A camera screen shows the logo of the Televisa media corporation from Mexico with a TV studio blurred in the background. Photo: Diario Red.
By Bruno Sgarzini – Mar 4, 2026
For a long time there has been talk of “militant or political” journalism like that which is done under political ideals. According to the conventional commandment, for example, any article, opinion column, or report that covers a social struggle or reports an injustice is militant. Or that which conveys an alternative version of the facts of a party or a political camp stigmatized by traditional media.
It is not militant journalism, for example, what the multimedia corporation ClarĂn does in Argentina when it talks about “youth crime,” while entire cities remain without factories and with thousands of young people out of the jobs of their parents and grandparents. There are no “militant” journalists among those who forget to talk about the ghost cities that are created in front of Argentine society with huge pockets of poverty.
Nor are the television anchors living in closed neighborhoods, who on the air avoid naming Milei’s labor reform that takes away rights from his colleagues who work as producers and cameramen.
It is not militant journalism when international news agencies talk about a Cuba that “murders members of a boat,” without contextualizing the weapons carried by its crew nor the shots that they fired at the Cuban maritime guards.
It is not the ones who reverse the facts at convenience: if Cuban military opens fire in response, they murder, if US nationals spend months conducting air strikes against boats in the Caribbean, instead, they are “drug traffickers killed” in a “US military operation.” There are no murders, no extrajudicial executions, only criminals, or “narcos,” who lose their lives in remote bombings.
If there is an oil spill, or the pollution of a river by a mining company, it is an “environmental accident” that goes against “corporate social responsibility.” “Non-militant” journalism has its own semantics; in Gaza there is no genocide, but a war against “Hamas.”
Maduro is the leader of the Cartel of the Suns, not a head of state, Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, a legitimate president, not a businessman suspected of using his banana company for drug shipments and signaled by a drug leader of having ordered the murder of presidential candidate Daniel Villavicencio.
Manuel LĂłpez Obrador or Claudia Sheinbaum, are under “narco control,” but Felipe CalderĂłn and Enrique Peña Nieto had nothing to do with their lieutenants’ links with organized crime.
The killing of Ayatollah Khamenei is legitimate because he “murdered thousands of Iranians,” as is an “attack on Tehran to destroy its nuclear program.” The United States and “Israel” “preemptively defend themselves” from Iran to avoid “being bombed in the future.”
But if Iran responds to the attacks by sending rockets and drones to US bases in seven countries, then that’s an “illegitimate and illegal” act that widens the conflict and puts the world at risk of a major war in the Middle East because of Tehran.
The cruel “Islamic ayatollah regime” cultivates “chaos and destruction” with its actions, while Trump and Netanyahu fight and detain it with preemptive strikes. According to this journalism, it is an existential war between civilization and barbarism.
With each incident, the hierarchy is reorganized according to the circumstantial interests of this journalism, which is not militant, but “corporate.”
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JRE/JB
Bruno Sgarzini
Bruno Sgarzini is an Argentinian analyst, writer and researcher part of the Mision Verdad team
