Defending journalism or shielding manipulation?

Published at: 16/07/2026 10:30 AM

The reaction of the National Union of Press Workers (SNTP), to the statements of Diosdado Cabello Rondón, leaves an inevitable question: Are they really defending journalism or are they trying to turn into victims those who took advantage of a tragedy to sow fear and disinformation?

During the editorial of Con El Mazo Dando's 575 program, Cabello was emphatic: his criticism was not directed against journalism as a profession, but against those who, he said, used the double earthquake of June 24 to spread rumors, montages and false news for a clear political purpose.

He didn't talk about responsible journalism. He spoke of those who, in the midst of the pain of thousands of families, disseminated versions of alleged blockades of international aid, mass graves, charges for delivering bodies, manipulated numbers of victims, absolute abandonment of the victims, tsunami alerts and other matrices that, over the days, were denied by the facts or lacked verifiable evidence.

However, the SNTP decided to present these statements as an alleged attack against the entire press. This position not only simplifies the debate, but it avoids answering the fundamental question: Who defends society when a tragedy is used to manufacture fear, despair and political confrontation?

Because it's one thing to exercise critical journalism and investigate power—something legitimate and necessary in any democracy—and quite another thing to amplify unverified rumors, turn social media posts into “truths” or give up certain versions whose sole purpose is to generate anguish in a population that is already going through one of the most difficult moments in its recent history.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. But so is the right of citizens to receive verified information. Not everything that circulates on social networks is journalism and not every criticism of false news constitutes an attack on press freedom.

The most striking thing is that the SNTP quickly raised its voice to denounce an alleged stigmatization, but it has been much less visible demanding public corrections from those who spread false information that ended up increasing the uncertainty of thousands of families. Shouldn't a journalistic guild be the first to defend rigor, verification and professional ethics?

In the editorial of his program, Cabello argued that never before had Venezuela faced a natural tragedy accompanied by a media campaign of such magnitude, aimed, as he said, at turning collective pain into a tool for political destabilization. From that perspective, his questioning was directed against these practices and not against the journalistic practice itself.

Perhaps the real debate isn't whether someone can criticize a journalist. The real debate is whether journalism can relinquish the responsibility of verifying facts when the peace of mind of an entire country is at stake.

Because defending journalism also involves defending truth, ethics and commitment to society. If a union only raises its voice when questioning those who spread false information, but is silent in the face of the harm that such disinformation can cause, it risks sending the wrong message: that corporatism matters more than credibility.

And that would indeed be a defeat for real journalism.

Mazo News Team