Only Scottish

Today’s class was about the Scottish media, and I found it very interesting because I’m kind of obsessed with that country. Our guest, Ken Garner from Glasgow Caledonian University, is from England, but he’s been living in Scotland for several years. This fact brought a very particular point of view, maybe more objective, about Scotland’s situation and characteristics.

I feel that the most important fact about the conference were the differences between England and Scotland, which are more evident when we talk about people's most genuine things, such as a nation's own media.

A while ago, a teacher asked us to write an international analysis. I chose as a topic the independence process in Scotland, and this was the result (it’s my own translation, so don’t expect a wonderful article):

On the way to William Wallace’s legacy

Scotland’s Government is already planning the before and the after the referendum for the independence, while Cameron’s tories are on the lookout

England had been ambitioning Caledonia ­–how the Romans called it– from XIII century, when Sir William Wallace and his men avoided the conquest during the Scottish Independence Wars. But those from the South of the island didn’t give up until the Glorious Revolution. The Scottish yield as the English threatened about blocking the commerce, and in 1707 the United Kingdom of Great Britain was officially born.

Nowadays, the Scottish Government has set the date for the referendum that will decide if the territory becomes independent or not from the United Kingdom. The chosen period is in fall 2014, and the voters will be over sixteen years old. The Scottish National Party (SNP) is optimistic, even though the latest polls shown that only the 24% of the population gives support to the independence, nine points less than the year before.

The percentage of Scots that want more autonomy is increasing, though, up to the 61% of the respondents. The truth is that Scotland’s political competences are very limited, as most of the executive and legislative power relapses on the English Parliament. This is what Alex Salmond, Scotland’s Prime Minister, claimed to James Cameron, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister. But the tory refused, and that was when Salmond put the independence on the table.

The celebration of this plebiscite got formalized in an agreement between both parliaments, in which they testified that the process was legally binding. Then, the volition of the Scottish population, whichever it’ll be, it will be accomplished once they pronounce it.

The attitude of Cameron’s government can seem curious, knowing their unionists condition. But the tories have always shown themselves as open-minded people about this dialogue, because they had the conviction that the pro-independence party would never reach the power in Scotland.

But they didn’t count on the SNP’s ability to challenge the polls. In 2007, the party won the election against all predictions, and in 2011 they gain an unexpected absolute majority. With this background, Alex Salmond doesn’t discard the independence victory, but he admits it is complicated. However, the percentage of “yes” at the referendum will give political strength to the demand of autonomy for Scotland.

Cameron, on the other hand, appeals to the feeling of a three-century alliance, and the uses the success of the last Olympic Games as an example of union’s benefits. Why should you change something that works?, is what Cameron may be asking to himself. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom itself is thinking over its links with the European Union, and is also thinking about making a consultation on this issue.

The Yugoslavian precedent, bloody and uncontrolled, threatens the sovereigntist attempts, because it represents the example to avoid. The English-Scottish case has an advantage versus Catalonia or Québec: the United Kingdom doesn’t have a Constitution. This democratic peculiarity would simplify the separation, which would be consolidated with a “simple” legal modification.

Salmond has established that, if the independentist vote wins, a Scottish Constitution will be written between 2014 and 2016. When it’s done, there will be an election on the new independent Parliament. The essential points in that document would be a free educational system, the right to have a home and that the country gets rid of any nuclear implication. What is still uncertain is whether the new state would remain in the European Union or not.

The Romanian example - then and now

If you ask yourself, you'll find easily a common point between Spain's and Romania's recent history. They both have experienced a long period of dictatorial regime, which means the biggest disease the media of a country can suffer: censorship and repression.

As freedom is an essential part of an idealistic media landscape, one just cannot think about a totalitarian system that permits the free fluctuation of information. Or maybe worse: the darkest side of that kind of situations is that, in fact, there is some information that flows freely… the one that is spread by the main party or the government. It creates a polluted environment where the inhabitants can’t distinguish the truth from propaganda and corrupted data. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who owns the power, whether they are communists or capitalists, as long as they own it exclusively. Unfortunately, this situation is still alive in some countries.

If we talk specifically about Romania, we’ll see that the media had been on governmental hands until democracy came to the country. All the newspapers were under public control, and they were only able to say what the political leaders wanted to be known. That’s why journalism wasn’t a very honest job in that time: those professionals were only used to transmit ideological contents.

During the Romanian Revolution and the fall of the communist regime, television was a vital element through which thousands of citizens were able to see what was happening at the moment in the “hot spots”, where the action was.

So, after all the repression, lots of newspapers were born, as a result of the new freedom around everything, and around the media too. Some of the former publications changed their names and started broadcasting in a new and different way. Those were the days, because people were willing to be informed, as they had been years listening and reading what others wanted them to read.

In this panorama, some of the entrepreneurs saw that, actually, printed media could be a very profitable business. It also led to another commercial explosion: the emergence of tabloid newspapers, which started competing with general news.

Another positive point to remark is the fact that journalists aren’t marionettes anymore –or that’s what I’d like to think–. The profession grew up, and now Romania can boast of its journalism’s maturity.

