35 manipulate or distort the information or assume a political role linked to the interests of the opposition or even, golpistas”, the Commission made the following considerations: […] most of the statements annexed, though they may have a strong and critical content that may even be considered offensive, constitute legitimate expressions of thoughts and opinions regarding the special methods that a mass media may use in order to exercise journalism, which are protected and guaranteed under Article 13 of the American Convention and the Commission does not find that such statements constitute a violation of such treaty. 177. The Commission deems that the importance of the mass media, and above all, the work done by the reporters, do not imply a sort of immunity in relation to the possible criticism of the society in general, including public officials. On the contrary, as vehicles of social communication they must be open and set a tolerance margin before the public scrutiny and criticism of the receivers of the information they impart. 178. Moreover, it is not possible to disregard that the Commission pointed out in its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, that during the visit in loco it was informed of the measures implemented by the mass media that restricted the access to vital information of the Venezuelan society during the dramatic events of April 2002, that led to the coup d’ état and the restoration of democracy. In such regard, it also pointed out that even though the editorial decisions, grounded in political reasons, do not violate the rights enshrined in the Convention, the best ways to contribute to the debate are those that allow the mass media to comply meticulously with the duty to inform to the population. 179. Mass media and social communicators perform a function of a public nature. It is evident the particular exposure to criticism to which the people who decide to show the public audience their work voluntarily subject. The opinion of the receivers of the information that the media and its employees produce, fosters the responsible exercise of the role of informing, considering the importance for the media of the credibility of their work. 180. Therefore, it is evident that within the framework of public debate in Venezuela, the issue regarding how the mass media do their job is an issue for public debate and then, the criticism and ratings made in this matter by officials or individuals must be tolerated as long as they do not directly lead to violence. 181. Based on these considerations, the Commission deems that the statements of the officials, despite the fact that they may be shocking, strong, offensive or insensitive at a moment in which the history of Venezuela had its population clearly divided into political positions, cannot be considered as the State’s failure to comply with the duty to respect the right to freedom of expression and opinion, when such right implies exactly its exercise70 (emphasis added and footnotes omitted) 127. Moreover, upon the analysis of the facts according to Article 13 of the Convention in said Report on Merits, the Commission deemed important to take into account the content of some of those declarations in order to determine whether the different State authorities have had the opportunity to adopt reasonable measures knowing for sure the risk the reporters and workers of Globovisión were at that moment. The Commission considered that “though the strong content of the statements cannot be considered a direct cause of the subsequent acts committed to the detriment of the employees of Globovisión", […] the repetition of some contents of the statements given by the highest-rank State officials, with which such media identified [...] contribute to create an environment of intense discussion and bias in society and in the communication media, apart from high intolerance and fanatism that may result in acts of violence against the people identified as employees of such media and in the intent to prevent them from performing their profession". The Commission also pointed out that, even though they cannot be considered “in conventional terms as an outbreak of violence”, such statements “may be construed as such by passionate supporters of one group or of another in a context of extreme political bias like the Venezuelan context”; therefore, the continuing nature of such statements is 70 IACHR. Report on the Merits Nº 61/06 of October 26, 2006. para. 175 to 182 (records of evidence, volume I, pages 63-65).