The exhibition of journalists and communicators took place in the Instituto Movilizador de Fondos Cooperativos in Mar del Plata. It included the participation of Susy Scándali (La Capital newspaper), Belén Cano (El Atlántico newspaper), Pablo Vasco (Cooperativa Residencias radio), Gonzalo Chaet (Communication researcher) and Iván Novotny (Pressenza News Agency).

Below is the transcription of the contribution from Iván Novotny, editor of Pressenza in Buenos Aires, carried out based on three axes:

**1 – What opinion does the fact that mass media puts the broadcasting of violent events as a priority deserve.**

It’s clear that editors, directors and owners of communication mass media have an “intention”, particularly the most conservative ones, to give them wider distribution, to improve information about violent events.

What I’m most interested in is trying to clarify “why” there is this previous intention, this interest in distribution, for the maximisation of violent events.

Firstly, I want to share with you the definition that Silo gave in his exposition “The Conditions of Dialogue” in the Academy of Science in Russia in 1993. Silo said “For there to be a statement it is necessary for there to be a previous intention that allows the words and the relationship between the words to be chosen” (…) “The intention prior to the conversation provides the setting, gives the field that the proposals will occur in”.

Then, bringing this description to today’s topic, its clear that for a channel, for example TN or C5N, to broadcast endless information all day about a kidnap or a murder, someone must have previously had the intention to do this (the editor, the head of content, the channel owner etc.). A person or a group of people have the intention to transmit a certain topic, and in a certain way.

What does this intention point to? Towards truly resolving the problem of violence? Towards generating fear in the receivers of this news? To generate fragmentation in society? To generate individualism, distrust? To distract from other topics? To generate sensationalism that attracts a bigger audience? To produce a particular political or electoral consequence? Or without giving them such capabilities, could it be because they don’t know how to do anything else? And the list of possible hypotheses could be endless.

If someone says that they merely inform, that information is objective and they simply convey a fact, this is an entirely refutable statement, given that there are many facts that these mass media do not report daily. It is evident that there is a selection, a look, an interest to create a certain effect, as we said, and an intention that leads to this informative reporting.

To give a recent example, yesterday La Capital newspaper titled its top story “Growing mobilisation of neighbours seeking more security”. Then further down it said “More than a hundred and fifty people from Mar del Plata gathered in Tejedor and Constitución and are planning other similar protests over the next weekends”.

It is eye-catching; a headline of a mobilisation of 150 people does not fulfil the criteria of eye-catching. I understand that in the various activities during Nonviolence week many more people took part, yet did not receive as important a headline in this Mar de Plata paper.

If we delve a little deeper into La Capital’s headline, they report a list of nine points from the neighbours. The paragraph that I have transcribed caught my attention, quoting a document from the “vecinos marplatenses” (Mar de Plata neighbours) organisation as they call it: “We therefore understand that the act of killing is an aberrant act when it is committed without a justifiable motive such as self-defence, thus requesting a revision of these laws, to adapt them to the current living situation would not be so ridiculous”.

Rather these people are asking to be able to kill someone else in cases of self-defence, legalising killing another. And La Capital newspaper gave them the headline. This example is only an illustration, but we could give specific examples in Clarín, TN, C5N, La Nación, and the media that seem to have an interest in violence.

So what is the intention that leads to such informative treatment? From here we cannot answer the question of what leads these media organisations to generate an intoxication with information about violent facts, what is the intention which leads them to manipulate information to create a certain public opinion and thus influence the subjectivity of those who follow these media. Only they can answer, although I see that it is sometimes difficult for them to do so with sincerity.

Of course I am not saying that they should not report on such events, they have the freedom of expression and freedom of press to do so. But I feel that this treatment of violent events does not help to overcome this violence, it does not tend to raise awareness of the need for a new culture of nonviolence.

Thus it seems very important to me to create a new set of alternative, community mass media which have a different, more evolved, improving intention which wants to help society and humans advance, a nonviolent look which aims to overcome violence, not only physical, not only daily insecurity, street crime; but violence in all its forms, like economic, psychological, gender and ethnic.

