The assassination attempt perpetrated against Donald Trump a few hours ago deserves some reflections, worded with some caution.<\/p>\n
The first has to do with Trump's unusual reaction<\/strong>. The 45th president of the United States is 78 years old, he is a man of advanced age but he has had a surprising and admirable response to this crime: raising his fist in victory, a gesture before which Those attending his rally, until then bewildered and scared by what had happened, began to shout \"USA, USA.\"<\/p>\n I had and still have reluctance in relation to Trump, but I recognize that this way of dealing with an attack is admirable<\/strong> and will surely give him many votes in the next presidential elections, because he has demonstrated a strength that is especially surprising in someone his age<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Secondly, a part of traditional journalism has once again taken advantage of the opportunity to throw its prestige overboard<\/strong>. I am referring, for example, to the media that described what happened as an \"apparent\" attack<\/strong>, even more than an hour after the shooting occurred. I don't remember having read that adjective in the face of other facts as clear as those of this attack<\/strong>, which could have been seen live, since the rally was being broadcast on YouTube.<\/p>\n Once again, the news circulated on Twitter very quickly, leaving many traditional media with a changed pace<\/strong>. Once again, in the face of events like this, it is clear that a new journalism has emerged and traditional journalism has not yet adapted to this new reality. However, we must keep in mind that Twitter is not a panacea either. Last night, trying to find information about the alleged shooter, I read messages that gave up to four different names as if they were true, without citing any source<\/strong>. The most regrettable case has been the information that presented an Italian journalist as if he were the shooter<\/a>, without indicating sources or making any verification. These situations are repeated very frequently and only serve to encourage those who seek to censor social networks outside of democratic procedures.<\/p>\n There is also truly heroic journalism: I am referring, for example, to the photographers who continued doing their work<\/strong> yesterday at the rally after the attack, when it was not yet known whether the shooter had been killed or if there were more attackers. Thanks to these journalists we have today the excellent photos that we are seeing at this time.<\/strong> Let us never forget that the work done by people like these professionals is often poorly paid and consumes many more hours than other more comfortable professions. We must criticize bad journalism, yes, but let's not stop recognizing the good one.<\/strong> It deserves it.<\/p>\n Finally, and despite the criticism they always receive in situations like this, I want to recognize the great work of the agents of the US Secret Service and other police forces<\/strong>. This work is always measured by the failures to nullify possible threats, but often these criticisms do not take into account that thanks to the work of these police officers there are many threats that are nullified and from which we often do not reach to have knowledge<\/strong>. The work of these professionals is like that of soccer goalkeepers: some only remember them when they fail and do not take into account all the goals they have saved.<\/p>\n