No one in their right mind can object that the right of audiences to receive truthful and timely information is a noble cause and a desirable pillar for any democracy. However, when the State seeks to become the supreme arbiter of what constitutes the “truth,” the border between journalistic regulation and censorship becomes very blurred. For this reason, the new guidelines promoted in Mexico to sanction the media for disseminating false, decontextualized or anachronistic information open a dangerous door towards official control of public discourse.
The biggest problem with this initiative does not lie in the search for informative rigor, but in the execution mechanism and the severity of its punishments. Assigning fines of up to 1% of a media outlet's total revenue for each offense is not just a corrective: for small and medium-sized publishing companies, it represents a financial coup de grâce. A couple of mistakes—or worse, interpretations that are uncomfortable for those in power—could lead to the ruin of entire journalistic projects.
But the true structural flaw of the project lies in the answer to an ancient question: who judges the judge? That it is the government itself that determines what is a real fact and what is a “lie” transforms the regulator into judge and party. History shows that power tends to label as “false” or “decontextualized” information that is uncomfortable, critical or revealing. Leaving the definition of the truth in the hands of the state bureaucracy does not guarantee more informed audiences, only audiences more aligned with the official version.
To make matters worse, the proposal suffers from a gigantic blind spot: the impunity of political speech. The guidelines provide for severe sanctions for the messenger, but are conveniently silent on the original sender when he or she holds public office. In an environment where political actors launch unverified data, unfounded promises and disinformation left and right from the tribunes of power, it is disproportionate to punish the media without touching the source.
If the genuine objective of the authorities were to protect citizens' right to the truth, the standard would have to be similar for everyone. A comprehensive framework should require and punish falsehoods in statements by public officials and popular representatives with the same severity that is intended to be applied to newsrooms.
The fight against disinformation is an urgent challenge of our era, but the solution does not lie in implementing information authoritarianism. Truthful information is encouraged by strengthening independent journalism, guaranteeing government transparency and promoting media literacy in society.
