With reason, demands are continually being made for journalists to be assured full rights to carry out their professional duties in all freedom. In this way, all facts that should become public knowledge do become so, in the best interests of transparency and social responsibility. Democratic states and their internal democratic political forces should share a strong commitment in favour of such aims.

One understands that a live awareness of this priority needs to be upheld without fail. What one fails to understand though is how at the same time, there is little to no recognition that among the facts which need to be in the public domain, are those concerning journalism itself. How it is run and who by. The political, moral and cultural motivation espoused by those who run it. How it is being financed, subsidised and so on with regular and public reports about this. Little to nothing is done in this regard, which does give rise to certain doubts.

For instance, while a number of controversies often return about the same subjects as prompted by certain media, other occasions where different controversies are arising get ignored, even though they could potentially be very important. Why?

***

WOKE

The reaction against the woke ideology (if it is going to be seen as an ideology) has found great backing with Donald Trump as president of the US. In that country, wide stretches of policy that were seen to be Woke inspired, are being "cleansed" with vigour. Woke norms were injecting extreme and unjust perspectives in the governance of the state to favour selected minorities and their prejudices at the expense of normal citizens. So it is being said.

To be sure, in some aspects justified controversies had emerged about the Woke impact.  On the other hand, progressive developments that were being promoted during the last few decades should not be reversed on the excuse that they're woke. Such as safeguards for the rights of women, racial minorities, LGBTQ individuals, as well as the support measures introduced for these sectors which promoted an appropriate and equal place for all in the life of the community. This is even more important as the anti-woke campaign has been extended to cover as well attacks on fundamental principles of governance, like the principle of a separation between religion and the running of the state.

***

PARTY ACTIVISM

As party organizations have became more "professional", commitments to voluntary work in their activities began to dry up. Less and less young people turned up to give a hand at the parties' local centres. In a number of cases these were closed down or kept running somehow by elderly members. The parties' radio and TV stations were more attractive to work for than the local "clubs" and the social media were considered as the best tool for political activism.

Similarly, party organizations increasingly relied on social media to sustain contact with members. This has given rise to a situation in which leaders and political representatives have limited direct experience of their party's grassroots, of the people who in their lives and with their families had been active in regular face to face interaction with other activists and with people in general. A distance has grown between today's local and national party protagonists, and the people who continued to run from the bottom up, the organizational structures of the party system.