society that is not well informed is not fully free. 69 b.2 Importance of the role of the journalist in a democratic society 66. The Court has emphasized that “[t]he professional practice of journalism cannot be differentiated from freedom of expression. On the contrary, both are obviously intertwined, for 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.” 70 The Court has indicated that mass media plays an essential role as a vehicle for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a democratic society. Therefore, it is essential that it reflects the most diverse information and opinions. 71 Indeed, the Court has characterized mass media as a true instrument of freedom of expression 72 and has also indicated that “[i]t is the mass media that make the exercise of freedom of expression a reality. This means that the conditions of its use must conform to the requirements of this freedom, with the result that there must be, inter alia, a plurality of means of communication, the barring of all monopolies thereof, in whatever form, and guarantees for the protection of the freedom and independence of journalists.” 73 67. The Court recalls that, for the press to be able to play its role of journalistic control, it must not only be free to impart information and ideas of public interest, but also to collect, compile and evaluate that information and those ideas. In his 2012 report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression indicated that “journalists are individuals who observe and describe events, and document and analyse events, statements, policies, and any propositions that can affect society, with the purpose of systematizing such information and gathering of facts and analyses to inform sectors of society or society as a whole.” 74 This means that any measure that interferes in the journalistic activities of those who are performing this function will inevitably obstruct the right to freedom of expression in its individual and collective dimensions. 75 68. Furthermore, with regard to freedom of information, this Court considers that the journalist has a duty to verify reasonably, although not necessarily exhaustively, the facts he divulges. In other words, it is valid to require fairness and diligence in the comparison of sources and the search for information. This signifies the right of everyone not to receive a distorted version of the facts. Consequently, journalists are obliged to take a critical distance in relation to their sources and compare them with other relevant 69 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 70. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, paras. 72 to 74, and Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, supra, para. 94. 70 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 149, and Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, supra, para. 90. 71 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 149, and Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, supra, para. 92. 72 73 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 34, and Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, supra, para. 92. Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, A/HRC/20/17, paras. 3 and 4, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 107. 74 75 Cf. Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 107. 21