So here you have two good examples of how a country can recover from such political disasters. Journalism itself is meant to be an essential tool for freedom, and never a weapon against population.

EL NOU PERIODISME, PER TOM WOLFE

Qualsevol cosa…

...ABANS QUE SER PERIODISTA. El periodisme es la professió menys valorada del moment. Son pocs els que treballen, i els que ho fan treballen molt i per molt poc. Cobrar menys d'un euro per notícia i menys de tres euros per article no és o no hauria de ser normal. I molt menys en un moment convuls en que la canalització de la informació és necessària, imprescindible per a que la democràcia tal com la coneixem, o tal com la volem, no s'enfonsi sense remei.

PLURALISME. Alguns mitjans, com Televisió de Catalunya, s'acullen a l'excusa de la tendència majoritària al pluralisme extern. És a dir, es diuen moltes coses, se'ns ofereixen moltes visions diferents, però cadascuna prové d'una font diferent. La tasca del ciutadà es torna, doncs, molt complexa si vol estar informat de forma completa. Tot i això, la postura de TVC és comprensible pel que respecta a segons quins temes. Si la majoria de veus es posicionen d'un mateix costat, i l'únic mitjà que pot donar sortida a una determinada opinió (parlem de la independència de Catalunya, és clar) també s'hi oposa o ofereix una visió neutral, el punt de vista morirà abans de tenir presència a l'esfera pública.

ELS MITJANS LOCALS. Són un niu de pluralisme, sobretot pel que respecta a la propietat. Des de grups de comunicació amb participació multimèdia fins a empreses de sectors ben diversos i allunyats de la comunicació, passant per mitjans fortament vinculats amb institucions polítiques o, fins i tot, els governs de torn. La rendibilitat, però, no és el seu fort. Sembla ser que, de moment, la pluralitat i la independència no són un bon negoci.

PRISA. Neix de l'esperança i el desig de democràcia d'una sèrie d'accionistes de tendència liberal, però amb inclinacions polítiques diverses. Alguns dels fundadors primers no tenien inquietuds coincidents amb les del mitjà emblema de PRISA, el diari EL PAÍS; parlem de personatges com Camilo José Cela, Jordi Pujol o Ramón Mendoza. Però els lectors d’esquerres eren un nínxol que encara no estava cobert en temps del franquisme, i el pas a la democràcia va ser el moment clau per introduir el que seria en un futur el diari més llegit d’Espanya. Però ara PRISA està virtualment en mans dels bancs, i no només per causa de la recessió econòmica: el grup ja feia temps que treia el cap en direcció a una crisi provocada per les seves arriscades decisions d’expansió i internacionalització. Ara per ara, PRISA s’enfronta a la conjuntura present havent posat en venda algunes de les seves vaques sagrades, com el 25% de l’editorial Santillana, que ha estat la seva assegurança de vida des dels inicis.

Sóc l'amo del món

Això és el que es deuen repetir ells cada matí en llevar-se. Qui? Els amos. De què? Dels mitjans de comunicació. I per què els amos dels mitjans són els amos del món? Si us plau... Prou d'ingenuïtat.

La classe d’avui ha estat un conglomerat de dades econòmiques i de propietat sobre els mitjans de comunicació. No sorprèn gaire veure les importants caigudes en ingressos que van tenir la majoria d’actors comunicatius a Espanya des de l’esclat de la recessió econòmica l’any 2008. El que és xocant és veure, per exemple, el creixement del 208% que va experimentar Mediaset España entre 2010 i 2011. Però és clar: parlem de Mediaset. Alemanya s’erigeix un cop més com a cap de la civilització amb els 16.000 milions d’euros en ingressos de la seva bandera mediàtica, Bertelsmann.

Però, tal com he dit, es tracta de dades que es poden consultar a qualsevol altre lloc molt més fiable que aquest bloc.

Personalment, m’interessa molt més el tema de la publicitat. A hores d’ara, la inversió publicitària a Internet ja ha superat la destinada als diaris. Doncs ha trigat més del que seria coherent esperar, perquè el públic va trigar ben poc en passar-se a la plataforma multi-mitjà. Si la televisió segueix regnant en aquest àmbit, amb un destacat 39% de la inversió, és perquè encara no ha estat del tot substituïda. Sí, consumim productes audiovisuals online, però no deixen de ser productes genuïnament televisius. La televisió no ha caducat, només s’ha canviat de caixa.

I pel que fa als drets d’emissió del futbol? Pel que he sentit, són l’eix que vertebra l’existència dels operadors televisius de pagament. “Aquest partit el fan pel plus” és segurament una de les frases més repetides del país. Pot semblar poc democràtic, però ja podem resar perquè Mediaset España no robi els drets del futbol als que-fan-el-futbol -en-tancat, perquè llavors plorarem recordant aquells dies en que no passàvem tres quarts de partit veient les jugades a una pantalleta diminuta amb una tortura interminable d’spots a la pantalla del costat. Tot sigui dit: aquests anuncis no tindran pas l’efecte desitjat per l’anunciant, ja que l’aficionat passarà a odiar el producte tan bon punt sonin les primeres notes del jingle. Paraula de publicista.