(lessons of non-journalism)
Who does a pressman write to? Community, it could be said. Society could be another answer. Sorry, but all these answers are wrong. A pressman writes nothing but to himself. Articles and press reports are the pure written expression of any single journalist composing exclusively for his personal pleasure and self-glorification. Information, opinion, analysis are nothing compared to vanity press. In case you believe «where is the new?« is the question on the basis of pressmen activity, let's make clear once and for all that the press world only answer to the following question: «Magic mirror in my hand, who is the greatest in the land?» Of course the greatest one is always the pressman, not a specific pressman, but every single man holding a valid press card. Reason and truth are not out of there, but in what journalists write. So, even when the final work is incomprehensible or not properly written, it is just because of the reader. Reader is the only responsible for not having got what is on paper. Let's have a practical example, and take an article from a well known Italian news agency:
(Original version)
++ Fonti Ue, c'è ipotesi stop Schengen previsto da art.26 ++
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 21 GEN - In caso di "minaccia sistemica e persistente" alle frontiere esterne di Schengen, la Commissione Ue può proporre al Consiglio l'attivazione dell'articolo 26 del codice, che prevede la possibilità di introdurre controlli alle frontiere interne fino a due anni. Così il portavoce della Commissione Ue. A dicembre Bruxelles non aveva escluso la possibilità di farvi ricorso in futuro e secondo fonti Ue la questione si riproporrà al summit di febbraio. A maggio, la Germania - e a seguire altri Paesi - esaurirà il periodo massimo per i controlli consentito dagli articoli 23 e 25.(ANSA).
(Translated version)
++ Hypotesis of a Schengen stop in respect of article 26, said EU officials ++
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 21 JAN - In case of «systemic and persistent threat» at the external borders of the Schengen area, the European Commission can ask the Council the activation of article 26 of the code, which foresees the possibility of introducing controls at internal borders up to two year, told the spokesperson of the European Commission. In December in Brussels it wasn't excluded the possibility of a future use, and according to EU officials this matter will be on the table at the February summit. In May, for Germany - and other countries will follow soon after - will expire the maximum period of controls foresees by articles 23 and 25. (ANSA).
This work is clearly incomprehensible for common readers. The author supposed readers know the issue so well to put a technical-legal detail without saying which principle contains the article. Secondly, in reading «Schengen stop hypothesis in respect of article 26» the automatic reaction is to ask himself «article 26 of what?» The title alone is enough to show press (and pressmen) be self oriented. In the new headline are all the elements serving to show the author is good in his job: there are sources (EU officials), details (art.26) and chief world systems (Schengen), all together in a formula put there just to send the following message: «I know about great themes in a very particular manner and I have a lot of sources». Thus, there we go again: «Magic mirror in my hand, who is the greatest in the land?» Doing information properly would mean write an headline like this:
++ Towards a stop in free movement of people, said EU officials ++
Isn't this version more clear? It says basically the same concepts expressed by the Italian news agency, and it is readers oriented as journalism should be. Once written a title like that just proposed, inside the article there is always the possibility of explaining in detail and at technical level what we are talking about. Unfortunately, once again the author of the new in Italian didn't care of readers' awareness and clear explanation are not there. Writing «the European Commission can ask the Council» can mean everything and, as direct consequence, nothing. Which Council are we referring to? There are three different institutions in Europe called "Council". Furthermore, writing «told the spokesperson of the European Commission» means provide the identity of the spokesperson. Definite article "the" always pretends the subject to be specified. In case the pressman want to preserve the identity of the source must use an indefinite article («told a spokesperson of the European Commission» was indeed the right way to write). The possibilities are two: in writing as it has been done, the author made a mistake or - possibility number two - simply wanted to show he was able to talk to the official close to the dossier. In journalism, higher is the source and more more credibility has recognised to the journalist quoting the source. So, explanation number two can't be excluded.
Going on in analysing the article, we still continue to ask ourselves. «According to EU officials this matter will be on the table at the February summit». What hell of summit? Who is going to meet who? It is not clear, and in no other sentences is possible to deduce the player the pressman was referring to. Still it has to be said that according to the Schengen code is indeed foreseen the possibility of extending the borders controls up to two years time, but a specific request has to be submitted to the European Commission in order to be assessed. So there are technical times and the Schengen code freeze is neither immediate nor directly granted for the complete two year period. This technicality is not explained, and readers easily misunderstand. Of course, this happens because the article we have just analysed hasn't been written for people, it was written for personal pleasure. The author was sure to have everything clear in mind but it hadn't. Or, if he had, he was simply unable to explain because gave for granted something he (only) already was aware of. This is not journalism, this is to be a journalist. That's the difference!
No comments:
Post a Comment