Reflecting once more on the issue of the translator's invisibility in the specific context of news production can offer an approximation to the role played by translation in the journalistic field as well as an indication of what distinguishes news translation from other forms of translation. This time, however the starting point for this reflection are the opinions on this matter of the journalists themselves, who gave answers in their interviews to an open-ended question posed by the researcher on the invisibility of translation in the field of news.

On the one hand, some editors remarked that translation has to be invisible, not only because translations are unsigned, but also because invisibility guarantees the good quality of the translation which, like edition, has to respect the work and vision of the original producer of the news. An editor stated, in this respect:

In news agencies I have never seen that translators figure explicitly. Editors don't figure either. We have an internal system of codification in which responsibility is indicated with the initials in each process; that is, the author, the editor, the translator. But this is for internal consumption and the public doesn't see it, so it remains totally invisible. Much more so than the editor, because ultimately the editor is the one who has to face things or who receives letters from the readers. On the contrary, the translator as such doesn't. 

In this context, a translator-editor also remarked that translators 'are more invisible than editors, because you can understand what the editor is doing … People don't generally understand that there are also translators. Notes are read as if they were written by a native English speaker. We are thus invisible.’

On the other hand, translation's invisibility is questioned by editors who point to the specificforms of textual intervention on the part of news translators:

In news, I don't know to which extent [translation] is so invisible, because we are directly transforming a reality that comes from a different context for a public whose characteristics we believe we know. I think that in many cases the journalistic sense of the translator prevails. As translator, there isn't the freedom to re-elaborate everything in a text, but certain nuances can be added, even important ones.

… invisible as a strict reflection of events, but in reality it is fifty-fifty, because information needs to be oriented to make it attractive to a regional public. So, not intervening in the news in the sense that you add or eliminate data, but intervening in the orientation, in hierarchization. It is about intervening, maybe not in the translation itself, but in what is called prioritization.