Low quality journalism - poor democratic awareness

The mere fact how a society functions - or should function - is not in the awareness of every citizen and should never be taken for granted. How this concept is instilled into the thinking of society is manifold. It can be either encouraged from within the family, taught in schools, and from external experiences like the functioning of politics in real life, some NGO institutions, eventually augmented with experiencing foreign governments in the event one has the advantage of living or having lived abroad. As long as the 'receptors' are properly trained to anaytically and open mindedly approach certain information, the citizen will remain critically balanced - regardless of a certain dose of personal preference, needless to say. In other words, when hearing critical news, allowing a critical reflection, even in the event it deals with one owns party. And not a priori refusing to accept the critic.

Against this background, a bare necessity is also a well balanced critical investigative journalism, as this can justifiably expose certain issues that could play an important issue in society generally. Slovakia seems to struggle with all the above. I would say even "heavily struggling". While the school system has been grossly neglected ever since - only to continue on cramming facts - families have undergone years of totalitarian rule, which causes them in general to be ranging from apathy, to being unfamiliar with democratic processes. NGOs fall into a certain category, where in my view, the broad public is hardly aware of them, their message is not fully understood (too academic?) or from the historical background they are considered a bit like a dissident club. The state of present day politics is unfortunately a reflection of these facts - having said that, there are some individual exceptions of course, yet they therefore seem to be a silent, invisible minority.

The front runners to give some break through could be only the journalists, as politicians still have a certain negative stigma - regardless of their own background - journalists are the profession that could independently and objectively become a thrusting force in supplementing the desperately needed knowledge.

Given the present situation, where political leaders are far from transparent and communicate in an highly unprofessional way with the media, any critical article on politics is immediately labelled as tabloid-press, paid by the oppositions to discredit the state, etc. A populist approach, but it seems effective, as many consumers take it to be true. But it must be equally said, that most journalists hardly do anything to convince their public.

Last night, I watched TA3 - a fairly neutral CNN-rendition and, unlike the public TV channel, which functions as a state propaganda funnel (imagine the BBC meekly forwarding governments propaganda without any comments) - interviewing the Prime Minister and one opposition member. Not simultaneously, since the Prime Minister refuses to discuss anything in front of the camera with an opposition leader (wonder why?). The situation is as follows: The Prime Minister (a lawyer by profession) accuses the opposition of serious money laundering practices, stating he has hard evidence. After his monologue, he leaves and the opposition leader is given time to explain. Indeed it must be admitted, there are perhaps a few weak spots, but given the historical background (this is a case, which goes back 10 years) it has to a certain level a rational explanation.

It comes down to the fact that the Prime Minister is threatening the opposition (while holding alleged evidence of a committed crime). Why does the Prime Minister threaten and not pass it on to the State Attorney - which in itself is a crime, becoming an accomplice - only to give a performance like a crime-watch presenter in a 3rd rated network? This game goes on for a while, but what is most striking is the totally direction-less anchorman, who simply does not ask the one-million dollar question. At the end of the item, viewers are perhaps more confused than before - which follows from the fierce discussions through Facebook and other forums.

Equally disturbing was the breach of the law by policemen, when demonstrating in front of the Parliament to support a political minister. As this had nothing to do with their own working conditions (for which they indeed do have a right to demonstrate) this falls clearly and unquestionably under political agitation. None of the reporters (as far as my zapping skills could establish) from any network, have ever mentioned this principle.

The lack of this awareness not only could lead to an unlimited and grave abuse of power, in fact it already has. In an age where information, internet and television are a powerful tool, journalists should be aware of their general responsibilities. Asking critical questions is not equal to political preferences, which is often believed so. But informing public regarding inconsistencies or anomalies - highlighting why something is an anomaly - would be the least that could improve society's understanding of the whole matter. For whatever reason journalism is not doing such - is it political pressure from above? is it inexperience? is it the lack of a certain courage? or pure ignorance? - the overall awareness of people will hardly improve. This will reflect in their electoral choices. Politics will slowly move into an unwanted direction.

MS