The Guardian

Hace un tiempo Antimedios está discutiendo el tema de la participación ciudadana a través de Internet. Algunas acciones se han visto en Chile con la "píldora de día después", la "estatua del papa" y las "becas Chile". En menor medida algo ha pasado con las elecciones presidenciales con la campaña en Twitter "#paraunirseafrei", el "Frei no More" o la estrella de Piñera que circula en las fotos de miles de usuarios. Todas acciones que develan la desconexión existente entre la política, sus instituciones y los ciudadanos.

Acá otro ejemplo. En UK Jon Morter comenzó una campaña por Facebook para que los ingleses impidieran que llegara al número uno de los rankings musicales la canción del ganador de turno del reality "X Factor" (que alcanza peaks de audiencia de 15 millones). Morter propuso que "Killing in the Name" -una canción de protesta del grupo Rage Against the Machine- fuera comprada por el público y alcanzara el número 1 del ranking navideño británico. La canción -que habla en contra de la corrupción en EE.UU., el Ku Klux Klan y su relación con la policía de ese país- ya había sido número uno en UK en 1992. En Wikipedia la historia de Killing in the Name.

La campaña de Morter alcanzó más de 480.000 seguidores en Facebook. A ella se sumaron públicamente Paul McCartney y el grupo Rage Against the Machine -que donará las ganancias- y que hicieron llegar a "Killing in the Name" al número 1 de los rankings en UK. Lo paradójico de esto es que Simon Cowell -creador del reality X Factor y quien se lleva las ganancias por las canciones que salen del programa- también tenía relación con el sello Sony que grabó "Killing in the Name". Los riesgos de la concentración de propiedad y la falta de transparencia.

La campaña de Morter no es tan distinta a las ocurridas en Chile y apela a la misma escasez de participación que vemos en distintas dimensiones en las sociedades modernas. Ya sea en la industria de la música, en los medios de comunicación y su colusión de agendas, en la política y el mercado, Internet emerge como un espacio para la liberación de frustraciones en contra de esas imperfecciones (ej: www.reclamos.cl). La diversidad de agendas y demandas ciudadanas encuentran en Internet un espacio natural que no se condice con las instancias de participación que ofrecen, por ejemplo, actores políticos como los partidos o los medios.

En un estudio realizado con Sebastián Valenzuela, entre 2000 y 2005, el 80% de las noticias aparecidas en diarios y televisión hablaron de los mismos temas. Que los medios hablen de lo mismo contribuye a fomentar las asimetrías de información, disminuyendo las posibilidades de agendas temáticas distintas y representativas de la diversidad de intereses ciudadanos. Así se estimula la desigualdad entre aquellos que son parte de una deliberación monótona sobre los asuntos públicos -como la de los políticos en los medios- y de los que encuentran otros espacios para ello -como los grupos en Facebook- porque tienen acceso a Internet.

De esta forma la competencia y transparencia en la industria de medios en Chile es clave para disminuir las asimetrías de información y fomentar la diversidad temática. Si bien los medios han sido activos en promover la cultura de la transparencia, también la falta de ella les impide extender su rol fiscalizador. La escasez de indicadores en esa industria (perfil de consumidor, propiedad, conflictos de interés, cobertura, etc.) se convierten en barreras de acceso a información para los chilenos.

Si www.reclamos.cl es un sitio que recoge las quejas de los ciudadanos en contra de servicios de empresas, el Colegio de Periodistas podría generar un espacio similar para fomentar la calidad del trabajo periodístico. Lo que está haciendo www.ojodelmedio.blogspot.com va en esa dirección. Instancias similares podrían surgir en el Consejo Nacional de Televisión y la Asociación Nacional de la Prensa. Así se podría ampliar tanto el rol fiscalizador y de monitoreo que estos organismos promueven respecto del trabajo de los medios en Chile, pero lo más importante, estimularían la competencia y la transparencia para romper con las asimetrías de información que también fomentan la desigualdad.

El detalle de la campaña Morter y Rage Against the Machine se describe en este artículo de The Guardian

Saludos,

A.

19 de Septiembre, 2009
To BBC or not to BBC
Arturo Arriagada
Revista Que Pasa

¿Es sostenible la existencia de un medio Público financiado por los ciudadanos? ésa es la pregunta que esconde una lucha de poder entre la BBC, sus competidores y la clase política en el Reino Unido.

