The Latin American Left's intolerance toward the press
The Committee to Protect Journalists has released its latest report on the attacks suffered by media professionals in Latin America during the turbulent 2006.
diagnosis: some of the new Latin American leftist leaders have not only embarnecido legal provisions to ensure freedom of press in the region, have narrowed to no end a few years ago.
product analysis from the pen of Carlos Lauria, coordinator of the Americas Program of the Committee to Protect Journalists, is blunt: the new breed of leaders left in Latin America, a mixture of leftist, populist, social democratic and progressive liberals, share a common gene: intolerance to critical press.
Most Latin Americans, says Lauria, are disenchanted with traditional politics after a decade of the nineties, the application of free market policies promoted by the U.S. and the IMF, promising improvements in living standards .
The result: In Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, citizens elected reformist president, who are shaping the domestic and international politics of the subcontinent.
Some journalists expected the new generation of political leaders from left, emerged in the last six years, widen the freedom of the press. This has not happened.
In Venezuela, to cite one example, independent journalists have been labeled as "enemies of the people." In Argentina, to cite another, they have been denied access to newsletters and official events.
However, this has not been an obstacle to the media digging up facts that governments would rather keep hidden.
One thing to note: the leftist leaders in Latin America have not lifted a finger to unlock the increasing concentration of media in few hands (even have supported, in Mexico, called Televisa Law was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives, obviously including the PRD).
Examples abound: Grupo Cisneros in Venezuela, Brazil's Globo, Grupo Televisa Clarin in Argentina and Mexico.
Venezuela and Bolivia represent the most raw of the relationship between the press - the government. In the absence of real political opposition in both countries, the private media have filled the gap. And suffered the consequences.
However, it should be noted that the media in individual countries have overlooked one who acts politically will respond politically.
In this vein, the media are supporting special interests over ethical principles and basic professional standards, as governments constrain freedom of expression through any pressure, overtly or covertly.
Unlike the media demonization of Hugo Chavez makes branded "fascist" or "conspirators", the presidents of Argentina and Uruguay, Nestor Kirchner and Vázquez, respectively, recognize the media as "the opposition unelected policy. "
In contrast, the Argentine and Uruguayan journalists accuse their governments of deliberately confusing the lines that divide the opposition of the critical press.
Furthermore, to maintain popular support, Chavez, Kirchner and Morales have strengthened the state media in the service of their governments, while controlling private media that support their policies through procurement of advertising space officer .
This is an attempt to strangle criticism. This represents a step backwards in terms of democratic quality in the region. "
Brazil has not been exempt from this type of strained relations between the president and the press. Given the scandals of corruption at all levels of his government, Lula refused to give interviews. The argument: the news stories were excessive and unsubstantiated.
During the reelection campaign in October last year, the party to which the President Lula, the Workers, reaffirmed its commitment to press freedom.
But the day of victory, during the celebration in the main avenue of Sao Paulo could read some slogans: "The people won to the media." In the Brazilian capital, while journalists covering the festivities received shoving and insults.
Ecuador and Nicaragua in the future is unclear, since Rafael Correa and Daniel Ortega was just elected in November. However, since the election campaign with the press conflicts have emerged.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Keebler Product Expiration
In short, intolerance of the leaders of the press left critical watering an authoritarian culture that lives dormant in most Latin American democracies. This explains why a president's right as Colombia's Alvaro Uribe, suffer the same stress.
Indeed, the right does not come out unscathed from CPJ's analysis (for its acronym in English). The president of Colombia, who was reelected in March, has frequently attacked independent media, calling them "traitors."
According to an intelligence report of the Uribe government, the media critical of his administration are labeled as "dishonest" and "harmful" to national interests.
And Mexico?
The situation that prevails in the relationship between the press and the most visible sector of the Mexican left is not far from the assessment prepared by the Committee to Protect Journalists. This was evident during the electoral process and post-election Mexico experienced in 2006.
Today, the PRD and its presidential candidate still flying the banner of "media blockade" to justify their failure to understand the relationship between the press and men with political power.
The dictionary compiled by the PRD, the term "media blockade" refers to all those voices that accompany the choir. Any journalist who does not share his vision of reality unless it is "the right partner" is "enemy of development of Mexico", "squire of the status quo."
In a recent article in Proceso magazine , political scientist Denise Dresser characterized identification features profiles left in Mexico. To write it, returned a special analysis prepared by fellow political scientist Javier Corrales , published in Foreign Policy , entitled "The many lefts in Latin America."
The text is a collation in the parade because the Fraudócratas, those who think that the focus of political life in Mexico is a fraud, the Permanent Triggers, who know how to scream but not convincing, the purists, who assume that PRD's success depends on its moral authority and not their political strategy.
The Merchants, Apostles of AMLO, the Populists premodern and the Social Marginal. Early in the PRD are a business and live on it. The second, those blinded by the charismatic leader did not realize that what Lopez Obrador in 2006 gave the remainder to 2009.
Third, heirs of the old PRI, its tricks and practices that embrace the left with the mantle of patronage, the gifts and favors. And last but not least, marginal. "Those who look at the experience of successful left in the world, hoping to reproduce in Mexico", which today are a minority, but should become a majority.
**************
Recommended Reading:
Carlos Lauria, "Leftists lean on the Latin American average."
Committee to Protect Journalists, "Attacks on the Press in 2006" (pdf).
Javier Corrales, "Hugo Boss" in English edition of Foreign Policy, February-March 2006.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment