Hey. Perhaps there is nothing more irritating when you write than to see your
text published under another name, or perhaps if there is something just as annoying
and it is that one' s name comes out by asserting a text that
someone else has written. Well, we both did this week and that'
s why I should start this section by offering a public apology to the Deputy
Minister of Multilateral Affairs of the Cantilery, Elizabeth Taylor, and to the professor
and co- founder of the School of Gender Studies at Mara Viveros National University,
victims of our neitligents. The shame is greater because Taylory and Viveros accepted
our invitation to participate with their ideas in the editorial special that we developed on
the occasion of the commemoration of independence on July 20th, for which we convened
with the men and women of various representatives proposed ways to shake us a little
bit of polarization and start or try at least to start a plural and serene
conversation. I mean, they weren' t passing texts, let' s
say, but they were very significant. And, for the same reason,
the firm' s support was momentous, because here in an oversight that,
as I say, forgives us, we put Elizabeth Taylor' s signature to
Mara Viveros' text and Mara Viveros' was signed by Elizabeth Taylor, although
in the digital version they came out as they should, with the correct signatures.
We found it necessary, in Monday' s printed edition, to re
- publish the texts with the correct signatures and explain to the readers what had
happened a thousand apologies for them and well, for all of you. Another
repair. It deserved an article that generated a good debate in which many voices
participated, but that activated and promoted let' s say with a long ear
- thickness, as he himself called it Roba Mario Robert Top This time it
was another professor of the national one, also who sent a collaboration in which
the human fact of the thought of erasm to pose a critique to the promotion
of ancestral assets, that qualified in that text as a mysticism and even charlatanía
to the detriment of scientific knowledge, undoubtedly controversial and even questionable. That text
by Professor María Dolores Jaramillo and in that line another collaborator, Tomás Molina,
sent a reflection in the form of a reply to that article that we published
this Sunday, but beyond the positions in front of this debate, which is
not, by the way, a new one nor seems to me to be
completely settled, because I bring the subject because even after that reply he stole
Mario Roberto pe Dejo raise a moral, and that is that this type of
texts, for him anachronistic and racist, should not pass a newspaper filter like
the viewer, should not be published interesting the debate, but let us say
that I do not agree so much. Not everything must be published. In
that I agree, especially in these times when hate speech hides behind radicalisms and
conspiracy theories and purifies on social networks. Above all, it is true that
journalists must think twice about who we give to you and which of those voices
we favour. However, I am no friend of censoring ideas that we do
not share. On the contrary, I believe that they must be exposed and
subject to debate in the public debate, rather than moving forward, without contrast,
under the shadows. It is difficult to define that line to decide when
a discussion is opening and when harmful ideas are being promoted. Without a doubt,
that debate is valid, but I am not sure that there is a
morale that will close this discussion completely, where if there is no debate in
the meaning of words and sometimes journalists for avoiding sounding very simple or for not
repeating words. In short, we look for ways or means of telling that
they simply don' t mean what we' re trying to say. I
can' t imagine prosecutors in front of a radio crew trying to tune in
the waves by which the allegations are coming to them, which was more or
less the image we represented in an article this week when they said that the
prosecution was receiving evidence. Clarito said Jairus automatic on his earball. No complaints
are received. Why we invented so much good. It' s no more,
he sees us a lot.