En una reciente entrevista al diario The Guardian, Mark Thompson -director general de la BBC- lanzó una bomba al revelar la posible venta de una de sus filiales. Para muchos, esto huele a privatización de una empresa pública que se financia principalmente a través del TV Licence Fee, una cuenta anual de casi 135 mil pesos chilenos que pagan los ingleses para acceder a los contenidos de la BBC. Si esta discusión se diera en Chile sería como enfrentar la total privatización de TVN.

Pero las palabras de Thompson esconden un hábil discurso político: el que defiende la existencia de un medio de comunicación público -representativo de los intereses de los ciudadanos- y el que logró instalar en la agenda pública el debate sobre la viabilidad de privatizarlo.

Así lanzó dos golpes a sus principales enemigos. El primero lo recibió James Murdoch -hijo de Rupert y director del grupo mediático News Corp-, quien criticó la competencia desleal que la BBC genera debido a su método de financiamiento. Es cierto que las economías de escala y las audiencias masivas que logra la BBC distorsionan el mercado de la información, pero también ocurre entre privados en otros mercados de medios en el mundo. Por otro lado, los Murdoch intentan volver a cobrar por la información en internet. Allí la BBC tiene un liderazgo global y no piensa en cargarles a los usuarios el costo de la información online.

El segundo golpe les llegó a los tories ingleses, específicamente al hábil ministro en las sombras Jeremy Hunt. El TV Licence Fee es un impuesto y los conservadores son partidarios de disminuirlo. Para ello se han encargado de centrar la discusión pública en los altos salarios de las figuras de la BBC -cosa que es cierta- en tiempos de crisis económica. En total, la BBC recauda, a través de ese impuesto, 3.7 billones de libras anuales para producir sus programas. Gracias a eso ha logrado construir un capital simbólico y una marca sólida ante sus audiencias. Por ejemplo, entre 2 mil encuestados en agosto pasado por The Guardian, el 69% dijo confiar en la BBC.

Más allá de la privatización o no de la BBC, es importante rescatar la discusión respecto de una televisión pública de calidad y representativa de los intereses de sus audiencias. La BBC es una institución propia de una cultura política basada en el escrutinio público y el accountability, la que aspiramos desarrollar en Chile. Ahora que se decidió la norma de televisión digital -y especialmente en tiempos de campaña electoral- es hora de saber qué esperan los candidatos de los medios en Chile, si to BBC or not to BBC.

Michael Jackson y los medios de comunicación fueron siempre una sociedad dinámica, lucrativa y masiva. Más allá de su legado musical -que es evidente, especialmente en sus primeros 3 discos como solista- Jackson fue un símbolo de la cultura norteamericana, sobre todo en la década de los ´80. Sus contratos con marcas, auspicios, giras, discos, tecnología de punta en sus shows, manejo de los medios para su promoción, etc., transmitieron el sueño del Tío Sam y todos nosotros lo consumimos como un producto más, gracias a los medios. Los medios también encontraron en Jackson la posibilidad de indagar en la vida íntima de un fenómeno cultural que estaba dando señales de colapso.

Siempre vi a Michael Jackson por televisión, desde Thriller y su notable video de 14 minutos. Creo que tenía 4 años. Su muerte me sorprendió y la he seguido en los medios, aunque a diferencia de otras noticias impactantes, hice un ejercicio. No leí -ni he leido hasta hoy- los diarios de Chile para seguir la noticia, en vez de eso me concentré en leer la prensa de UK.

Me imagino que los artículos en Chile deben estar centrados en las locuras de Jackson, algunos medios le deben haber dedicado algo de atención al legado musical, en tanto otros tienen que haber entrevistado varias veces al periodista chileno que lo denunció hace algunos años -y que Jackson demandó- por los casos de pedofilia en los que posteriormente se vio envuelto. En UK algo de eso hubo -acá también existe una versión de LUN y otra de El Mercurio y otra de La Nación- pero también me encontré con una gran sorpresa, un par de artículos del Observer (la edición dominical del diario The Guardian) que lograron separar muy bien al Jackson artista del Jackson freak, pero sobre todo, con un estilo de periodismo directo, incisivo y analítico.

