2 6. Assuming its jurisdictional function to safeguard the full and comprehensive exercise of all the rights established in the Convention, the Court assigns a central role in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression to journalists and the media. In this regard, the reaffirmation of the close relationship between this right and the professional exercise of journalism is significant, in the sense that the professional journalist is not, nor can he be, anything but someone who has decided to exercise freedom of expression in a continuous, regular and paid manner.”8 7. At the same time, the Court reiterates and specifies the responsibilities that a journalist has, for the benefit of society as a whole. Among these, it stresses the “obligation to verify, within reason although not necessarily exhaustively, the facts on which his information is based. In other words, it is valid to demand fairness and diligence in comparing sources and seeking information. This involves the right not to receive a manipulated version of the facts. Consequently, journalists have an obligation to keep a critical distance from their sources and compare them with other relevant information. Similarly, the European Court has indicated that freedom of expression does not guarantee that journalists have an unlimited protection, even in matters of public interest. “While enjoying the protection afforded by freedom of expression, journalists must, when exercising their duties, abide by the principles of responsible journalism; namely, to act in good faith, provide accurate and reliable information, objectively reflect the opinions of those involved in a public debate, and refrain from pure sensationalism.”9 Plurality of the media: obligation to ensure rights 8. The Court, in this judgment, reaffirms and develops fundamental criteria contained in its consistent case law with regard to the plurality of the media. One of the issues in dispute in this case was, precisely, that of the alleged purpose of the control by the State, for political reasons, of the frequency of which RCTV had been a concessionaire. The Court determined that, as inferred from the proven facts, the measures adopted by the State authorities in this case affected pluralism. Hence, it concluded that this action resulted in a restriction of the right to freedom of expression and violated the prohibition of using “indirect methods or means” to restrict the communication, dissemination and circulation of ideas and opinions, which includes the parallel obligation of the States to fully guarantee these rights. 9. The conceptual development of the Court’s criteria on the crucial issue of pluralism as an essential component of freedom of expression – in particular and, in general, for a democratic society – is central in this judgment. Indeed, the judgment stresses “the importance of pluralism in the context of the right to freedom of expression, indicating that this signifies tolerance and a spirit of openness without which a democratic society does not exist.”10 The Court defines the general concept of “pluralism” for the purposes of freedom of expression, among other aspects, by the binding interpretive standard of the “plurality of the media or news.” In this regard, the pluralism of the media “constitutes an effective guarantee of freedom of expression11 and the State has a duty to protect and ensure this […] by minimizing restrictions to information and encouraging a balanced participation and by allowing the media to be open to all without discrimination, because the idea is that “no individuals or groups are, a priori, excluded.”12 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, paras. 71 and 74, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 120. 8 9 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 139. 10 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 141. 11 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 142. 12 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 142.