We try to do this in the Pressenza International News Agency, we use the nonviolent aspect of the news as a basis, we try to promote the action of social organisations, institutions, governments and individuals who show an intention to overcome violence. Thus, for example we covered the Global Peace and Nonviolence March which occurred around the world in 2009, and now we are covering many actions in various countries for the International Nonviolence Day and we are thus daily trying to report on things which promote Human Rights, non-discrimination, cultural diversity, humanism and the organisation of people in a humanist direction.

**2. – Do you think that the media and/or journalists have responsibility for the collective idea that we live in an increasingly dangerous society.**

Yes, I think that particularly editorial guidelines, although the journalist has certain responsibility to obey this editorial line, about the generation of the ideas which create a “common feeling”, these ideas which generate stereotypes, sensitivities, beliefs and values. Although the media cannot be granted all of the power to create these ideas and beliefs, there is also a “epochal awareness” in the receiver, in a certain historical moment, to accept certain ideas. It is a circle that feeds itself.

Because if a news channel insists on news about crime, particularly focusing on the events where the perpetrator has certain characteristics (Young, poor, dark etc.) this representation continues to work in the mind of the recipient of the news. And when they go out into the street and see someone with this characteristic, they immediately associate them with this representation, the idea that this channel conveyed. So fears and prejudices grow among people and news about insecurity strengthen the idea that we live in an increasingly dangerous society.

Beyond whether this danger is real or not what happens is that the sense of danger and insecurity remains, strengthening this representation.

So the media work directly in the field of subjectivity, valuations, ideas. Because if the media reported with the same intensity on the nonviolent actions of organisations which aim to overcome violence, they would surely help to decrease violence, those who have the power to create integral policies to combat violence. If, like now, the intensity is on violent events, a spiral of violence is created, where the violent focus of violence generates more violence. I feel that these communication mass media have a large responsibility for generating psychological violence, which leads to instances of phobias, depression and psychological agitations increasing.

I understand that the media and journalists would have to take more care with our responsibility, even more so when dealing with large scale media. We have a responsibility as the journalistic material that we produce does not remain with us, but reaches others, and in these others, has some effect.

So if we position our job as helping others, helping society, we put journalistic ethics above economic or political interests, we can help so that if our society is in fact more and more dangerous and violent, we can produce a response so that we don’t live day to day lives in fear and paranoia. And from our role we can help to increase the combat against violence.

**3. How should violence be addressed in the media and what is the appropriate role of journalists.**

I think that there should be a nonviolent focus to address violence in the media. If it is done from a violent focus, the violence increases in a growing spiral. Sometimes it seems that some media take delight in violence, with sensationalism, it seems as though they are waiting for an event with several deaths to have a strong story. This is a violent view. To wait for violence to appear and to go and cover it is the typical attitude of the tabloid press.

So it should be treated with moral and ethical responsibility with an awareness of the consequences of reporting on a violent incident. Of course I am not saying that this information should be hidden, but it should be reported seriously, clearly, responsibly. We should be aware of the consequences of how it is reported. Recently there was the Candela case with the hegemonic media and the irresponsibility in the coverage of such a tragedy, with the generation of information which was often fabricated which tried to influence the law etc.

In particular, I think that the focus of the media, the priority, should be to report on exemplary actions, those actions which governments, peoples, organisations and individuals do with a humanising directions. Highlighting supportive actions, good actions and leaving violent and unpleasant events to a lower level. The saying “good news isn’t news” is well known, which creates the violent focus on violence which many sensationalist media and journalists have. Good news should be the main news in the media agenda. And bad news should be treated more responsibly, with ethics and as far as possible, reporting on the event itself as neutrally as possible, also trying to report on a response for the violent conflict being addressed.

If journalists were aware of the social responsibility that we have, that our job is not neutral, not objective and also has significant consequences, if we connected with the best in ourselves, with the truly human that lives within us, with goodness, with the evaluative intention that seeks to grow in each of us, the role of journalist would be very beneficial for the social change that we need towards overcoming the violence which affects us all.

*Translated from Spanish by Kirsty Cumming*