Communication, information and opinion have been historically recognized as one of the stronger forces of power—political or economic. This force requires and demands responsibility, integrity, ethics and courage, as has been clearly shown in Latin America. It should be respected and admired by those who believe in democracy, since it is essential for disseminating information to everybody.

Joel Simon, in his article “Overview of the Americas,” points out how “Over the past decade, journalists have played a vital role in the democratic development of Latin America. Through probing, critical, and aggressive reporting, they have brought a measure of political accountability to a region long known for its autocratic regimes. But they have also paid a terrible price: Their independent reporting has engendered a violent backlash costing the lives of 117 journalists since 1989.”

Journalists have been for the past 30 years and maybe more the subject of different sources of repression, whether imposed externally or as self-censorship. Most of them have been manipulated or, let’s say, guided by “legal powers” or “obscure forces.” First of these is their own editors and the private interests of the news media owners; second, political interests; third, coercion and fear; and fourth, economic interests and arrangements, mainly with the private sector.

The first source of censorship is the private interests of the owners of the newspapers and radio and TV stations. They are normally part of the political and/or economic elite, and they have clear personal interests and links with the government. The different media systems are getting in the hands of a few owners, generally representing opposite political parties. Such is the case in Colombia, where the two most important newspapers are in the hands of two families and the two most important TV stations are in the hands of the two most powerful economically and politically influential families. Brazil’s mass media remains firmly in the hands of nine wealthy families. The same groups are buying different media channels, creating powerful information monopolies.

The second one is political power. We all know that there is a direct relationship: the more democracy there is, the more freedom of expression. It was clear during the 1960s and early ‘70s, when the countries of the southern cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay), as well as Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Panama, had military or civilian dictators, that press independence and freedom of expression were lost. For instance, in Guatemala, during those decades of repression, news was not easy to receive. Even now, when something really important happens in the country, it is not through the radio or television that people get the information; it is the printed press that informs. During the 1980s and '90s, a military coup was reported only through the telephone, while radio and television continued their regular programming, as if nothing had happened. A military coup was signaled by helicopters flying over the army headquarters in Guatemala City and army patrols on the streets, but the radio and the TV did not mention it.

“Judicial police in Panama tried to arrest journalist Herasto Reyes on criminal defamation charges stemming from an article in which he linked President Ernesto Pérez Balladares to a financial scandal. Reyes’ colleagues from the daily La Prensa surrounded Reyes and physically blocked the police from carrying out the arrest.” (Salomon)

Augusto Pinochet criminalized criticism of public officials, controlled television broadcast licenses and allowed military tribunals to try journalists accused of sedition.

Brazilian journalists, especially investigative journalists, have earned public support and political power since 1992, when aggressive reporting on corruption forced the resignation of President Fernando Collor de Mello. The freedom of expression guarantees granted in the 1988 constitution have been hampered by members of the Brazilian Congress, who proposed that journalists be subject to fines of up to US$100,000 for defamation, with no limit on the damages that could be imposed on media owners. The proposed bill would also make it easier for politicians to invoke the “right to reply,” under which media outlets are required to give aggrieved parties space or time to respond to allegations made in the press, yet this measure allows the public to be more trustful of the information.

Journalists in Latin America were silenced for a while, until, due to the same oppression, in the late ‘70s and the early ‘80s, they became very politicized, criticizing the regimes at the risk of their own lives. They denounced the atrocities and clamored for political change. At that time, journalism was criticized by the authorities and by their own audiences because its credibility was diminished, in a way, due to the polarization of political positions and the lack of objectivity from the rightist or leftist sectors and of course, in some cases, for the lack of objectivity of the journalists themselves.
In the ‘80s, the return of democracy started an easier political moment, a new generation of journalists and dramatic technological advances. The work of journalists became more independent and news could be spread faster. The fax, computers, satellites and the Internet changed the concept of journalism, making it wider and more popular (thanks to the popularization of TV and radio among lower-income sectors). Journalism became more international, more immediate and realistic. According to Louise Corradini, a UNESCO Courier journalist, in her article “Rise of a new watchdog in Latin America,” this has been the case in Mexico, where it may be one of the most important factors in government change. The press, the TV and the radio passed on the news of the revolt in Chiapas so soon that the president of Mexico did not have time to put together a press strategy, and the PRI, which had been in power for many years, lost the following elections, allowing President Fox’s victory.
In Guatemala, Alfonso Gumucio Dagron in “From War to Censorship” mentions that, during the short period of full powers that President Jorge Serrano gave to himself on May 25, 1993, censorship was imposed but the reaction of the press defied the government. The newspaper Siglo Veintiuno (21st century) changed its name to Siglo Catorce (14th century) and ran the columns that had been censored in black. It showed the government’s attempt to control the freedom of reporting events.
In Argentina the results of a poll in 1994 were that Argentineans trust journalists more than politicians. The press has been a very important source of credibility and influence for Carlos Menem, but also a very powerful source of investigation into corruption and money laundering in the government.
While radio is the most important news medium elsewhere in Latin America, in Guatemala it is not; one mainly hears music and prayers, with very little information, most of it irrelevant. Another striking difference is the lack of community radio stations, which are common to any other country in Latin America, especially those with a large rural and indigenous population, such as Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia. Most countries in Latin America long ago established legislation that recognizes the cultural and social value of community radio stations. And day after day the communities are also recognizing the need of small local stations to avoid external control.

Movements for democracy are learning how to organize for democratization of the media. In the press evaluation meeting in Mexico, only three nations (Ecuador, Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago) declined in ranking, Haiti falling into the “not free” category.