Gran atención le di a un artículo donde entrevistaban a jóvenes que nacieron después de 1995 -cuando Jackson ya no era tan exitoso- y que daba cuenta de dos cosas. La primera fue que el periodismo saca lo mejor de sí cuando se libra de ese formato limitado y repetitivo que conocemos de noticia. Una periodista fue a varios colegios públicos entrevistando a jóvenes de 15 a 18 años, profundizando en sus emociones, así como también aplicando una gran pluma y sentido del humor para dar cuenta del fenómeno Jackson desde una perspectiva novedosa, la de los niños que conocieron al Jackson blanco, freak, etc. Habrá salido algo así en Chile? (lo pregunto porque no he leído los diarios chilenos). La segunda fue ver cómo cualquiera de nosotros puede ser un buen entrevistado. Niños de distintas razas aparecieron en este artículo entregando frases como "Perdimos a una leyenda... las cirugías plásticas? Cada cual con lo suyo". Niños de colegios públicos dando su opinión en uno de los diarios más importantes de UK. Hemos visto en Chile a escolares dando su opinión en la prensa en ocasiones que no sean la de un paro o protestas estudiantiles?

Pero lo mejor de todo, fue encontrarme con esta columna de Paul Morley. A su juicio, la vida de Jackson se parece a la evolución de los medios de comunicación.

"The media had become as bizarre in its obsessions and anxieties as Jackson himself" 

Adjunto la notable columna de Morley, el link al artículo donde entrevistan a los escolares y un video donde se analiza el impacto de la muerte de Jackson en Twitter. Todos publicados por The Guardian.

Con este envío, Antimedios homenajea el legado musical de Michael Jackson.

A.

The untimely, shady death of Michael Jackson
The Observer
Paul Morley
Sunday, 29 of June, 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/28/michael-jackson-deat...

As soon as he was gone, he was everywhere, regaining a flashy, bewitching agility he hadn't had since the early Eighties when he really was a kind of king. He was everywhere, and everyone had something to say, even if they didn't really know what to say. As soon as it was clear that he was really dead, and that it was now Michael Jackson 1958-2009, the instantly surreal truth being obtained and announced not by a traditional media outlet, but by a furtive, deadpan celebrity website, a whole host of Michael Jacksons was released into the air.

The loved Jackson, the gloved Jackson, the wealthy Jackson, the bankrupt Jackson, the Motown Jackson, the moonwalking Jackson, the MTV Jackson, the despised Jackson, the genius, the mutant, the addict, the oddball, the victim, the black, the white, the creepy, the glorious, the narcissist, the pathetic, the gentle, the monster.

You could take your pick as to which Jackson you want to remember, which version of the monster, or the genius, or the dissolving man behind the mask. He was everywhere, but now that death had returned his full transfixing powers as a spinning, gliding master of self-publicity, any truth about who he really was and what he'd been up to was shattered into a thousand glittering pieces. Once we stayed up late to watch the exciting premier of the Thriller video. Now we stayed up late to watch another form of extraordinary choreography intended to turn one fascinating, paranoid, fiendishly otherworldly entertainer into an immortal.

The crazed rush was on to try and fix just one Jackson in place; the trailblazing star, or the abused innocent, the loneliest man alive, or the greatest entertainer of all time. The uneasy combination of frantic web action and obsessive, hasty, flamboyantly superficial news coverage meant it was possible to witness a certain sort of immortality start to take form. The tweeters, the websites, the pundits, the acquaintances, the impersonators, the colleagues, the hangers-on, the fan club members, the newsreaders, the correspondents, the international celebrities all performed their duties so obediently that the whole event seemed to follow a script with the full approval of Jackson. (Imagine how well he's planned the funeral.)

It was immediately clear that the nature and timing of this end had been coming for such a long time. Even while the whole thing was disconcerting and in the middle of it all someone had actually died, it was also the most obvious thing in the world. Now that it had arrived, this punchline to all the scintillating music and living, seedy chaos, everyone knew their place, as if Jackson's final mortal act as extreme self-obsessed entertainment illusionist was to ensure that the news of his death was itself a kind of glittering if slightly tawdry spectacle.

In those first remarkable moments, death had allowed the myth of Jackson to surge into life, and his career got the focused injection of publicity he had recently been unable to generate consistently without dangerous self-sacrifice. The 24-hour news channels couldn't believe their luck, all this archive, tension, scandal, revelation, mourning, scorning and gossip. Jackson played a massive, needy part in shaping an entertainment universe which now largely consists of constant gossip about the antics and eccentricities of damaged celebrities, and his death was confirmation that the presentation of round-the-clock news certainly when it comes to popular culture is little more than formally presented, gravely delivered, hastily assembled tittle tattle.

