Notes to an implicit text – I
Controversy between journalists
On November 22, we published in this section the following short: “The issue that led to the departure of journalists Carola Miranda and Carlos Fonseca from América TV was clarified by La República yesterday. The perpetrators of the last massacre in Vraem were the walkers of the Quispe Palomino gang and not common criminals, as both reporters insisted. Their political position led them to deny the reality because they believed that the news favored Keiko Fujimori. Clear water and thick chocolate ”.
Notes to an implicit text – II
The response of the aforementioned
Both reporters have sent us a threatening notarial letter saying in summary the following: “FALSE information was disclosed (sic).” “In this way, the referenced text (the short) flagrantly defames our professional integrity when it states: as both reporters assumed (they change the word ‘insisted’ in their letter to ‘assumed’, which, by the way, is not synonymous). “The text argues that an invented political position would have led us to deny certain information.” “We have no political option.” If they do not redress us, we will criminally denounce them for aggravated defamation.
Notes to an implicit text – III
Don’t touch me!
If they have no political option, this newspaper wonders why then Miranda and Fonseca left América TV, discrediting the channel where they had worked for years, and letting public opinion understand that their colleagues who stayed were subjected to, as they also say in his letter, “a lack of plurality in electoral coverage.” Is professional integrity and a good name only valid for them? And the reputation of your colleagues? And the channel that houses them? Has America denounced them for stigmatizing their brand?
Notes to an implicit text – IV
The morality, the morality, can no longer walk
Both reporters say of themselves that “their entire professional career was governed by the values of independence and objectivity that journalistic ethics pursues.” So, we presented them with an independent journalistic debate about what happened in the Vraem on the eve of the second round. We challenge you to objectively discuss how a sector of the press covered the event. And we ask them, in honor of ethics and truth, to specify the names of the journalists who heard them refer to their conviction about the authorship of the massacre. The morality of these times, lashes out, looks at the navel and feels like one. What a difference from the great moralists of history! Those who observed their reality and discussed it with intelligence and humor.