miercuri, 9 decembrie 2009

Cu ochelari de cal

Calitatea jurnalismului nu e în criză doar în România. Partizanatul politic nu le ia minţile doar jurnaliştilor români. Dogmatismul nu este doar o tară a presei româneşti.
Vreţi dovezi în sprijinul spuselor mele. Iată-le. Comparaţi modul în care citeşte realitatea "victoriei" lui băsescu şi consecinţele ei FT şi WSJ, ambele cotidiene de afaceri, ambele din spaţiul anglo-saxon.
Ce zice FT? "Romania’s presidential election has done nothing to ease the country’s prolonged political crisis. Indeed, president Traian Basescu's disputed victory in Sunday’s poll may have made a bad situation worse by robbing him of some of his legitimacy. It will make it harder to create the effective government urgently needed to handle the economic crisis...The president’s immediate job is to form a government following the collapse two months ago of the minority government of his centrist Democratic Liberal Party. Unfortunately he has tried the patience of potential partners such as the National Liberals, the ideologically closest, and the Social Democrats. Mr Basescu has threatened to call early parliamentary elections, but with the last poll held barely a year ago this would probably reproduce the same fractured collection of parties as today...Mr Basescu must break a habit of a lifetime and build consensus in a country that he has helped divide. Twenty years after the overthrow of the Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, Romanians deserve better of their leaders."
Ce zice WSJ? "For the moment, it appears that economic liberalism won a squeaker against heirs to Nicolae Ceaucescu's Communists.
Mr. Basescu's victory is all the more remarkable, as he had to overcome one of the worst downturns in Europe, with an economy shrinking 7% this year, after 7.1% growth in 2008. Mr. Geoana had sought to capitalize on the recent hardship by campaigning for a return to a progressive tax code—though he appears to have back-pedalled on that point—and a more-active role in the economy for the central government. We're told that the Social Democrat was the favored candidate in both Washington and Moscow.
Mr. Basescu, by contrast, has been pushing budget cuts and a clamp-down on corruption, and is a staunch defender of the country's 16% flat tax. As mayor of Bucharest, he withstood the ire of animal rights activists by putting the capital's people ahead of its biting stray dogs, many of which he wound up having killed.
Mr. Basescu's government has been far from perfect in addressing the country's ills, not least because the former ship captain is something of a magnet for political spats. But it seems that for slightly more than half of Romania's voters, the memory of communism and of a government whose hands reach into every pocket has left Romanians with an even more bitter taste. With politicians on more than one continent writing off economic freedom and singing the siren-song of a state that can provide for their needs, Mr. Basescu largely stood his ground—and won."
În WSj găsim toate clişeele cretine despre băsescu, geoană, România, liberalism, comunism. Unii judecă realităţile româneşti cu mintea lor, ceilalţi o fac cu instrumentele unei propagande de doi bani. Şi apoi, eu, în locul lui băsescu, m-aş simţi jenat să mi se recunoască drept principală realizare ca primar kilărirea unor câini vagabonzi.
Poate sunt eu subiectiv, dar FT este de departe cel mai bun jurnal economic, pe când WSJ a ajuns trâmbiţa neo-liberalismului, taliban şi agresiv. Care citeşte totul cu ochelari de cal şi nu prea mai admite nuanţele. Un soi de EvZ a capitalismului victorios. Poate reuşeşte un transfer de senzaţie, în persoana lui Mihăieş. Că numai nevrozele lui lipseau WSJ pentru a atinge ridicolul în materie de talibanism.

4 comentarii:

Gabriela Savitsky spunea...

Nu putem deduce că ăia ar fi niște genii... Oameni, și ei.

Anonim spunea...

O relectare asemanatoare cu cea din FT este in NYT.

Anonim spunea...

WSJ nu sunt "talibani" - nu avem de-a face cu un ziar angajat politic, ca Washington Times pe vremea lui Bush. E vorba in schimb de acuratetea surselor. Wagstyl de la FT scrie despre Romania de cand lumea si stie care e situatia, pe cand alte ziare (inclusiv WSJ) au documentare superficiala despre Romania si nici n-au resurse sau interes sa sape dincolo de clisee (a nu se uita ca WSJ a fost "rentabilizat" de Murdoch).

Fluieratorul spunea...

La WSJ s-a facut publicitate platita, asta e parerea mea, americanii au turnat prostii nemestecate, intr-un mod jenant pentru o publicatie cu reputatie.