by Steno Sari — The media have an inescapable responsibility: to ensure an accurate, comprehensive and profoundly respectful flow of information on human dignity. This mission is often betrayed by dynamics that turn journalism into a dangerous instrument of media lynching. Public pillorying, amplified by media resonance, is an ethically abominable practice, as it tramples on cardinal principles of legal and moral civilisation: the presumption of innocence, the inviolable right to privacy and the inherent respect due to every individual.
A superficial and distorted portrayal of human diversity fuels ancestral and irrational fears in the social fabric, contributing inexorably to the consolidation of entrenched prejudices and stereotypes. This perverse mechanism triggers and propagates a climate of intolerance and verbal violence, undermining the foundational values of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. The complexity of reality, thus brutally simplified, is reduced to sensationalist and decontextualized narratives, significantly hindering the formation of a public opinion that is truly informed, critical and aware of the plurality of perspectives.
A rigorous journalism must be based on verifiable data and unbiased analysis. When the priority becomes capturing attention rather than informing, accuracy gives way to the most ephemeral spectacularization: facts are artfully exaggerated, deprived of context or even manipulated to pander to underlying, often obscure, interests.
Hence, participating in a TV debate in contexts dominated by prejudice and witch-hunt dynamics risks proving counterproductive. In environments characterized by tight deadlines and polemical tones, defense against unfounded accusations becomes almost impossible.
Certain television formats, designed to exacerbate conflicts and stereotypes, instead of encouraging constructive confrontation, create preconstituted narratives. In such scenarios, overturning the dominant opinion requires extraordinary communication skills, especially if hosts or guests abandon neutrality in favor of sensationalism.
Some journalists, in the race for ratings, reduce complex social phenomena to elementary narrative patterns, sacrifying nuances and insights. They fuel alarmism and discrimination instead of promoting balanced analysis. To counter this drift, it is essential to favor verified, contextualized and inclusive information. Valuing details, respecting plural perspectives, and ensuring respectful debate are indispensable steps for ethically sound journalism. Only through unimpeachable and bias-free information can a more informed and inclusive society be fostered.
Every word and every image conveyed holds a weight: it is up to information professionals to decide whether to use that power to build bridges of understanding and knowledge, or to erect walls of intolerance and destruction of the social fabric.
Article appeared in Libero newspaper on May 18, 2025 and republished with the author's permission
