not, could not practice journalism. Others exercised from the plain of the struggle: in times of persecution and censorship, journalism and activism are inextricably twinned. Prensa Latina is a body of information - or-counter- revolutionary. The best journalists, the most innovative and the most plausible, are members: Juan Gelman, Miguel Bonasso, Paco Urondo, Horacio Verbitsky, until Eliaschev Terragno and, of course, Rodolfo Walsh. The truth does not exist if not as militant stance. The word "information" is closer than ever to its etymology: shape. It gives shape to reality from journalism to change reality. Pure militancy. Journalism is also close to its roots: the partisan press lampoons and imitate that feat pamphlet of revolutionary France, that in our country was to drive as much as the Jacobin Mariano Moreno, with its much touted Gazeta (Need to clarify: Moreno was not independent). On the other hand, are the journalists of the status quo: Grondona - operator and beloved writer of Onganiato-Neustadt, far behind, Natalio Botana, fierce militant hit 30. The press reports: governments like the flip Illia, outlaws, as does The Nation, which for 18 years refers to Perón as "the deposed tyrant" and Peronism as "the deposed regime or dictatorship" What can you expect from Diario La Nacion, "the tribune of doctrine", the creation of a hegemonic political and sagacious as Bartolomé Mitre? What can you expect from Gainza Paz? What be independent? What? What class interests? What business? From your own power? In the 70 things were very clear: either you were on one side or the other was. There was no independent imaginary stalls where, as a watchman, the reporter narrated reality without engaging in the mud of the facts.
The concept of "independent journalism" should be something quite new in history. I do not know how or when, someone thought that such nonsense could exist. I think in our country reached its peak in the extent to which, on the one hand, it is automatically demonized and even criminalized politics, and on the other hand, is built the idea that economic groups exerted their control and power without question, above all politics, without ever confronted with this, mastering, treating it as a subject helpful. The media were independent to the extent that they had no ties to political power. What is obviated, were their natural links with economic power, real power de facto superior. If economic groups were unquestionable and untouchable, and much more, invisible questioning what could have been to the media expressing their interests? Just had to keep the forms: a respect for certain rules of democracy and a guarantee of space and legitimacy for politics. The concept Magnetta at its best: use to politicians while they serve, then do them a cookie (in this they were experts) and discard. Basic rule for perennially holding real power: creating opportunities for subordinates to simulate alternating and even confrontation.
That was - and is "independent journalism: the mask with the real and immovable power of corporations down to the spaces of power ratings. It's called, humbly, fourth estate, when in fact a higher power tentacle impostada coming up with the political struggle. Because, basically, corporate power, always keep a wary regarding the policy, even when you create completely dominated. And why are not lacking. Another
are journalists. Those who seem to step on them the finger every time they are being compared or equated with militants. Majul makes a difference: on independent journalism by another militant journalism. We want to convince people that he belongs to the first group. Should first be convinced that this is a journalist, but accepted that it should be recalled that the salary paid Majul Manzano, De Narvaez and Vila. These are the patrons altruistic for the sake of truth and intelligence, subsidize the exercise of independent journalism, pure and immaculate, Luis Majul. Noisy. In water on all sides. It is not worth dealing with Makhoul. Much less than Morales Solá, a murderer creeping type and Bussi, or Grondona, as pompous linguist milico held power through blood and fire, not so many big mouths who want to convince us of his honesty and lucidity of his reasoning incomprehensible Independent: Leuco, Tenenbaum, Eliaschev, Lanata, Santillan.
What really worries me is that others are afraid to wear the shirt where they belong: they are all journalists, activists, from one cause or another. Of democracy or of corporations. You can weigh in one's shirt, but already have in place. It amazes me to hear the panelists Gvirtz declaring his discomfort with the moniker "Journalist activist." Is it because, in this time of rebuilding and restoration of political and financial worth and overcome, they still carry some remnant of cultural defeat. Perhaps have a very low concept of the militant, who imagine themselves as a kind of automat assent, as a follower and true repeater uncritical imposed upper echelons. It may be that they see militancy as a form of discipline. Not that. At least not in these times: the current militant, particularly the militant national and popular field, is an activist who understands quite well that goes. Because it becomes militant independence despises sterile by individualism, by irrelevant, for trivial, for onfalocéntrica. That assumes the need to integrate into the commons and to support upper echelons, because they represent what: it is not official because it is convenient for you or for the mere fact of being where the power lies. It is supported by the government if it wants to be supportive of the government. Does not repeat what the government says, if the government understands that he repeats almost always the ever-so said or what he now feels and thinks. If we accept this, there is nothing in these times that militants in the plains or in the media. You're right Sandra Russo. Others who are wrong are afraid of qualifying. Concede at least this: Majul must be convinced of what he says. Without doubt or Grondona Morales Solá are. If in the future cease to be in agreement with what we now think, should be processed for retirement (which Aguinis, foresight, and did, becoming a privileged retirement from 87 years for exercising the public only 7 months)
The return of militant journalism is a positive sign of the times. Hopefully someday finish the verse of independence. That everyone recognizes from where they speak, they defend interests, that t play. That day, we will have retraced a zoncera more.
0 comments:
Post a Comment