About me

             "-Well, we are adults. We all understand that in reality there is no independent journalism" - this is the thesis I often heard in discussions on this topic from interlocutors. Well, yes... perhaps yes... but with reservations! The question is indeed fair and more than relevant and important. Well, let's try to figure it out together. Let's, like an onion, try to figure out layer by layer what this "INDEPENDENCE" consists of, where it comes from and why it does not exist (or does exist?).

             Let's start with external factors that can influence the bias of an individual's opinion. The obvious ones will be government institutions (if they exist, of course), and of all stripes, from legislative to judicial. Yes, I am talking about censorship in all its manifestations. Will these institutions support local ancient (no less, how else?) cultures and ethnic groups more, or will they better correspond to the description of a secular state based on international laws and institutions with the prevalence of the rational instead of the emotional? Note that censorship can be not only institutional, state, but also cultural. Some or other cultural features may not consider the "too" free opinions of an individual comfortable for themselves personally. Let's move on... The employer, of course. Where would we be without him. Depending on the position of the owners of commercial and non-commercial structures offering work to a journalist, censorship can vary from the strictest to the "Light" version. Even if this is the most liberal option - go find one - then it will definitely have reservations about the boundaries of "licentiousness" both in the commercial and personal and cultural interests of the owners themselves.

             But, more interesting and, in my opinion, the most important influence on that very "INDEPENDENCE" is, oddly enough, the author's psyche itself. If with external factors it is still more or less clear, then all the most interesting is hidden here! The very "thoughts" of the individual, as well as culture, consist of a huge mincemeat, which, on average, consists of a large number of unconditional prejudices, and only a small part - of knowledge. Imagine an average European, impartially describing the culture and life of modern cannibal tribes Korowai or Sawuy with very interesting cultural customs. Or a representative of one of the religions, impartially describing the "negative events" of representatives of another religion in relation to his religion. Or a journalist, describing certain events of our time, taking into account the scientific aspects of the behavior of representatives of Homo Sapiens, but still so taboo to this day even in the most liberal societies. For example, such as sexuality, fear, love, sacrifice or courage...

             Under such conditions, we can indeed conclude that there is no such thing as completely INDEPENDENT journalism. Independent even of the prejudices of the author himself. For now, after all, in most cases, people write in this profession. But, nevertheless, the less engaged in various aspects of life the representatives of creative professions are, the more, perhaps, they could at least claim some semblance of that very INDEPENDENT journalism. There are no ideals in reality... Something positive for something or someone is always negative for something or someone due to the subjective assessment of all living and non-living creatures of our planet, and the absolute individuality of the psyche of each person separately.

            A journalist is definitely not someone you have to like, love or share his personal opinion with. More often than not, he can be a very "slippery and unpleasant" type. This is someone who always asks uncomfortable questions. He is a real, in the metaphorical sense of the word, "thorn in the ass" for many, for which he is often, purely from subjective views, a target for both emotional and physical violence. No matter how it sounds, a journalist is one of the effective tools of society for "highlighting" in the turmoil of "Groundhog Days" the difficult and very difficult circumstances that individuals or societies face in their lives. This is a kind of special mirror of those very societies, reflecting not always so noticeable, but often very unpleasant questions that arise before society. The product of the journalist's activity is yet another, among others, professional unbiased opinion, distinguished by a critical and analytical way of thinking, the ability to read "between the lines" and draw parallels where they are difficult to read. The function of a journalist, on the one hand, is somewhat similar to a surgeon who must concentrate on his actions during an operation, without being distracted by conjectures, prejudices, beliefs and emotions. However, unlike surgeons, in order to correctly "dissect" the events taking place in societies, the psyche of a journalist must still have a decent amount of empathy, which, in turn, would be catastrophic for a surgeon. The key here is balance. Too much empathy will simply burn you out from the inside, a person will "burn out" and burn out faster than Icarus. On the contrary, too little empathy will lead exclusively to the use of society for personal interests...

​

Always yours

Your humble servant Mikhail K

.

​

​

​