The future of journalism is not based on truth

With all the technological tools available today, anyone can instantly become a journalist. The problem arises when the news is a series of half-truths or outright lies and is then disseminated as fact.

One of the things that really bothers me is when I see stories being passed around like fact simply because it happens to coincide with the beliefs of the person spreading the story. It gets even worse when licensed journalists, some of whom I know, start spreading these stories without first checking the facts.

As a journalist myself, I try to take an impartial view of everything I read although that is not always easy to do. Still, I always attempt to confirm the veracity of a story before I post it on social networking sites. And for someone with limited resources, checking a story is as simple as googling it to see if major news media are reporting it.

Yesterday, for example, someone I know posted a story that claims the new Penal Code will penalize any journalist reporting on government corruption. Naturally, this immediately raised flags as I am indirectly affected, so I checked the story. This Google search shows the results. The first 13 results display the exact same story verbatim. But guess what? All these websites are blogs or forums, and no major digital newspaper or TV news site carried the story. Doesn't it stand to reason that this news item would appear on ALL news media sites if this piece of legislation has the ability to affect the livelihood of news reporters? Wouldn't there have been a public outrage at the mere suggestion of a gag on press freedom? Well none of these things happened, and that led me to believe the story was a fabrication by someone trying to discredit the current administration for his or her own personal gain, or simply because it suited his or her own political agenda.

Today, another story appeared on how Amina, a Tunisian member of FEMEN, the Ukrainian feminist organization known for their topless protests, had been condemned to lashings and death by stoning for posing topless on Facebook as a protest against the second class status of women in Tunisia. The news site, Vanguardia, appears to be a legitimate Mexican news site. Personally, I have little to no knowledge of Mexican news media sites to determine its trustworthiness.

To be fair, the death sentence was not issued by the government or any of its judicial institutions. It was a Fatwa issued by Adel Amni, cleric and president of the Moderate Association for Awareness and Reform, a conservative, back-to-basics Islamic organization; nothing moderate there. Again, I don't know much about Tunisian politics other than Sharia law was supposed to have been abolished in 1956. However, that said, it is also true that since the Arab Spring, Tunisia has been trying to find a balance between democracy and traditional Islamic values.

The question, then, becomes one of legality versus perceived legality. Is the Fatwa (religious edict) legally binding? Not under current Tunisian law. Is it seen to be morally binding by a minority group, and thus, perceived as legal? To the conservatives it might be even though it has no legal executive standing. That does not mean that this edict does not represent a real threat to Amina's life.

What I object to in this instance is the way the Vanguardia article was worded. The reader is led to believe that this death sentence is a done deal, that Amina's sentence was tacitly approved by the government and that it will be carried out in short order. We don't know that; no government spokesperson has confirmed (or denied) the sentence. We only know that a fundamentalist cleric has issued a fatwa.

In the first case, I find it reprehensible and irresponsible to disseminate stories based on hearsay with no facts to back up the claim. The mere fact that it conforms to one's political beliefs is not sufficient reason to spread falsities. Isn't there a law against prevarication and defamation? Shouldn't journalists be held to the same standard?

In the second case, the issue is subtler but just as misleading. Should we condemn what's happening to Amina? Absolutely. But we must also get the facts straight. Her death sentence was issued by an Islamic fundamentalist cleric who believes we live in the 7th century. The Tunisian government, as far as we know, is not party to this verdict in any way, shape or form. That has to be made clear unless the contrary is proven.

The Internet is inundated with all kinds of stories and factoids, some of them true, others ironic, sarcastic or just plain humorous meant to entertain. Due to the ease with which we are able to disseminate news stories, now more than ever, we should take extra care to verify the facts we purport to uphold as truth.

This is not to say that all journalists are liars; on the contrary, most are conscientious reporters that seek only to shed light on the truth. And it is precisely for these journalists that it behooves us to uphold the integrity of the profession rather than besmirch it with amateurism.


  

  

  

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum

One year on and Europe is no closer to feeling the economic rebound it so sorely needs. Austerity was sold as the only way forward, but now, it seems, the medicine is too harsh a pill to swallow and the people just won't put up with it anymore.

A funny thing happened...
The Euro. On paper it sounded great: a single, pan-European monetary unit that would foster unification and simplify financial transactions across borders. Powered by Germany's economic juggernaut and under the control of the European Central Bank, prosperity and economic parity were promised to all members big and small. And so it was. Since its launch in 2002, the Euro zone has prospered and grown despite some mismanagement and cultural differences.

But that's the great thing, or not, about prosperity - all the fine print goes unnoticed and is left unread as long as pockets have money and there's plenty of food on the table. However, the true test of a good administration is not how well things are run during a period of growth, but rather how astutely it can pull itself out of a severe economic downturn, the operative word being astutely. And that's the funny part because you just know that, sooner or later, the fine print that was left unread...it's going to come back and bite someone in the ass - you!

