It became compulsory for scientists to declare the possible conflicts of interests which could exist in relation with study results that they publish, as well as to indicate what their sources of funding were. We can ramble on about the efficiency of these declarations and their verifiability, they have nevertheless a certain safeguard function, or rather of honest guard.

In the mass media it is never indicated, especially when the news is interpreted by the “commentators”. The reader is supposed to know about which side and which preferences has the author of an article or an editorial, or even the writer of a simple communiqué. The memberships are never declared, even if they are sometimes revealed by other contradictory articles, themselves not being clearer about their own conflicts of interests.

It gets acute for matters concerning zones of conflicts. The Near East, or today Ukraine, are striking examples where disinformation dominates over the relation of facts and the clinical analysis of the situation. When the policies of one of the countries involved in these conflicts is commented, praised or criticized, would it not be necessary to know from which through the author is feeding himself? In ecological questions this question is even more opaque: how many scientists also militating in eco-activists or anti-globalization movements do not declare it in scientific articles or comments which they publish?

For example we would read in foot of article: “M. Jay Toudi is a member of the association of support for the Liberation Front of Syldavia, occasional employee of the order of the Groggies, and received important contributions of Eurasiafrica to make this report.” Or more simply: “M. Ilya Duvrai has no conflict of interests concerning the subject of this article.” Or then, even more clearly: “The World congress of the XYZ ethnic community did not support this book.”

Self-censorship begins with the consideration given to the lie which we are going to give up publishing. If it had to turn out that Toudi did not say everything, or that Duvrai would have lied, or that the congress XYZ paid the publisher of the book in question, then the authors would have great difficulties to continue polluting the media landscape.