There is an “information model” that operates outside of ethical principles, in prime times on Portuguese television. A model in which jurists, self-proclaimed researchers and pseudo-journalists construct sensationalist narratives, which transform half-truths of one of the parties into absolute certainties and name evildoers in the eyes of public opinion, even before any court considers the cases (when they exist).
The objective is not to inform, nor to do justice: it is to manufacture audiences, whatever the cost, at the expense of those who are unfortunate enough to be victims of the relentless logic of the hearings that justifies everything.
The scheme is simple and very effective: a “case” with media potential is found, a victim is identified whose version is emotionally appealing and an overwhelming narrative is built around her. There is no point in verifying, comparing or contextualizing. What matters is having a story that keeps the viewer on the screen during commercial breaks. The truth, that inconvenient abstraction, may wait, or simply never arrive.
Jurists known as experts in media cases feed television programs with dossiersin which facts and interpretations are deliberately confused. These same programs grant them generous airtime, transforming them into crusaders of popular justice. In return, they gain notoriety, new clients and the power to pressure the judicial system through public opinion.
Those targeted in these operations, often without an effective right of response or faced with direct accusations, become targets of a pre-orchestrated campaign of reputational destruction. They are harassed, stalked and filmed without consent. Their private lives are exposed to millions of spectators. All in the name of the “right to information” and the “public interest”.
But there is an even more worrying level to this mechanism: the existence of organized groups of pseudo-journalists who operate in the shadow of legitimate journalism. They present themselves as accredited professionals, threaten television exposure, and offer contacts in invented Parliamentary Committees. The objective is simple: to extort concessions, agreements or silence from its victims through the pressure of the media threat.
The most disturbing aspect of this phenomenon is not these individual exploiters of the system: these have always existed in any profession. What really scares us is institutional complicity. It is impossible to believe that the management of the television channels are unaware of these practices. Instead of holding them to account, they opt for complicit silence. After all, these shows generate significant advertising revenue. They create “television moments” that then fuel days of comments on social media and other programs. They are, in business language, “profitable assets”. What does it matter if along the way they destroy reputations, families and the credibility of journalism itself?
The professional deontology of everyone involved establishes clear principles: rigor, impartiality, contradiction, presumption of innocence, respect for human dignity. Principles obliterated by the audiences at stake. The public is being trained to consume pre-fabricated indignation, to replace critical thinking with immediate emotion, to accept that “justice” is what is shown on television at night.
And when reality contradicts the television narrative, when courts acquit those who were already convicted on screen and whose personal, family and professional lives were destroyed, it is not the narrative that is questioned. It is the judicial system that is accused of failing. This “information model” contaminates democracy and corrupts one of its fundamental pillars: free and accurate information.
When journalism turns into sensationalist entertainment disguised as investigation, when jurists use media like courts for this with pre-made convictions, when organized groups can blackmail citizens with threats of media exposure, we are not dealing with excessive press freedom. We are facing something much more serious that requires a serious and firm response.
Leave a Reply