Num texto cheio de excelentes observações sobre o jornalismo que se faz e de não menos excelentes sugestões sobre o jornalismo que devia fazer-se (por exemplo: as peças poderiam ser acompanhadas de uma pequena caixa sob o título ‘Coisas que nós não sabemos sobre este assunto’), Dan Gillmor apresenta no The Guardian uma listagem que – no mínimo – devia ser discutida em detalhe nas redacções e nas aulas de jornalismo das universidades
Excertos:
Transparency would be a core element of our journalism.
(…)
We would refuse to do stenography and call it journalism. If one faction or party to a dispute is lying, we would say so, with the accompanying evidence.
(…)
Except in the most dire of circumstances – such as a threat to a whistleblower’s life, liberty or livelihood – we would not quote or paraphrase unnamed sources in any of our journalism. If we did, we would need persuasive evidence from the source as to why we should break this rule, and we’d explain why in our coverage. Moreover, when we did grant anonymity, we’d offer our audience the following guidance: We believe this is one of the rare times when anonymity is justified, but we urge you to exercise appropriate skepticism.
(…)
We’d routinely point to our competitors’ work, including (and maybe especially) the best of the new entrants, such as bloggers who cover specific niche subjects. When we’d covered the same topic, we’d link to them so our audience can gain wider perspectives. We’d also talk about, and point to, competitors when they covered things we missed or ignored.
(…)
No opinion pieces or commentary from major politicians or company executives.
Wow!
Wow mesmo!
Quem quer começar a conversa?
