E fundit!

07:14 SOCIAL ISSUES

Today's weather

Today our country will be under the influence of relativel...

You see a rich journalist...

2026-07-20 18:26:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

It has been mentioned so many times in writings and quotes that it has almost become a stereotype. Indro Montanelli's expression, which said, "... If you see a rich journalist, he has either inherited his wealth, or he has ceased to be a journalist..."

However, it is an expression that, in itself, carries a simple truth: "Journalism is not the shortest path to wealth; it is the path to truth!"

If he had seen the reality in Albania, perhaps he would have rewritten it: "If you see an extremely rich journalist, first check who he serves."

If Joseph Pulitzer, who knew and knew that when the press loses its independence, not only journalism is lost; democracy itself is lost, could see Albania, he would no longer declare: "The republic and the press will rise or fall together."

He would be shocked and say that "Both the Republic and the press have fallen, from wealth and not from honest work, from proximity to power, to the oligarchs and to the interests it was supposed to control!"

In a normal society, a journalist is paid for his work. In a deformed society, like ours, he is rewarded for his silence and compromises. He is even glorified. He is proclaimed a hero, a role model, a teacher, an example to follow...

Journalism was supposed to be the power that controls power. But it has often turned into a business where news is bought and opinion is rented. And, above all, silence comes at a very high price.

There are those who preach morality in the studio in the morning, while in the evening they bargain with politicians, oligarchs or the next clients. In the evening, champions of democracy and free speech appear, and upon leaving the studio, they are the most fearsome and unscrupulous fine-bearers.

And while they talk about corruption, their wealth is the biggest mystery, which no one investigates.

The journalist should control power, not be fed by it. He should investigate corruption, not become part of it. The moment the pen turns into a fine and the microphone into an instrument of blackmail or propaganda, and information becomes a trade.

And, when the journalist starts to live better than the businessman he is supposed to investigate; when the luxury car is not justified by his income; when, despite his physical ugliness, he "roams" with models or teenagers, when "with a modest salary" he tastes the most expensive wines in the most expensive restaurants; he has several houses and villas; when, for the sake of public interest, he licks and becomes "friends" with all the politicians and other VIP characters of the country, then his true mission has been lost. He is no longer in front of the government, but at its side and accessory.

Unfortunately, the damage is not only moral. When citizens lose trust in the media and its representatives, they lose one of the main pillars of democracy.

Pulitzer warned that a cynical and corrupt press will produce an equally cynical and corrupt society. And this is deadly for democracy and values, because the journalist and journalism no longer serve the public, but the next sponsor, while the news is sold. And silence is no longer professional ethics, but a high fee.

Therefore, Montanelli's expression remains relevant. Not because every rich journalist is necessarily corrupt, but because the unjustified wealth of anyone who claims to protect the public interest should raise questions. Journalism is not measured by villas, luxury cars or bank accounts. It is measured by independence, integrity and the courage to tell the truth, even when it costs you.

Montanelli left us doubt. Pulitzer left us the standard. Between them lies the question that every free society must ask the media and its representatives: “Do you serve the truth and the public or those who pay you not to bother the government?”