Everything had been destined to lead to this untimely, shady death, and once that death arrived, a certain kind of natural order was established. Jackson was where he'd been heading all along - a sudden tragic end, a twist of mystery, a sad, final trip low across the LA sky to the coroner's, coverage that seemed in part pre-recorded ready for the big day.

The whole thing concluded the only way it could - in a resounding blast of grotesque but compelling publicity for a figure who had become all that he had become - the king and the imprisoned, the adored and the humiliated, the accused and the indulged - because of publicity. Jackson had been publicised to death. As soon as he died, the response came in the form of pure publicity, an almost relieved acceptance that finally the damned thing had at last been resolved.

He was no good to us alive, falling apart physically and mentally, making repeated attempts to repair his image and reputation, reminding us again and again that the neurotic energy, dangerous perfectionism and desperate ambition he'd turned into dazzling, video-age show business had eventually turned back on him and started to eat him up.

There was only one real way to rescue Jackson from the enduring pain of decline and reclusiveness. It wasn't going to involve taking on 50 dates at the O2 Arena, and no doubt revealing a poignant lack of wit, speed and power, and escaping to exile after a couple of disastrous shows.

When he was alive, it was never clear quite how to approach the perverse, shape-shifting, scandalous, ruined, faintly repulsive idea of Jackson, how to deal with the transformation from irresistible child star to weird, shattered, self-pitying, fallen idol. Dead, in acceptably mysterious and fairly dubious circumstances, he has joined those he loved and admired for their life-after-death adventures - Garland, Dean, Monroe, Presley, Lennon, Diana - and because one of the many Michael Jacksons seems to have had the kind of pointless, chaotic fame that we now think of as being the result of time spent on reality television, there's another chain of celebrity disaster he also belongs to that drops all the way down to Jade Goody.

It was the loony, minor celebrity element in late-period, now final-period, Jackson - a celebrity Big Brother appearance, even a pantomime, would have been more beneficial than all that demanding singing and dancing he was facing - that actually helped give his death something Presley's and Diana's couldn't have. An element of the busy, hustling, hyper, self-aware 21st century, as reflected by TMZ, Fox, Perez Hilton and Google.

He'd hung on long after parts of his mind, business and body were falling off, but his sense of timing was in the end immaculate. He sprang to life in the Sixties, got himself into position in the Seventies, was anointed in the Eighties, started to disintegrate, and then hung on for dear life until the media and the web were in the right ever-vigilant, tabloid-minded, freakishly amoral, multi-channelled, search-saturated, tweetist state properly to cover his death with the correct combination of pomp and prurience.

The media had become as bizarre in its obsessions and anxieties as Jackson himself. The cultural stars were in alignment. Even as he lost ultimate control he somehow took absolute control of the coverage of his life and death, disappearing behind hundreds of versions of himself, now always in our lives whether we liked the idea or not. He had been disgraced as a living legend, but death had given him back, one way or another, the kind of grace he craved. The grace that comes when your fame, and your name, cannot be taken away.

Jon Stewart es un conocido comediante y animador del programa "The Daily Show". Hace unos meses comenzó a criticar a los gurús del periodismo financiero estadounidense por fomentar la crisis al no informar e investigar sobre el tema. Stewart mostró en su programa todos los consejos que estos periodistas le daban a sus audiencias donde negaban la existencia de la crisis actual. En resumen, Stewart se convirtió en el portavoz de ciudadanos descontentos por una crisis en la que el periodismo -más por omisiones que acciones- tiene alguna cuota de responsabilidad.

Más allá de la crisis, lo interesante de Stewart y su programa es que -a través del humor- inconscientemente fiscaliza y cuestiona las relaciones de poder y el funcionamiento de la democracia en la sociedad estadounidense. ¿Se imaginan en Chile a CQC haciendo lo mismo con la llegada de Novoa a la presidencia del Senado? El humor puede ser una buena opción para que los medios pierdan el miedo a informar y cuestionar las actividades que determinan el destino del país. Partiendo por los propios medios para luego seguir con otros actores sociales sin escudarse en una objetividad mal entendida, puede ser un atrevimiento que las audiencias valorarían en tiempos de crisis creativa y económica en la industria mediática chilena.

