EL UNIVERSAL began almost a month ago an exercise of plurality where for the first time voices from different media come together, regardless of competition, distances or editorial line, to analyze and discuss the situation of the freedom of expression in Mexico.
To achieve this, EL UNIVERSAL has opened its pages to a very wide range of ways of thinking and has interviewed intellectuals, academics, journalists, cartoonists, communicators and government spokesmen.
With generosity on their part and putting intrinsic competence aside, they have agreed and expressed their desire to join this exercise of reflection, in which ideas, assertions and opinions revolve around a fundamental right: freedom of expression.
Analysts, journalists, cartoonists and officials representing the Fourth Transformation (one of them the Secretary of the Interior, Olga Sánchez Cordero) and communicators sympathetic to the government have had a place here. There has also been the participation of international analysts such as the American Jon Lee Anderson or the Dutch Jan Albert Hootsen, who give a valuable point of view of how the state of press freedom in Mexico and the government’s relationship are perceived from outside with the media.
In this exercise, although some of the voices of this publishing house have participated, space has also been given to journalists representing a wide spectrum of the Mexican press, whether they publish or express themselves in media with different views such as La Jornada , Reforma, Milenio, Nexos or Radio Formula.
But it seems that this exercise has not been understood or seen in its context, because although power has not formally limited freedom of expression, it does foster a spirit of lynching against those who express a discordant voice, which is expresses especially on social networks.
Just yesterday the point was made that one of those discordant voices, which he publishes regularly in another newspaper, had been given a preferential space in EL UNIVERSAL, and was expressed astonishment about this practice, which from the sphere of power was perceived as a conspiracy of conservatives against the government.
No, it is not a chorus of adversaries: it is an exercise in reflection that some politicians do not understand because they only want or are willing to hear one voice: theirs.