Macron’s proposal on the “quality seal” reignites the debate on press freedom: between fears of political control, questionable fact-checking and internal self-censorship, who really decides what constitutes reliable information?
Macron wants information with a stamp. I don’t know if the idea envisages a sort of Michelin of the press, with one, two or three pens to highlight quality newspapers (none for those deemed unreliable), but the proposal has already sparked a chorus of protests. The so-called right-wing newspapers have risen against the project, because they fear that it is an attempt to gag them and delegitimize those who criticize the president or the government. It is true that the French president was quick to explain that “the quality seal” should be granted by the journalists themselves and not by a third-party authority linked to the Elysée or the executive, but there is the suspicion that he wants to somehow put information under control, imposing a mainstream vision.
Who decides what is reliable?
Based on what criteria is it established that a newspaper is more reliable than others? Those who criticize impositions green or has doubts about the company’s strategy EU Is he entitled to the stamp in Ukraine or does he risk being classified among the fake news newspapers? In practice, who can have the right and legitimacy to distinguish good media from bad ones? Isn’t there a risk of standardizing the press, forcing it into the confines of political correctness? In France it is being discussed heatedly and more than one accuses the Elysée of wanting “a liberticidal drift”.
And in Italy? A different but pervasive control
And in Italy? Here there is no quality label, or at least no one has proposed one, but the journalists are as if they had it. In fact, those who are registered with theOrder (public body that regulates the profession but on which influencers and other subjects who provide information do not depend) is required to respect a series of ethical rules and also to attend training courses, where the mainstream thinking. Not only that: a series of sites claim the right to establish what is true from what is not, carrying out a selection based on very questionable criteria even for some social media such as Meta.
The issue of immigration and fact-checking
For example, if someone writes that immigration has a strong impact on the increase in crime, the self-appointed fact checker criticizes the journalist by explaining that the majority of thefts and violence are committed by Italians, while keeping quiet about the fact that foreigners represent little more than 9 percent of the population, but the crimes attributed to them in certain cases are close to 40 percent.
A monitored and often self-censored category
In short, although we do not have a presidential stamp, we are a highly monitored category, which is now also forced to measure our words, because when it comes to foreigners, talking about migrants or illegal immigrants can be judged discriminatory and in fact in the training courses sponsored by the Order they teach the use of more neutral terms. However, at the same time, the category to which I belong wages great battles in the name of freedom of the presswithout realizing that the censors are often not external, but internal, in the sense that the first to gag themselves, hiding the news, are the reporters themselves.
The precedent of Covid
Remember the Covid? It was not only Senator Mario Monti who called for a kind of martial law that would subject the press to control, but the journalists themselves gave up doing their job to the fullest. While foreigners wondered whether it was right to limit people’s freedom based on the number of vaccinations, here the application of the Green passes even to work, violating a right enshrined in the first article of the Constitution.
Who certifies the news?
Some might believe that certifying news is the task of journalists, who have an ethical obligation to verify sources. Right, but this function is delegated to the writer and, if anything, to his director, who by law is always responsible, both civilly and criminally. It cannot be delegated to others, or to groups of journalists as Macron would like: first of all because our category is not neutral, but hangs to the leftas certified years ago by a survey published by Information problemsa magazine published by the Mill.
The judgment must remain with the readers
And then let’s be honest: it is not the duty of the State, of a government or of a public body like the Order to deal with what the newspapers write. The only ones who can judge the quality of what is published are the readers. Who cannot be considered, at the pleasure of the legislator, or the official, stupid and in need of protection. If they are able to vote, they will also be able to read and choose the newspaper they want, without any quality seal.
A lesson from the past
Once upon a time the Church claimed to put theimprimatur on the title page of each book. And the ecclesiastical authorities sent unauthorized books to the stake. Do we want to go back to that period?
