In the imaginary of journalism -at least in well done journalism- there’s always the idea that one doesn’t have to innocently believe in what the other says. That facts have to be contrasted. Checked with other sources. Things others tell us respond to their own interests, and as journalists, our interests are: we care about finding the truth, showing what’s attractive, even when interviewed people don’t like it. It’s our note, not theirs.

Now, well, in this note published by the newspaper Clarin, in their travel supplement, the journalist does the exact opposite: she assumes as her own the whole imaginary of San Antonio de Areco, which tries to sell itself as some sort of origin of “authentic creolism”. Along the note, all the common places on Don Segundo Sombra -one of the main works on argentinean gauchesque- are repeated, thus reinforcing the imaginary that’s being tried to be sold to us, through markenting. As journalists, can we quietly accept that our note matches the same arguments that would sell in a touristic brochure? Obviously, not.

As journalists, weren’t we supposed to always question what we were told? It looks like travel supplements in Argentina follow the same path: too much publicity disguised as notes, but zero journalism. Is the same thing happening in the rest of Latin America? I guess I should start reading other newspapers online.