ON OATHS
Some academic graduations, upon degree conferral, include oaths relating to the future practice of the profession.
There are those who respect that oath throughout their lives, even when the environment in which they work constrains them to set it aside.
However, in the name of personal beliefs, ideologies, acceptance in their field of work or their own survival—professional or physical—there are those who hold fixed ideas or change their opinions according to the convenience of the moment.
For some, the oath is like a "sword of Damocles," a check of conscience that compels them to follow it, regardless of any other conditioning factor.
It is what compels a doctor to aid or a legal professional to defend a criminal, however cruel they may have been or are, and however heinous the crime committed.
Yet it seems that no such oath exists in politics, whatever the rank of those who decide to act in that sphere.
Considering some acts committed by politicians or those appointed by politicians, even oaths sworn on the Bible seem to have no value.
There are those who claim to have been influenced by the "devil" when their crimes are discovered. There are also those who, caught red-handed, seek support from their "peers" or from anyone conveniently available to defend them or persecute those who denounced them.
The problem is that the only way to exorcise this "devil," which would be the vote, is sometimes under the control of the followers of "evil."
In this context, the media is fundamental, for better and for worse.
Does the journalism degree also have an oath?
Yes! I found a version of it on the website of the Brazilian Press Association:
"I promise, in the exercise of the journalism profession, to assume my commitment to truth and information, dedicating all my acts and words, efforts and knowledge to the construction of a nation conscious of its history and its capacity. I also commit myself, in the performance of my professional duty, not to omit, not to lie and not to distort information, not to manipulate data and, above all, not to subordinate, for the sake of personal interests, the citizen's right to information."
How beautiful!
What, then, can be said of media outlets that operate in a partisan manner, "covering for" some, publishing suppositions as facts selectively, persecuting those who question their financiers?
There are cases of media owners famous for using their outlets both to expose and to harm people. Headlines and "scoops" can topple criminals and corrupt politicians, just as they can destroy the lives of the innocent. Journalists and media have paid with their lives and economic sustainability simply for revealing the truth, fulfilling the oath.
However, this does not occur in totalitarian regimes, as they control all media. All are "in line." Is it possible that those who work in them took the same oath?
Those who may have done so have, in theory, signed their own summary condemnation.
Even in democracies, this oath is not always fulfilled.
In France, for example, the editorial lines of some newspapers are well defined. There are clearly liberal ones, socialist ones and communist ones. It is no different in other countries, where "truth" is interpreted and history is rewritten according to the interests of their owners and financiers.
There are those who present themselves as impartial journalists, yet they seem more like spokespeople or press officers, defending with tooth and nail and zero credibility those they should expose.
Have these assumed the commitment to truth and information, or have they become mere instruments of power projects?
``` ```htmlIf that is the case, then they are not sworn journalists, but apostates of this noble and so necessary profession!
What they do is not journalism, but ideological militancy, proselytism, sponsored and opportunistic.
It is good that there are professionals who honor their oaths, whatever their profession may be.
Adilson Luiz Gonçalves
Writer, Engineer, University Researcher and member of the Santos Academy of Letters
```
