In general, I try to avoid criticizing my colleagues, many of whom I’ve worked with in the past. But the situation with some of them has gotten out of hand. It’s hard to tell the difference between the journalist from the politician… But it’s not at all hard to figure out who has taken the «Maximos» "non-paper" and based on that, he asks questions or makes judgments. This does not mean that there aren’t many decent journalists. Some of them are used as a «pretext for objectivity.» Many others, however, «pay dearly» for their decision not to give in…

So, to be clear: A journalist is not a pawn (According to Wikipedia, «athyrma« = »a political lackey or pawn, a puppet who indulges in ostentatious insignificance. “Citizens are the pawns of demagogues, politicians are the pawns of voters, and each of us becomes a pawn, devoid of will, of those who allow themselves to be led astray. Many of us are at the mercy of our passions and fate.”.

A journalist is not someone who simply asks questions and gets answers. They have an opinion and a political stance (they should not act based on their party affiliation, but they have both the right and the obligation to have a political identity). Simply put, during interviews, they represent the public and must ask the questions that their listeners, viewers, and readers would ask. Since not all citizens are the same, with identical views, it makes sense that there would be differing assessments of journalists« conduct. It’s easy, in casual, coffee-shop conversations, for any citizen to disparage a journalist—either because they’re too friendly or because they aren’t hostile enough toward the interviewee. Citizens have every right to judge, but exaggeration is common. We must steer clear of »toxic” positions.

Things get out of hand when the news is distorted (not when it is commented on). They also get out of hand when current events are evaluated based on what serves the interests of each political party. To be more specific, here are a few examples:

–First example: The government wants the discussion to focus primarily on the threat from Turkey and not at all on the wiretapping issue. It wants people to be afraid so they’ll rally politically behind the current government, because «there’s a greater danger; leave domestic issues for later.». Whenever someone dares to bring up the issue of wiretapping on a TV panel, the «designated representative» immediately calls them out for not acting in the national interest… Every now and then he asks him if he’s a representative of Erdoğan, Putin, the devil, etc.

–Second example: When the discussion turns to accuracy (which is rare…), what the government’s apologists seek to do is invoke the international situation, «It’s not the government’s fault; it’s Putin’s.» Of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine sent energy prices skyrocketing, but The precision began before the invasion… Furthermore, when someone points out that energy companies are raking in huge «windfall» profits and there is a debate in Europe about heavily taxing them, then that person is labeled a «communist,» a «free-market denier,» and so on.

–Example 3: The discussion about the wave of nationalizations of energy companies in Europe (Uniper in Germany, EDF in France, etc.) is avoided. Give the people a state funeral for Elizabeth, with analysts gushing about the new King Charles’s philhellenism; give them Prince Paul as heir; show the crowds and the weeping in close-up. The ultimate exaggeration.

–Example 4: Since the truth doesn't suit the government, so much the worse for the truth. When workers go on strike, they «cause trouble for everyone.» Anyone who gets their news solely from TV channels will never know exactly what they’re demanding or what their arguments are. When pension payments are delayed, «it’s the lazy workers» fault«—so let’s just hire our own kids… When students are mercilessly beaten during a concert, various nonentities pop up and ask pointedly, »And what business do concerts have at universities? «Here in the U.S., where I am, there are no concerts at universities.» When the most reputable international media outlets criticize the Mitsotakis government for its efforts to control the news by any means necessary, then either the story is being suppressed or a journalist like «Bambis the Knife» is trying to discredit it: “Come on now. Who reads Politico and EurActiv? Who are Reporters Without Borders? What is this International Press Institute, etc.”…

I should point out here that, in the heat of the moment, anyone can say something wrong. Let’s not stone them for a single word. What matters is the overall perspective they’re promoting. Besides, the attempt to personally defend Kyriakos Mitsotakis is so clumsy that it ultimately backfires on him. From the claim that he «walks like the Beatles,» to the unforgettable remarks about «Moses,» «Tsita,» «the best résumé in the country,» «what a stud you are,» etc.—I simply believe that, at a certain point, all of this starts to backfire.

Overall, however, the state of journalism not only exposes the government, nor does it merely demonstrate the relationship of dependence that exists between media owners and political and economic power; it also exposes the journalists themselves. Anyone who can't bring themselves to say «no» to their bosses should realize that they risk becoming «disposable.».

Journalism is a particularly difficult profession. It takes more than just the ability to perceive and report the news, or to comment on it intelligently. Anyone who lacks the emotional intelligence to understand when and how they influence public opinion (or at least a large part of it), Let him not complain when his own exaggeration is countered by the exaggeration of social criticism.

I remember something a veteran, top-tier journalist, Antonis Karkagiannis, used to tell us: «God, spare me from criticism, because I can guard myself against self-criticism on my own»…

By Yannis Koronaiou