There are other clear examples of governmental sanctions of the media referred to by Gumucio Dagron in Guatemala, which is the country in Latin America with the largest percentage of indigenous people, the Mayas. The Peace Accords of 1996 clearly state that the government should do what is necessary to ensure that the Mayas have their own radio stations and community media: “The government has the obligation to promote the approval of legislation facilitating the distribution of radio frequencies to indigenous communities, and to ensure respect for the principle of nondiscrimination in the use of radio frequencies.” But the Guatemalan government did exactly the opposite. By 1999 the government had fined 120 “illegal” and “pirate” radio stations. Many were small FM stations with very limited scope within rural Maya communities. Under pressure from new legislation punishing local media, community radio stations were forced to close down or to bid for their frequencies, competing with the private sector.

Ambassador Otto J. Reich, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, said in Miami on April 26, 2002: “The Committee to Protect Journalists has expressed its alarm at the harassment and intimidation of the Venezuelan media. Diatribes against the press from the highest level of the government have created an environment of fear. Harsh statements by those in positions of political leadership may lead their followers to target the press. While the local press can still report the news freely, inflammatory rhetoric and a series of disturbing legal actions promised are limiting freedom of expression in Venezuela.”

The government of Cuba also uses repressive techniques in its efforts to silence independent journalists, such as harassment, intimidation and imprisonment. Reich also pointed out that “the Cuban regime has long made use of ‘Rapid Reaction Brigades’—goons equipped with iron bars to beat and intimidate those identified as opponents of the regime, including independent journalists. Because the government controls all mass media and restricts Internet access, independent journalists must struggle to acquire information and transmit news reports abroad. Operators from the state telephone monopoly frequently refuse to connect or cut off international calls. The government disconnects journalists’ phone service and taps their phones. Independent journalists are branded as ‘tools of the U.S. government’ and of Miami-based right-wing exiles. These efforts are a deliberate attempt to control all information received by the Cuban people.”

Let’s analyze, using the case of Colombia, fear as the third cause of censorship. In Colombia, freedom of expression and democracy have been well recognized. The only dictator of the past century was deposed by the force of the radio and the informal civic organizations using telephones to generate a national public movement that ended up finishing the regime without a single bullet being fired. Freedom of expression diminished during that time but soon recuperated. In the 1980s the economic power of drug trafficking started to be seen, and from the ‘90s on that of the guerrilla and paramilitary groups as well. Again, journalism became the subject of persecution though the economic force of the drug mafias. A group of journalists was captured by the temptation of money. But money came hand in hand with fear. If journalists did not accept drug dealers’ desires, they were killed. Many journalists compromised, but many confronted them and lost their lives. Thirty-one journalists were killed in Colombia over the last two years. Many more lost the lives of their relatives, many have been kidnapped, and many have been harassed or physically harmed. They are afraid to speak or to publish the full extent of their investigations. Many of them practice self-censorship and tell only part of the truth. (Ninety percent of crimes against journalists go unpunished, because justice suffers from the same tyranny of fear.)

The fourth cause is economic pressure. There are other ways of manipulative control, less violent but no less effective. Government taxation, licensing and legislation can change the path of journalism but is as aggressive as the power of advertisements. In the case of Guatemala’s Crónica, a leading weekly magazine, it survived several years despite organized government and private-sector sabotage through the suspension of all advertisements in the magazine. Later on Crónica was “bought” by a group of private investors politically close to former President Alvaro Arz. The director of Crónica, Haroldo Shetemul, and the team of journalists that worked with him were immediately removed. The magazine has lost readership since then.

Guatemalan television also constitutes a big feudal possession. One man, Remigio Angel Gonzalez, a Mexican businessman who was very close to the military governments, owns the four main television channels and a large group of radio stations. Absolute monopoly over television was consolidated when Gonzalez’ brother-in-law, Luis Rabbé, was appointed minister of communication and transportation. Dionisio Gutierrez, who bought airtime from Channel 7 for his talk show Libre Encuentro, is the only television show where some criticism of government policies is sometimes heard.

The pressure of economic forces, reflected in salaries, fees, or unemployment, still reflects economic censorship. The ratings war diminishes the time available to verify information. The need to be the first ones with the news has its effect, too, and the clear consequence is misinformation that makes credibility suffer.

Thanks to those journalists who maintain their clear mind and honesty, the cost of being corrupt is higher today than before in all sectors of society. Politicians are elected or destroyed by press information. Private-sector executives are also exposed when they are corrupt. There is more information broadcast directly from the place of the events. The credibility of journalists as informants and analyzers of political, economical, technological, and social events is bigger, but at the same time there are more demands and they have to be more ethical and prepared.

As you can see, to be a journalist in Latin America is very difficult, but the media continues with its transcendental role in democracy. But which is influencing which? Is political power influencing journalists or are journalists influencing political power? The balance has to be carefully maintained to avoid either one of the forces dominating and becoming a tyranny of power.

In conclusion, press and other type of journalism clearly have had a strong influence in the consolidation of democracy in Latin America. The price has been large, the temptation and coercion enormous, and the journalists’ commitment admirable. Democracy is an endless process, as is reaching the optimization of information and freedom of expression. Technology is a plus in reaching the capacity and immediacy of transmission. It also has ways it can be controlled and manipulated, but that is becoming less and less. The world is shrinking with the Internet and satellites. That gives more responsibility to journalists, because their audience is larger, but it also protects them more from immediate repression of expression. Good luck to journalism!