The Herald has lived difficult yet interesting times
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
With all the technological changes and the crisis in the industry, some might venture to say that, as with the traditional media, journalists are an endangered species. On the other hand, there are those who envision an unprecedented age of informational democracy on a digital basis with an accompanying exponential multiplication of audiences and sources.
For over a decade there has been a pronounced dispersion in the routine of gathering information. Audiences and readerships have scattered in the search for free content on the Web, where it is available in abundance although all too often it is banal or directly misinformation. That is why the pessimists believe that the change is irreversible or that the profession will have to transform itself so much as to become unrecognizable. And even the optimists admit to having no clear business model to make the presumed multiplicity of voices sustainable.
It is no accident that in many countries this crisis overlaps with the role of the media coming into question. In Latin America this has given birth to a process in which press organizations stop merely “informing” about what is going on to occupy centre-stage. The populist or leftist governments, emerging from political débacles, have tended to identify the traditional media as their main adversary. A classic “the chicken or the egg” question, but what is clear is that the big communication empires of the continent have taken on the challenge wholeheartedly. There’s been a bit of everything. From model legislative reforms to the deviations of authoritarian governments — from the abusive dominance of business groups to outlets which have been unable to resist the onslaught and have folded.
Whatever the case, the media have seen both its economic and symbolic capital eroded — businesses have been lost with drastically reduced profit margins while protagonism has cost some outlets their status as untouchable and impartial judges of the fray.
The shockwaves have been felt worldwide. Newspapers in some of the major capitals of the world which were pioneers until a few years ago have closed down and public broadcasting has reduced its scope. Many leftist media have been unable to take advantage of what might be defined as a sectorial crisis of capitalism but instead are losing their own viability. Conservative newspapers are faring no better.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge and the political situation in Latin America seems to have changed completely, whether along democratic or anti-democratic lines or by the prolongation of devastating conflicts. The new market-friendly governments are dedicating themselves to healing wounds in the immediate term. The corporations are not only regaining ground but see unlimited horizons stretching out ahead of them.
A crossroad lies ahead. On the one hand, the populist governments, despite their declamations, have not succeeded in creating more diverse and sustainable media markets. Logically enough, the more politically minded public media have changed their party loyalties in accordance with presidential rotations. There still remain standing some private conglomerates which, in some cases, have shown themselves not to have the slightest trace of journalistic vocation, given that they were merely artificial creations formed to rake in state advertising or to defend certain officials.
On the other hand, the big corporations have launched forth to capture business niches under the protection of the new governments. To their media market domination they can add telecommunications networks which provide them with the bulk of their profits. Press content, satellites and fibre optic infrastructure alike are thus concentrated into the same hands, through which freedom of expression is restricted or even jeopardized. A striking paradox in the “era of information.”
All this has happened and the Herald, now 140 years old, has lived to tell the tale.
The last few years have not been easy, but it is nothing to complain about since it increases the levels of adrenaline, making our job more attractive. There were those who aspired to mobilizing the media against “big business.” In the name of presumed “epic” struggles, it was supposed that journalists would abandon their principles and stay mute in the face of political inconsistency, institutional outrages and systematic corruption.
But the other side also demanded unconditional loyalty. Like generals holding a roll call of their troops in the midst of battle, they sought to demonize certain governments in a sly defence of traditional sectors. Only one-way criticism was acceptable. No mercy for the enemy while camouflaging friends. The loss of any critical notion was so great that some performers who had co-existed comfortably with dictatorship suddenly found themselves imbued with a libertarian frenzy which denounced as authoritarian any measure which affected them.
A newspaper owes everything to its readers. In the case of the Herald, the English-speaking population of old and new immigrants, who want to see themselves reflected in these pages in all their diversity; the human rights movement which insists on respect for its cause; the diplomatic community which aspires to read balanced news and sound opinions; overseas readers who trust in an honest “translation” of Argentine reality; teachers and pupils of English who are seeking well-written and agreeable reading-matter. And many more, who makes us feel optimistic about our future. To all of you, we apologize for our mistakes. And we thank all of you for your trust.
@sebalacunza