Sofia Branco began her journalistic career in the Público and currently holds the same profession in Lusa agency, since 2009. She is also a visiting professor in the Master of Women's Studies, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, New University of Lisbon and was elected president of union of journalists, in an unprecedented vote, as in 27 years there were no two lists to compete for the elections of this associative body.
I wanted to address some of the evolution of journalism in Portugal, this last two decades, taking into account that the new technologies have greatly alter the lives of newsrooms.
Sofia Branco: The fault is not only of the new technologies, because I think this is an argument that is used a lot to justify a number of things that are not justifiable. The economic crisis has led to profound changes in labor relations and today's journalism precarity is much more extended than in the past. The links that exist and the wages you earn is very different than in recent years, this relationship deteriorated substantially. The risk of unemployment also is associated with various factors, there is a lack of revenue, there is low sales, lack of readers, listeners and viewers and all that associated with a market that is relatively small and for which compete huge numbers of university students, which we did not had in the past, there was a boom of journalism courses far beyond the supply there is and all this together creates very poor working conditions.
But it also does not result of the concentration of several media in a single economic group, managed by investors and are seen as an investment?
SB: Yes, this agglomeration has huge effects now because they have several publications on the same roof and that for diversity is not good. Then we have a very strange phenomenon, which in the past did not happen, that is to the News Journal and the Daily News that they were two different newspapers in historical terms and also diferent audiences and today both have the same exact news and that before was unthinkable. All this has to do with the lack of resources and a word that is very fashionable that is synergy that never gives more money to people is just a professional writing for various media and receive exactly the same. It is a moot question, but the concentration has not been advantageous and additionally absorbs much of the market that is already small in terms of advertising revenue and small projects are more limited, there is no room for independent news publications.
This precariousness also has to do with the fact that there is little legislation to protect media professionals? The work load is secured by freelancers and trainees.
SB: I do not think is lack of legislation, what is lacking is enforcement. The law is equal for all, because I do not think the media workers are a group different from the other workers have labor laws as everyone else, which in the past have been much better, has protected more people than today, there is little oversight, but it is also because there are few complaints. All who work in private companies know what happens and what are the working conditions. This must be denounced and required that there is an intervention by the authority, which is not easy, why? Because a report puts at risk that person now and it may lose his jobs, even though is precarious. It is not easy to manage these situations, we have knowledge of these irregularities and thought how to do this trying to protect people? And we have professionals who confess us who prefer to have those working conditions even if precarious than having no job.
In terms of gender equality, when we talk about precariousness we speak of women are at the forefront in terms of redundancies, however, they are those that have a higher level of training.
SB: I have no data to support this argument. But if the media is a mirror of society and have no reason to doubt that it is, we know that women are more sensitive to unemployment, receive less in wages and an increase slower promotion in terms of careers, many are interrupted by maternity leave something that employers like much and here I am being ironic. However, back to stress that there are no concrete data, I do not have a study that categorically say that journalists women receive less than journalists men, but it is a fact that the Portuguese women receive less in wages, about 20%, so this is prove.
There is another aspect which is that women have difficulty reaching the top positions, you are a case apart and your route you noticed this resistance?
SB: Did I not notice, but I know it exists. The glass ceiling that exists for other professions is also found in the media. Today what happens is that you have many women in middle management, which was my case, I was editor, but in the directions there are still few. I think this has a lot to do with two aspects, first is a question of mentality that is common to all professions and all over the country and it takes a long time to change, even in the most progressive societies. Another aspect has to do with a particular generation, when it comes to management positions, in principle we are talking about a specific age range, 40 to 50 years of age and the truth is that there are more men doing journalism in these ages than women because it was initially a more masculine profession. Nowadays, it is more feminine in a new generation, not in this age and in this respect there is the combination of these two factors. Then there is a discriminator aspect by the employer when it comes to leadership by women, because they prefer they not to have children, reconciling work and personal life is not easy in journalism. They, women, on the other hand, also perhaps chooses not to work 16 hours a day, but it also should not be a rule work so many hours.
For new digital media are gaining strength because readers have changed, new generations do not embrace paper as the above.
SB: Yes, they read in a different way that is little studied, but in fact do not buy newspapers and instead of course, go to the internet and you need to know what they read and why and we know very little about these habits. This leaves room for new projects on the Internet that must also have its rules, because there are a lot of lack of such laws is not known under what conditions information is produced, the Internet is a world where there is much information available, but also a lot of misinformation. However there are many good digital journalism projects, one thing is to be a basic national newspaper, regional or local level and have a website and quite another thing is to think of a means of social communication in digital terms and it is even very interesting, because it opens the available information exprecto. What is needed is to have in mind is where they come from sources in the case of Lusa that is what I know best, the information is used and reused across multiple sites without being paid and this is serious, because it is not freely accessible.
But in Spain it approved a law in this regard.
SB: But it had to be the state to decide such a thing and finance it. At this time this is not what happens, Lusa has a majority of the state capital, but it has private shareholders, is not a public company and has employees to maintain and gain nothing with this proliferation of information. On the internet there is a lot of it, it can be used and that the copyright seems to disappear, it is so much on paper and in digital, but digital becomes much more difficult to monitor.
So you defend a specific legal regulation?
SB: No, I think that there is enough, it has to be is applied, there must be a way to work it, but if did not work for paper, much less on the Internet. Although I do not know if because of the specifics that exist on the internet will not be worth being studied and analyzed, I think there is little knowledge of what exists.
And how do you view the future of journalism, it is said that he died because nowadays anyone with a camera or video is a reporter.
SB: That's not journalism.
So what you think it's the next step?
SB: That's what people do has to do with an easy access of things, shooting a film, photographing and then write about it is not journalism. People must know how to distinguish these two aspects, to be a journalist is necessary to study and especially obeceder to its own code of ethics and that is binding as doctors, is not a journalist who wants it. Be a professional of communication obeys estrict rules and who fulfill not to be penalized for it and it has to do with a social responsibility that the citizens do not need to have, there are a number of factors such as proximity, novelty in terms of the information that ordinary people do not know. In addition, the reporter is a filter according to a code and a set of rules learned and no such idea, which is dangerous, and there is that much today, which makes anyone who is a photograph is a photojournalist. I think we will move towards a reality who comes closest to the truth is the one who makes journalism.
Then the future will go through smaller newsrooms, or accredited professionals who take digital solo projects?
SB: I think it goes there. I do not know if it will be the future. I think people will get tired of walking from one place to another, from being evicted or low wages and will create their own jobs, people like you say you are credible, they studied to be journalists, were professional and there are such a case. Digital turns out to be an easy and inexpensive access that has no paper costs, I do not think awill appear more magazines or newspapers on paper in the future it will be impossible, it does not exist. I think there is room for more projects on the Internet.
