The Iván Espinosa de los Monteros's announcement that he is leaving politics has had a curious effect on many media outlets.
To begin with, suddenly some media seem to have found out that Vox exists, because prior to that news, they rarely disseminated the numerous initiatives that Vox has carried out on the most important issues. varied, and when they have done so, it has often been to manipulate them. Likewise, some have discovered that there are different sensitivities in Vox (normal for any party of a certain size) and that where yesterday everyone was dangerous ultra-rightists, now it turns out that there were liberals and conservatives, a soft line and a hard line, and so on. It is a way of recognizing that they were lying like knaves when labeling Vox as they have been doing.
But what is most striking about the explosion of information about Vox since yesterday is the quality of that news. A wide variety of information is being published about Iván's announcement, with headlines from different media outlets that contradict each other and even contradict what was announced by the Vox deputy, stating who leaves the party when he clearly said that he will remain a member.
If you look closely, many of this information has no recognizable source. Some of them are statements that the medium publishes just because, without explaining where the information comes from. Others, directly, appeal to anonymous sources and, therefore, the audience cannot verify in any way. Four years ago I have already alerted here about the abuse of anonymous sources, a type of source that in political journalism has spread to attack people or organizations with rumors or falsehoods that do not coincide with the editorial line of the media. This is a real cancer for journalism.
For many years, at Counting Stars I have made it a rule not to publish information from anonymous sources. That often means leaving unpublished information that seems interesting, but that my readers won't be able to verify. I have the habit of offering Counting Stars readers access to information sources whenever possible, and this implies that if someone has said something, the logical thing to do is to indicate who said it. This, in addition, is a way to prevent them from manipulating me and from trying to manipulate those of you who read me. Because that is precisely what usually happens when a rumor or anonymous information is published.
What I am saying about the media is also applicable to Twitter accounts or Telegram channels that publish fabulous and exclusive information without ever indicating its source, without explaining who provided this information or where it came from. or what. I am convinced that Counting Stars would have a much larger audience if it did the same thing, just like the Internet media and communicators who abuse anonymous sources when publishing information, but as I have already said in Sometimes, I look for a critical and demanding audience, who knows how to examine the quality of information and does not allow themselves to be manipulated. And that implies being demanding with myself when publishing.
If Counting Stars was dedicated to publishing rumors, this website would be no better than a group of gossips on the stairs of a building. It is sad that some media adopt this type of practice, but it is the result of a form of journalism that gives priority to the easy "click" over rigor when it comes to reporting . Later some will come lamenting the crisis of journalism, while contributing to discredit this profession so necessary in a democracy. In short: when you read a piece of news, always look for where it came from. If the data does not appear, it is a bad sign.
Photo: Hans Neleman.
Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email:Click here to subscribe