Endnote

Abstract

The foregoing chapters highlight a number of significant concepts and concerns about public memory and its relationship to power. They reinforce the claim that public awareness and understanding of political, economic, and social injustice crucially depend on mass mediation in order to give visibility and recognition to those collective memories that underlie the real and symbolic integrity of a community or nation. Furthermore, in a world of globalized information and communication, those responsible for the content of mass-mediated products and artefacts — especially professional journalists and citizen journalists (whatever the distinction may be) — have a clear ethical obligation to opt for inclusion rather than exclusion, information rather than misinformation, representation rather than misrepresentation. In short, within the broader framework of communication rights outlined in the Introduction, public communication based on freedom of expression and freedom of information must be exercised in such a way that democratic ideals can flourish to guarantee and protect public memory. The implications are clear: First, it is necessary that some institution act[s] to protect the language of discourse. If those who seek power are allowed to define the terms or concepts as they choose without being called to account for distortions, unflattering (to brutal) portrayals of others, or prevarications, legitimate genuine dialog is impossible. Journalists are in the best position to assure that this occurs… It is, of course, the power of the unembellished truth that is most useful to genuine, or authentic dialog in the public sphere. It is what protects the language of discourse itself, and what provides journalists with their power as watchdogs over the contest between ideologies or partisan positionsthat are part of the public sphere. This unembellished truth can only be guaranteed by adherence to one overarching requirement: the practice of ethics. [Fortner, 2011, p. 490]