In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, freedom of the press does not constitute a mere institutional accessory, or even a rhetorical ornament frequently invoked in official speeches. It is, rather, one of the structuring pillars of democratic architecture, inseparable from the principle of separation of powers and public scrutiny of government action.
It is precisely for this reason that recent episodes involving Ana Abrunhosa’s performance deserve a reflection that goes beyond the circumstantial and the immediate. The mayor’s reaction to unfavorable news, marked by the withdrawal of “trust” from a journalist and the attempt to discredit his work, should not be interpreted as a simple conflict between political power and the media. On the contrary, it reveals a worrying conception of the relationship between government officials and the press.
In effect, the idea that a political agent can or should establish relationships of “trust” with journalists, as if they were functional extensions of a communications office, reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of journalism in democratic societies. The press does not exist to validate official narratives, nor to serve as an uncritical vehicle for political action. Its primary function is precisely to question, investigate and scrutinize.
The gravity of the episode in question therefore lies less in the gesture itself and more in what it symbolizes: the persistence of a political culture that sees contradiction as an affront and scrutiny as hostility. Such culture is not new in the Portuguese context and finds parallels in periods in which the relationship between political power and the media was marked by tensions, pressures and attempts at conditioning, as occurred during the government of José Sócrates. It is important, in this context, to highlight an additional dimension of particular relevance: selectivity in the relationship with social communication. It is not uncommon to observe full availability on the part of political agents when media coverage contributes to enhancing their public image. However, this same availability tends to disappear, being replaced by confrontational or delegitimizing attitudes, when journalistic content takes on a critical character. This asymmetry reveals an instrumentalization of the press that is, in itself, incompatible with the principles of a liberal democracy. By accepting media visibility only when it is favorable, and by rejecting it when it becomes demanding, political power not only compromises transparency but also weakens citizens’ trust in institutions.
Even more worrying is the precedent that such behavior sets. The attempt to isolate or discredit journalists based on the content of their news can generate a dissuasive effect, albeit indirect, on the practice of journalism. And a conditioned press, even if subtly, fails to fully fulfill its function of counterpower.
Ultimately, what is at stake is not the reputation of a journalist or the image of a particular mayor. The integrity of the democratic public space is at stake. Whenever political power seeks to redefine the rules of relations with the press according to its convenience, a fissure opens up in the democratic edifice: a fissure that, if ignored, tends to widen.
History unequivocally demonstrates that democracies do not collapse simply through abrupt ruptures. Often, they progressively degrade, through the normalization of practices that, initially perceived as exceptional, end up becoming tolerated.
Defending press freedom therefore implies constant vigilance in the face of these dynamics. It implies recognizing that the inconvenience of scrutiny is not a defect of the democratic system, but one of its most important virtues. And it implies, above all, reaffirming an essential principle: in a healthy democracy, power does not choose its critics, it learns to respond to them.
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement
Leave a Reply