For more than half a century now, the print media has been facing the relentless onslaught of the new media.

Many predicted our imminent demise. Yet… here we are. And I know that we are prepared to endure for many years to come.

There are two factors that our critics failed to take into account: first, our deep commitment to the profession of journalism, which has compelled us to take drastic measures to keep the print media alive; and second, the endurance and strength of our raw material: the written word. These two factors have made our message so powerful that we have been able to withstand any and all challengers.

So it is not competition that concerns us. But we are extremely troubled by the gradual decline in the credibility of the print media.

Now, that is not to say that we are not credible. I want to be very clear on this. Generally speaking, we are still the most respected medium in our respective countries. But our credibility is declining, and this is something we cannot allow to continue.

For example, according to the Pew Research Center, the credibility of newspapers in the United States fell by 13 percentage points between 1998 and 2004. And this might be an even bigger issue in Latin America, where the credibility of institutions on the whole is declining.

At a meeting of professionals such as this, there is no need to bring up the serious implications of a loss of credibility. We all know that this is the weak point of our profession’s virtuous circle:

Credibility brings readership,
Readership attracts advertising,
Advertising creates profitability,
Profitability enables editorial independence,
and independence generates credibility — thus completing the virtuous cycle of successful print media.

So we can see that a loss of credibility not only affects the newspaper, but it also hurts business.

Not only that, but the problem is even bigger when we realize that the loss of credibility originates primarily from within the print media itself. The conclusion: any solution will also have to come from within. This is no small task!

I envision three main approaches to analyzing the reasons behind this loss of credibility — although we cannot generalize, since this has not been the experience of many media outlets:

1. Could it be that in our daily work we often fail to live up to journalistic values, such as the value of independence? Could it be, then, that to increase our credibility we must do a better job of living up to journalistic values?

2. Could it be that we don’t always put enough emphasis on fact-checking, on the quality and number of sources, and on placing stories in context — and we end up running stories without strictly enforcing our standards? Could it be, then, that to increase our credibility we must provide higher-quality news reporting?

3. Could it be that, in the heat of daily reporting, our newspapers’ agendas take priority — especially on political issues — and we fail to heed the demands of the public? Could it be, then, that our credibility would be enhanced by offering better service designed to raise the living standards of our readers?

I firmly believe that, whatever the answers may be, all indications are that it is time to address the issue of journalistic values — and to take action. Concretely, it seems that the time has come for IAPA to speak not only of rights, but also of obligations — without relenting in its struggle for freedom of the press.

All indications are that the most sensible approach would be for each of us to commit to the supremacy of journalistic values in our work. This entails a commitment to quality reporting, discipline, accuracy, and serving our readership. Thus, would it not in order to do something decisive, concrete, or even bold?

It is a bold move for IAPA to take on a leadership role in sowing good journalistic values to guide the media and journalists along the path of the virtuous circle.

And why should IAPA assume such a difficult task? I believe that we are the only institution in the Americas with sufficient experience, strength and prestige that is capable of addressing this sensitive issue from the viewpoint of the press itself.

However, we should also be clear that the topic must be addressed carefully and deliberately.

Taking action:

What is to be done? In fact, we are taking the first step here today in Indianapolis. The afternoon session focus on preparations for the Hemispheric Conference on Journalistic Values, possibly to be held in San José, Costa Rica in late 2006.

We should have no doubts that the road will be fraught with difficulties. On the one hand, there is reason for concern that merely discussing these issues publicly will lead legislators, politicians, and government officials to regulate or legislate matters that IAPA instead proposes be addressed through self-regulation.

We should also consider that it this not a matter of advocating rules or a code of ethics. That is, we have to find a formula that, within the principle of self-regulation, allows us to lay a foundation of values that helps us to regain credibility. A credo? A declaration of principles such as the Declaration of Chapultepec? We will see.

There are three journalistic principles that will undoubtedly hold our attention, since they reflect in some way the questions I posed earlier. I would like to chart a course based on my personal approach.

First: Independence

We have seen how the virtuous circle of journalistic success operates. This demonstrates that the independence of the newsroom is indispensable, not just for the journalistic success of the newspaper, but also for the company’s financial success. And when I speak of independence I am not just speaking of the traditional concept — in the face of political, military, economic or criminal powers. I am referring to the independence of the newsroom even from its own company, always within the framework of journalistic values.

Second: Journalistic quality and rigor

A fundamental aspect of journalistic quality has to do with accuracy: to apply the maximum of rigor, give the opposing version, accept corrections easily, do not allow subjectivity to invade the news columns, etc. This will make our media more credible.

Third: Service

I have the idea that citizens are demanding more and more that we take on a transcendental role: that we support institutions—by which I mean executive, legislative, municipal, judicial and community authorities—to achieve good government that provides people the higher living standards that they demand.

I want to clarify, and don’t misinterpret me on this point, that supporting good government should not be confused with politically supporting the current government. Not at all. It means that the media feel the need to proactively advise institutions and the authorities in them to serve their community better in order to concretely improve their standard of living.

But it also means that we oversee institutions to see that they act efficiently. And if it is necessary we denounce corruption without hesitation.

I conclude: The IAPA has won prestige in the hemisphere for its vital struggle in defense of press freedom and this must continue without quarter. But many will agree with me that the moment has come to show the other face of IAPA, the face that has always looked inward. Today it must address the outside world about the obligations of the media and of journalists.

Ladies and gentlemen, print journalism faces a critical challenge. It must maintain its status as the medium of record. And we can only achieve that if, among other actions, we in the press maintain or increase our credibility.

The IAPA must take up the challenge and lead this movement in our hemisphere.