I was lucky to have been born into a fervently Benfica family, being, however, a staunch supporter of Futebol Clube do Porto (FCP).
So, assuming that, on October 4th, we were all still living at home and my father bought the sports paper, when it arrived at the newsstand, he would have seen three different titles: 1st – “Marítimo beats FCP by 2-3 ″; 2nd – “Marítimo humiliates Porto no Dragão”; 3rd “FC Porto dominating loses with Marítimo's old game”.
I'm sure my father bought the newspaper with the title “Marítimo humiliates Porto no Dragão”, just to provoke me and give rise to long, healthy – and happy ones, because there are never any quarrels between us! – family football debates during Sunday lunch.
I was lucky that such a situation happened in my house and, because I have always been used to reading, studying, listening and admiring perspectives with which I do not agree, associated with this education that fosters consideration for difference, I learned to respect and “look the other side".
Not being able to buy the newspaper with the title and vision I liked best, I had nothing but the chance to read the one chosen by my father. But it was a newspaper and it dealt with an event that had objectively taken place. He could present the event softer or harder, lighter or darker, but he didn't deny what had happened.
The digital environment, with the panoply of existing social networks, meant that there is not always a balanced mediator between the event and the reader.
Today we know what happens in our world not through social communication, but through the social network. Information appears unfiltered, therefore without contradiction, from various perspectives, which favor tribalism. We just read, listen and see the page, the podcast and the video of who we like and who agrees with us. If it doesn't present the vision we like and want, we speak badly, and if it's a social media network, there it is! “It's the plague of journalists and the media! They misrepresent everything! They just say what they want”.
There can be no more prejudiced idea than this one. To demonstrate this, I draw attention to two aspects that I consider essential:
1 – The vast majority of journalists are underpaid. Some, if they receive the national average salary, it is a real joy. Opinion articles like this one that I now write and with the exception of those that are written by truly famous commentators, are entirely free.
Are journalists subject to and vulnerable to pressure? Yes. We all are. And if we have a family and children to care for and the money doesn't make it to the end of the month, we are even more vulnerable.
That is why the financial sustainability of all media is important, not just those linked to large economic groups.
An organ like this, where I now write, the Sul Informação, which recently celebrated its 9th anniversary, has been able to remain one of the references in our regional media.
Only with sustainable and plural media can the necessary independence be achieved, a guarantee that is so important in a true democracy.
2 – Do social networks influence social communication? It is true. It should be the other way around, but it's starting to be dangerously like that.
If a particular media organization knows that it will have a larger audience and a larger view by betting on an extremist and demagogic line, it is logical that it will end up going after its audience to ensure sustainability.
It should be the other way around. Social communication should influence social networks and the debate generated there, so that the sharing of different opinions and perspectives does not narrow down to the aforementioned tribalization or manipulation.
The problem is that we dangerously start not knowing how to deal with the contradictory and with those who do not agree with us. We look only for those who think like us and we live in a closed digital and informational tribe, far from sight, in this light, almost fanciful of M. Macluhan's Global Village.
Is it good not to argue and criticize only those who have another view? I think not. I know that is not.
In my house, when sometimes the discussion simmered a little more intensely, someone would say: “Talk about something else! They only discuss football and they can't understand each other!”.
Now, instead, he says: “I'm glad they discuss football! It is a sign that they talk to each other and that they remain connected and friends, respecting differences and accepting that each one can have their own point of view and this only enriches us as a human, humanist, plural, fraternal society”.
Even because only on the moon there is no wind; only on the moon the absence of thought and its manifestation can be a sign of normality.
Author Father Miguel Neto is director of the Information and Pastoral Ministry of Tourism of the Diocese of Algarve, as well as parish priest of Tavira
Comments