Should “morning” disappear? | Article

Antonio Salgado Borge

This question, asked by Carmen Aristegui Denise Dresser last week on Aristegui en Vivo, has reopened an intense and necessary debate about the future of one of the emblems of the Fourth Transformation. And the fact is that for this scientist, the solution to the problem of degradation “should be at the end of the morning.”

In response to eliminative approaches such as Denise Dresser’s, three main defensive strategies have been developed. In this article, I argue that they all have serious flaws. However, I also suggest that from these strategies, we can save some elements that will allow us to create a stronger defense in the morning.

Strategy 1: dismiss the question

The first is to reject the question posed by Carmen Aristegui; that is, in denying the degradation of rational public debate in Mexico.

In this sense, Violeta Vázquez-Rojas Maldonado has suggested that there is no polarization, understood as the fact that “the most prominent political positions divide the population into two equal parts” since “a comfortable majority supports the Obradorist project”.

For this analyst, the restriction of discussion within this “free majority” and, therefore, the exclusion of discussion by those who do not belong to it, does not mean the degradation of public debate: “It’s not that we don’t want to discuss anymore, it’s that we it is no longer interesting to argue with them… most of the debate takes place among those who are convinced of the project, who in their interaction understand that they do not necessarily think in the same way.

You may be interested > AMLO criticizes Esquivel for his book on Cienfuegos

One problem with this line of defense is that it is a mistake to assume that political polarization necessarily implies a symmetrical division of a group into two poles. In fact, the symmetry or asymmetry of the dimensions of these spheres or poles is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a society is polarized; Polarization is a phenomenon consisting in the division of the entire population of the country into two radically antagonistic spheres: “us” and “they”. The notion that disputes between members of one realm that ignore members of another realm is healthy suggests a polarization that is being denied. How to discuss such important events as the purchase of Iberdrola factories or the role of arbiter in the elections in Mexico, if the most significant part of the disagreement is omitted?

One might object that this is not necessarily negative; that this state of affairs excludes some of those who have defended the status quo for years. But it must be answered that, even if one considers them wrong, the golden rule for reconciling contending arguments is that they invoke falsifiable states of affairs and respect the principles of reason; it matters little or nothing where they come from, what their intentions are, or whether anyone likes their conclusions. This rule was necessary for the intellectual, moral and scientific progress of mankind: if it were not so, we would still be living in the Middle Ages. The reverse will contribute to the formation of “echo chambers”; places where the quality of the discussion is distorted or degraded.

You may be interested > López-Gatell admits underreporting of overdose reported in Mexico

That’s not all. Much evidence of the degradation of public debate can be found in the growing levels of misinformation or hate on the networks. For example, this was reported by Colmex Seminar on Violence and Peace, Mesura and Article 19. To this it must be added that in our country this degradation does not seem to be exclusive to one of the opposing spheres: botnets, super-spreaders, insults, aggressions and disqualifications abound at both poles .

Strategy 2: Morning as an exercise in communication and accountability

The second strategy of the review is to acknowledge the degradation but argue that the morning is an exercise in information and accountability.

This strategy was proposed by Fabrizio Mejia. For this writer, the morning shows the “pedagogy” of the fourth transformation with its historical narrative of the country and exposes information through “charts, surveys and numerical monitoring of the economy, approvals, vaccinations.”

I agree with Fabrizio Mejia that information and accountability are the keys to a healthy democracy. It also seems clear to me that, contrary to the postulates of the neoliberal approach, the government has a key responsibility for the political education of its citizens.

However, it is not true that the morning is an exercise in accountability. And the fact is that these events are usually monopolized by characters or vehicles created specifically for ranting to the president. When a journalist asks an uncomfortable question, the President ducks and walks away; when he does answer directly, he often does so deceitfully or without support – which is sufficiently documented in article 19 –

To the above we must add something recognized by several thinkers of the phenomenon known as Illustration or Illustrations: a genuine progressive pedagogy cannot remain in the dissemination of a set of facts; must recognize the relevance of criticism and self-criticism based on reason and thought structures. Unfortunately, this is clearly not what happens when the president asks for blind trust, evades specific objections, resists formulating arguments, or directly uses disqualification ad hominem, that is, disqualifying a person rather than stating why the facts are. indicates whether its arguments are false or invalid.

Strategy 3: Morning as a Necessary Evil

The third and last line of defense involves accepting that despite the fact that degradation is real and that the morning hours contribute to it, these events must be supported for the greater good.

An argument of this nature was recently made by Julio Hernandez “Astillero”. According to this well-known journalist, “matinees” are “an act of legitimate political and media defense of the President of the Republic, who has refused to use the commercial services and subsequent political control of the ordinary press, which, without this morning counterbalance, would today have control over the national narrative and agenda.”

This argument stems from an undeniable truth: much of the press, which for decades devoted itself to pleasing the PRI or PAN governments, now seems to be dedicated to attacking the presidential project through lies and manipulation of information. It is also fully documented that the current government has significantly reduced its advertising spending. From these facts flow statements like Julio Astillero’s that despite its excesses, the morning hours must be maintained if we are to maintain the ongoing transformation.

Unlike the previous two lines of defense, this strategy is conceptually sound and based on facts. However, in my opinion, it has two main drawbacks.

One is that he does not believe that although official advertising spending has been cut, it is still discretionary and clearly benefits media outlets that support the president unconditionally, such as La Jornada, Azteca TV “. or “For this!”-. That is, the Fourth Transformation managed to build an ecosystem of unconditional media in order to put out enemy fire with its fire. And from this it follows that morning calls are not the only tool at the president’s disposal.

You may be interested > There were, are and will be mornings: AMLO

Another shortcoming of this strategy is that it assumes that the Fourth Transformation is more important than the health of public debate and therefore democratic life in Mexico. If the price to be paid for the 4Ts is the loss of rationality in the discussion and the shrug of the two manipulative forces, then there are those among us who are unwilling to pay them.

What morning can (and should) be like

We have looked at three main lines of defense that have been put forward in defense of the mornings: (1) denial of the degradation of public debate, (2) the notion that while degradation is real, mornings actually contribute to the improvement of public debate, and (3) the idea that that while degradation is real and that the morning hours contribute to it, they must be maintained in order to save 4T from his enemies.

It does not follow from the rejection of these lines that the morning lines should be eliminated, as Denise Dresser suggests. We have seen that government will have to play an important role in shaping the critical and self-critical personalities that democracy requires, that accountability is fundamental, and that there is an alarming pressure on the media and journalists, always associated with economic power or with the government that serves it – then that will never be healthy in a democracy.

The morning hours play their part in public debate. Therefore, these teachings will not disappear, but must be reformulated as they always should have been: press conferences in which the President reports to all the people he represents, answering with arguments and data to questions posed by journalists, experts or people elected through transparent and fair mechanisms. This is how a coherent and consistent project of transformation is protected. And this is how unfair criticism stops without furthering our degraded public debate.

Source: Aristegui Noticias

follow:
\