End of the press consortium and the need for journalism without militancy

The announcement of the end of the self-titled “press consortium”, formed by major radio and TV stations and some of the largest newspapers in Brazil at the beginning of the pandemic to contest official figures from the Ministry of Health, may have gone unnoticed. But we finally have good news in 2023.

This Monday (30) the Second Opinion program uses information brought by the vehicles that formed the so-called “press consortium to analyze, more broadly, the urgent need to rescue good journalism, freedom of expression and the press.

“Press Consortium”

Over the nearly three years in which some of the largest and oldest media outlets in the country worked together, the new way of doing journalism in these companies became clear to the public.

From the repetition of headlines to the curiously equal prominence given to certain news, from the misrepresentation to the omission of facts, suddenly, there no longer seemed to be competition or even a search for the scoop, which has always driven true journalism.

Narratives and more narratives were built, not only about the facts of the pandemic, but especially about political facts. With the exaggerated use of adjectives (the same adjectives, in all vehicles of the consortium), there was a unified effort to dehumanize people and overthrow a government.

Even the silence of this press in the face of repeated attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of the press itself, by a Judiciary equipped during the years of PT governments, seemed agreed.

The consortium did not complain about censorship, it applauded the persecution of anyone who did not follow the system’s guidelines or dared to question the maneuvers to restore political rights to a convicted criminal.

Will we have real journalism back?

With the end of the pandemic and the change of government, it seems that all the objectives of the press consortium were achieved and there would no longer be a need for them to continue adopting exactly the same guidelines and words, but many doubts remain in the air.

Would it be the end of combined headlines, repetitive titles, adjectives in journalism, the omission or decontextualization of facts, the construction of narratives?

Or would the end of the consortium be just a sign of an ideological split between media outlets that came together to overthrow a government, forgot about the audience, got lost along the way and now need to find their compass again? Are there hopes?

What is the importance of freedom of the press, free competition between vehicles and the incessant search for the truth, that is, independent journalism? Who wins and who loses with newsroom militancy?

To watch the debate, click on play on the image that illustrates the page. Then leave your reaction to the content and a comment.