The Guardian en una crítica nota sobre el caso Stewart y su semana frente al periodismo financiero.

A.A

America cheers as satirist delivers knockout blow to TV finance gurus

For the past 10 days the US has been gripped. Even President Obama tuned in as the country's foremost TV comic, Jon Stewart, unleashed an extraordinary broadside against TV's top financial commentators for their part in the unfolding economic crisis.

* Dave Smith
* The Observer, Sunday 15 March 2009

First came the imperial marching music and a fiery explosion. "You've watched snippets of them for days, or meant to after your friends sent you the link," a voice boomed with mock gravity. "Tonight, the week-long feud of the century comes to a head."

It was a comically absurd drumroll for what, on the surface, was merely a squabble between TV presenters. In one corner, Jim Cramer, the closest thing to a celebrity in American financial journalism. In the opposite corner, Jon Stewart, the satirist and host of the fake news programme The Daily Show on Comedy Central. But unlike many a big fight, this one more than surpassed the hype. Nothing less than financial reporting itself was put on trial - and found severely wanting.

Cramer, who dispenses raucous advice to investors on the Mad Money show on the business channel CNBC, was eviscerated by a serious and genuinely angry Stewart. Meek and contrite, Cramer was pummelled like a rope-a-dope over his profession's failure to be an effective watchdog of Wall Street. There was no cornerman to throw in the towel.

The interview was one of those classic television moments that crystallised the public mood in the credit crisis. Stewart articulated the anger and bewilderment of millions of Americans who now feel ripped off and afraid. He framed the question everyone wanted asked: how were the financial masters of the universe allowed to pursue their ruinous behaviour unchallenged for so long?

It caught the attention of the White House, prompted a frenzy among bloggers and soul-searching in the media, which failed to spot the biggest story of a lifetime or warn the public until it was too late. Indeed, CNBC and other supposedly objective journalists stood accused of complicity with big business, belonging to a cosy coterie that egged on company chief executives and fanned the flames of excess.

The interview has also burnished Stewart's reputation as the last best hope in the media when it comes to, in the earnest phrase of news network CNN, "keeping them honest". It was this comedian who, like a court jester, told uncomfortable truths about the Iraq war when the mainstream media was playing cheerleader. Now, as the financial apocalypse unfolds, it is Stewart again who is scything through the herd mentality and culture of deference.

James Moore, a former TV news correspondent and co-author of the bestseller Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W Bush Presidential, blogged on the Huffington Post: "I am inclined to wonder if there is a line somewhere in the Book of Revelation that proclaims 'And a comic shall lead them'. Jon Stewart has set new standards for both comedy and journalism on television.

"Oddly, he was originally supposed to just make us laugh on Comedy Central. He's done that, quite proficiently, but Stewart has also figured out that some jokes are sad as well as too important not to tell. But he's not supposed to be doing the job of reporters."

For years Stewart has been building a reputation as the one-man antidote to what many regard as bland and talk-heavy US news channels. As Barack Obama, John McCain and other politicians queued up to appear on The Daily Show, a headline in the New York Times asked: "Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?"

His assault on Wall Street began in earnest with a classic Daily Show technique: a series of juxtaposed clips revealing incompetence and hypocrisy. First there was Rick Santelli, a CNBC reporter who tried to strike a populist chord by launching a sudden rant on a trading floor. Stewart, unimpressed, forensically dissected the channel's past mistakes, in which it made exuberantly bullish statements about the market and various investment banks shortly before they collapsed. Stewart added: "If I only followed CNBC's advice. I'd have a million dollars today - provided I'd started with $100m."

Such is his influence, in the next days ratings for Mad Money went down 10 per cent in the 25-to-54 demographic. But Cramer, a former hedge fund manager, is not one to take barbs lying down. He declared war with the sarcastic riposte: "Oh, oh, a comedian is attacking me! Wow! He runs a variety show!"

Stewart aired still more clips of Cra­mer advising his viewers to pile into Bear Stearns shares in the weeks before the bank collapsed, rendering them worthless. As the media stoked up the row, the date was set for a "facedown" last Thursday. Stewart showed the attack-dog interviewing instincts of a Humphrys or Paxman. He charged that people at CNBC knew what was going on behind the scenes on Wall Street but failed to tell the public. He accused CNBC hosts and pundits of abandoning their journalistic duties and acting like cheerleaders for the market.

