 |
| Brindusa Armanca, © Jakub Plíhal |
In your speech, you have stated that the local media begun informing on the Romanian case only a week after the event. How come they were not prepared for such thing, provided the prior experience with the Chernobyl disaster and others?
Chernobyl was a big case but even more a political issue. In Romania, we learned only about the political aspects of the disaster but only very little about the consequences and effects of radiation. These remained in a sphere of speculation. In the Baia Mare case, the Romanian media were simply not interested nor trained to deal with such issues and the local authorities themselves were badly organized.
Was the insufficient coverage of the issue not due to the specifics of the Romanian media?
I do not think so. The differences between Romanian and Hungarian media are not relevant. However, it is a matter of fact that the delayed coverage was triggered by pressure on behalf of the international media who were already more sensitive towards the topic at that time.
What had changed in the decade between these two catastrophies?
In those ten years, the interest of the public had grown very much. In the meantime, there was this huge discussion on climate change, food toxicity and so on. This served as an education for the public as well as the journalists.
Would you agree that this development is for the good?
I am not judging whether such change is positive or negative. However, it is clear that journalists need to be able to evaluate information. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the public has become more sensitive towards the environmental issues and accordingly they are magically attracted to the big show. That is why media pay more attention to them - regardless of possible developments in ethical approach.
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat