The press offices of institutions, international organizations, have become increasingly powerful and it seems that the strategy is paying off. Laws and regulations impose restrictions or offer some freedoms regarding the media regardless of segment (written press, visual audio, online). Although the freedom of expression has undergone several changes globally so that only the title still leads you to think of freedom.
Journalists, journalists, editors, reporters, correspondents, staff and editors or directors have undergone different transformations in this job of freedom of expression. Public opinion very slippery due to the interest in politics and the standard of living and survival was a very difficult to inform and satisfied segment. The political launch, financial successes, scandals and other topics have seriously divided our guild colleagues so that journalists specialized on different topics and fields have appeared.
The media has raised mere people to the status of gods and adulations. Countless stars and from other categories have sought the path of success with the media at arm’s length, some through the notoriety of the facts, others through discoveries and contributions to humanity.
But the biggest beneficiaries, however, were on the one hand politics and financiers followed by scandalous topics of corruption and global criticism. On the other hand, the public, readers and institutions perceived differently the benefits of information and advertising. If for readers they look quickly, the institutions and have almost developed their own policies and communication structures .
The law on free access, accreditations to different institutions or communications have put a condition in relation to the media to its detriment in several respects,
The enumeration can be subjective but objectively viewed , institutions have infinite budget compared to the average that must self-finance. Institutions operate by law and have many strengths compared to the media, totally uncovered which does not have much left to cover.
The fact that the media develops talk sours with guests, even the undersigned through editorials we seek to offer answers or debate … institutions sometimes have the advantage of communication. The law provides for information to be published so that anyone can inform and the information becomes authorized,of the without distortions or interpretations. The media hunts the institutional news to the door because there’s all the closes- there’s no back door but unathesion.
The hard times of the average began a few years ago and partially recognized. For the giants of the media are difficult times because everyone depends on the nursery of future politicians who would give them something back, the bars are no longer easily won see the American example in the case of Trump ….media vs. president . It is the first time in the history of a country where first-rate journalism has been openated by a name, a president and his family. Trump is a case that can be seriously considered but there is a risk of partisan interpretation and that is not the idea of the material.
In poor countries, the average is extremely rudimentary almost non-existent due to illiteracy and lack of resources. Locally the print media and the audiovisual go to two ends so as not to disappear i.e. with online editions . Managerially, journalists appear- entrepreneurs who negotiate their reputation and expertise individually with contractors (political, institutional, audiovisual) in order to financial prosperity and a reputation agreed by those mentioned.
What happens to those who have lost the trend? Nostalgia of beautiful times when the morning newspapers were full of news and everyone made sure not to appear on the front page as a villain. For a long time the journalists were beloved and hated characters at the same time, assassinations and hostage-takings have seen a trend to the point where it has been declared the most dangerous profession.
Back to institutions and authorities or organizations. Nothing in the increase of the average is known and lived but from the decline of the average yes, it lives institutionally. Suddenly it is no longer answered and informs itself only where the profession seeks to maintain an interest like “blow in the fire not to go out”. Criticized institutions or professions have gathered the lines to use the law and give the impression that it is at the disposal and in the service of the citizen . Starting from this premise Media misunderstood the movement that it is not all to ask only questions to which the answer can be of the form , “your petition is not subject to the law…”
Compared to the authorities and institutions or organizations, the media is not found in the continuation of the powers mentioned (legislative, executive and judicial) but in an article in the Constitution on freedom of expression gradually diluted by laws and decisions, orders, guides and the list goes on.
A law on status, regulations necessary for functioning, a code of ethics … all these shortcomings make the notion of media vulnerable to institutions and authorities. These situations poison good faith, professionalism or by a little luck lead to a cooperation with fantastic results (joint projects of development and education of society, campaigns against corruption, conscience, etc.). A possible bona fide partnership media institutions would have the results of a marriage… at the ball or at the hospital.
The material does not want an offense against those quoted, observe vulnerabilities without positioning themselves partisanly in one camp or another.
Editor in Chief