Cramer proffered feeble mea culpas and acknowledged that they could do better. But the merciless Stewart produced damning footage of a 2006 interview with TheStreet.com, in which Cra­mer described, in a positive way, certain barely legal things a hedge fund manager might do to work the market to his advantage. Stewart pressed: "I understand you want to make finance entertaining. But it's not a game. And when I watch that, I can't tell you how angry that makes me."

He launched an eloquent assault that struck at the very foundations of American financial press and television. "You knew what the banks were doing, yet were touting it for months and months - the entire network was," he said. "For now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best, and criminal at worst."

The interview became an online sensation that reached the White House. Press secretary Robert Gibbs said he has spoken to President Obama about watching the Stewart-Cramer showdown. "Despite, even as Mr Stewart said, that it may have been uncomfortable to conduct and uncomfortable to watch - I thought somebody asked a lot of tough questions," the spokesman said.

Insiders at CNBC have acknowledged the episode was a public relations disaster. A day after his public thrashing, Cramer declared that, "although I was clearly outside of my safety zone, I have the utmost respect for this
person and the work that they do, no matter how uncomfortable it was".

Now the media has finally been forced into introspection. Andrew Leckey, a former CNBC host and now president of the Donald W Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University, said: "In a tremendous boom period, they covered the boom and people wanted to believe in the boom. They didn't uncover the lies that were told to them. Nobody did. But they should be held to a higher responsibility."

Britain has had its own satirical news in the shape of the The Day Today and the long-running Have I Got News for You, but nothing that has the impact of The Daily Show.

However, Robert Peston, the BBC's business editor, denied that a British Stewart was necessary. "Cramer has been attacked by Jon Stewart for being too optimistic after the crisis started in the summer of 2007," he said yesterday. "The allegation against him and CNBC is that they were taking too rose-tinted a view of what was subsequently going on at various institutions. That is simply not a criticism that I think can be levelled at most UK financial journalists.

"If Stewart tried to do that over here, I think he'd look like an idiot because I don't think there's evidence for falling down on the job in remotely the same way. I don't think it's possible to do it because the evidence isn't there of a complacent, or self-satisfied, or lazy, or unduly optimistic media."
Jon Stewart: A life

Born: New York, 28 November 1962.

Family: Married to Tracy McShane. Two young children.

Career: Creative consultant on The Larry Sanders Show in 1998, taking over The Daily Show in 1999.

Highlights: Upbraided the hosts on CNN current affairs show Crossfire in 2004. Has interviewed Gen Pervez Musharraf, Tony Blair and Barack Obama.

Low point: Low ratings as Oscars host in 2006 and 2008.

He says: "We recognise what a world-changing thing we have created and the power that we wield. And we wield it arbitrarily and mostly for evil."

They say: "He is our most astute - and most hilarious - press watchdog."
David Remnick, New Yorker editor.

 

Algún día podré contarle a mis hijos que vi por televisión las elecciones de EE.UU. cuando ganó Barack Obama. Algo que ellos van a leer en los libros de historia.

Adjunto el discurso que realizó Obama anoche para celebrar su victoria y el editorial que hoy publica el New York Times explicando la importancia de su triunfo.

Gran discurso y gran poder para comunicar sus ideas. Barack Obama, el nuevo presidente de EE.UU., que a ratos parece ser una nueva inspiración para todo el mundo.

Arturo Arriagada

Barack Obama
November 5, 2008

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Un interesante artículo publicado en The Observer (la versión dominical del diario The Guardian) donde se intenta explicar la incapacidad de los periodistas que cubren economía para anunciar la crisis financiera. Lo mejor del artículo es el dato que presenta al inicio: si las malas noticias son buenas noticias para los medios -ya que venden más- en septiembre aumentaron las ventas de los diarios más importantes en UK, pero en comparación con el mismo mes el año pasado, las ventas fueron menores. Independiente de la crisis económica, los diarios no pueden superar su propia crisis por cautivar a las audiencias.

¿En Chile se podría incluir un dato de ese tipo para escribir un artículo? Sólo sería posible incluir los niveles de circulación que están disponibles cada 6 meses en la página web de la ANP.

Arturo Arriagada