On the way...
The Euro bus on the road to economic nirvana hit a major speed bump festooned with spike chains and bollards. That was in 2008 and the economic world went topsy-turvy. Certain European countries found themselves overextended and insolvent. In order to stave off the breakup of the Union and its currency, the bigwigs stepped in with edicts on how Club Med had to handle the situation. Every solution to this economic crisis has relied on the ages old maxim that cutting cost directly affects the bottom line. At the same time, in order to improve the country's financial position, revenues would have to be increased by raising taxes. The implementation of these two measures would hasten recovery. At least, that was the theory. But really, Germany and the ECB were not too concerned with the fate of Southern Europe; they just wanted to get paid so that they could continue vacationing on Club Med's beaches!

As a business major, I'll be the first one to attest that this model is faultless; it's time tested and proven when conditions permit these kinds of measures. However, as it turned out, legislators and financial managers of creditor nations were not paying close attention to conditions on the ground. Their dictates were made behind closed door meetings while sipping Louis XIII and smoking Cohibas very far removed from the trenches. They simply told debtor nations that these measures had to be implemented if they had any hope of obtaining additional financing. And like constipated little puppies, the Med set were made to swallow a foul tasting laxative.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - you cannot implement extreme austerity measures when a country is running at 25% unemployment, especially in Europe which is highly socialized and subsidized. It simply won't work. It gets even worse in Southern Europe because unlike their northern industrialized cousins, Mediterranean nations are essentially agricultural based, meaning the corporate fabric of these countries is largely made up of small businesses. In other words, these businesses - hairdressers, pharmacies, butchers, cafes, green grocers, bookstores and such - have been passed on from one generation to the next and are marginal at best. So, if on top of a declining market, taxes are raised, many of these mom and pop stores will have no option but to layoff their employees in order to survive. And in Europe that's a double-edged sword. Not only does the government lose the worker's social security contribution as a result of the layoff, it now has to pay unemployment benefits to that worker. It's a snowball effect - workers are laid off decreasing consumer demand, which forces production to layoff more workers to minimize over supply.

Social security revenue is everything in Europe. It pays for health care, pensions and unemployment. It is the tripod that holds the system together; it is the one government institution that cannot fail. However, in Spain at least, it has to a certain extent. Universal health is no longer guaranteed, pensions have been cut despite inflationary pressures and unemployment benefits have been reduced.

To the forum
Elections. After a year of extreme austerity measures, Italians went to the polls last week. It was a foregone conclusion that Mario Monti would be elected to the highest post to continue the reforms he had started. Besides, he was the candidate of choice and obedient pet dog of the Euro bigwigs. Status quo maintained. At least, that was the script. But surprise, surprise! Not only did Monti not win, he didn't even place or show. He came in dead last with only marginal support. And the Oscar goes to (drum roll, please)...Beppe Grillo, an antiestablishment comedian. He has assailed Italian politics and European meddling with quick one-liners. The established European powers see him as a joke, one they might have to deal with however distasteful they find it. And right now they don't know what to make of it. But the Italian people have spoken and their voice is loud and clear: We're not gonna take it. No, we ain't gonna take it, we're not gonna take it anymore. Thank you, Twisted Sister!

Given the reality that the EU may actually have to deal with Grillo, who could very well tell the Germans and the ECB to stick austerity up their assterity, the IMF is now bactracking, hinting they may have been wrong in their assessment. Now they're backtracking? Is this what's known as being proactive?  Aren't the head honchos over at the IMF and ECB supposed to be the best economic minds in the world?

I'm not an economist. In fact, I'm pretty much useless when it comes to finances - I can't even balance my checkbook. But even I had better sense than the Idiots Musing Follow-through strategies. I said it here several months back. Even then I said austerity measures would produce the opposite results of those expected. When there's so much unemployment, there's only one way out: create employment, even if it means eschewing all the tenets you were made to believe, ingest and digest. If you were always taught to raise taxes, do the opposite, decrease taxes. Make the country attractive to foreign and local investment that can generate jobs. Do away with bureaucratic red tape and make it easy to set up shop. If you were always taught to cut costs, fine. Cut costs but don't cut spending. Sounds contradictory? Not really. You can cut costs by eliminating administrative redundancies and increasing production efficiency. Continue advertising. Remember this, when all your competitors are reducing advertising and promotions because that's how it's always been done, the market will be wide open to those companies who can maintain brand awareness among customers.

I realize that all this is easier said than done and that many more factors are involved in macro managing a country. The point is this: policy makers who do not come out of their comfort zone can never be proactive.  

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum is a 1966 comedy movie starring Zero Mostel, Phil Silvers and Buster Keaton based on the Broadway musical.