BACK ISSUES

Anti-journalist Acts in Mexico
By Omar Raúl Martínez

Few people doubt that during the last decade the critical exercise of freedom of expression has been broadened in Mexico Particularly in the written press, journalistic work appears today that 10 years ago would have been impossible not to say illusionary.

The panorama of attacks against the media has been darkened in the last decade, particularly during the first four years of the government headed by President Ernesto Zedillo.

There are now less dependent and more incisive news media facing the power sectors because society has dug channels towards democracy. Paradoxically, however, journalists have become targets of those who are the subjects of critical opinion and unfavorable news.

The panorama has been darkened in the last decade, particularly during the first four years of the government headed by President Ernesto Zedillo. During the six-year administration of President Carlos Salinas, there were 520 incidents against journalists as compared to 629 during two fewer years of the present administration. So the struggle for a journalistic opening has not been easy.

Most preoccupying is that, according to a study of documents by the Manuel Buendía Foundation and the National Center of Social Communication, about one-third of the acts were perpetrated by forces of public order, followed by government representatives at 17 percent. In other words, those who most obstruct or inhibit journalistic work in the Republic of Mexico are policemen, soldiers, grenadiers and security agents, as well as functionaries or employees attached to federal and state governments.

This indicates that about half of the incidents against freedom of expression are carried out by Mexico’s public sector.

Panorama

Of the 629 incidents in 1994-98, the evident purpose was to restrain or inhibit the free processing of news, since 43 percent of those affected in this period were reporters, photographers or correspondents, mainly covering the political, police and general news beats. The most common acts were physical aggression (31 percent), followed by threats and intimidations (20 percent). In third place was a practice that does not constitute aggression but can be construed as an inhibition to the practice of journalism: law suits, 12 percent. There are two ways of interpreting the law suits: increasingly they’re being used to confront irresponsible or illegal journalistic practices; or these are disguised as legal means to inhibit journalists.

It's worthwhile to make a distinction between public aggression and acts to inhibit or pressure the media as well as the journalists. Among the first, you can include harassment, physical aggression, raids, threats, intimidations, murder, censorship, kidnappings, confiscation of equipment or copies of newspapers and magazines.

It also should be noted that the study revealed that a high percentage of public aggressions occurred anonymously. It was not infrequent that government functionaries, politicians or private citizens, upset by news stories, acted against journalists via inhibiting messages without showing their face so as not to compromise their image or that of the institution they represent.

As for acts that can signify inhibition or pressure against journalists and the media, they are, strictly speaking, aggressive. However, experience shows that the interpretation and application of the law, as well as press-government relations in Mexico, are influenced by discretion and partiality at key moments, which make possible inhibitions or pressure through legal or other means. Therefore, it’s difficult to determine when it’s really an attempt against freedom of expression. These acts include citations to appear in court or to reveal the names of sources, libel and defamation suits, detention by authorities, cancellation of government advertising, cancellation of broadcast concessions and the temporary closing or embargo of a radio or television station.

Taking into consideration these parameters, at least during the 1997-98 period, 69 percent of the acts were aggressions and 32 percent acts that could signify inhibition or pressure (28 percent against journalists, mainly through law suits, and four percent media).

The ambiguity and arbitrary legal interpretation lead to actions that tend towards government control. For example, the constitution states the inviolable right to write and publish and establishes as limits to this freedom the respect of privacy, morals and public peace, but does not define any of these concepts. This juridical vacuum has led to the introduction of authoritarian measures that smack of self-censorship. That is the case of the Federal Radio and Television Law, whose article 97 says: “The concessionary is obliged to pay attention to the written observations that the Interior ministry might make if, in its judgment, the content is not in line with the present Law and its regulations.” That, of course, allows subjective interpretation, which puts the media executives on the defensive, because at any time they can see their concessions endangered. This also explains the mutually convenient relationship between the media and the government.

The black list

The statistics on slain journalists constitutes a thermometer of the risks and conditions under which journalism is practiced. To put this in context, let’s look at figures from other years. During the 1970-76 government of Luis Echeverria, six journalists were assassinated. During the 1976-82 government of José López Portillo, the number doubled to 12. During the 1982-88 government of Miguel de la Madrid, the number rose to 33. During the 1988-94 government of Carlos Salinas de Gortari, the number was 46. During little more than half of the current presidency, 40 journalists have been murdered, although 17 of the killings were evidently not connected to their journalistic activities. Usually these deaths are never thoroughly investigated by the authorities, so in many cases the motives are not determined or they’re defined by press speculation.

Consequently, if the legal process marches slowly in the case of assassinations or has serious deficiencies or poor results, what can be expected of minor things like threats, beatings and others? What is a fact is that most of the incidents involving journalists are not reported to the authorities because of the lack of credibility in the judicial system.

The work of human rights organizations is praiseworthy, but the effects are limited. For example, the National Commission on Human Rights has made 33 recommendations to 17 governors, urging the clarification of cases involving journalists. The number of acts against freedom of expression were so great that the commission in 1997 named a special committee to follow up on the cases: the Aggression Against Journalists Program. During the first four years of the current government, only 15 reommendations were made because, among other reasons, there were no formal complaints or there was a lack of proof or poor judicial followup.

For that reason, in the last two years there has been a surge in initiatives in Mexico for the defense of honest and respectable journalism. The Mexican Network for the Protection of Journalists was constituted in December of 1997 by the Manuel Buendía Foundation, the National Center of Social Communication, the National Union of Newspaper Editors, the Mexican Academy of Human Rights, and the Fraternity of Reporters in Mexico, among other organizations, with the object of investigating, analyzing and advising in the case of acts against freedom of expression. With similar and complementary ends, the Society of Journalists, consisting of well-known journalists from throughout the country, was formed, as well as the human rights’ organization’s program.

Official responsibility

All these organizations agree on one fact: that security forces and government institutions are those responsible for blocking and inhibiting the free practice of journalism, without forgetting the role played by public figures who threaten journalists and by drug dealers, whose actions have intensified in the last two or three years.

The 33 percent which covers the presumed public officials responsible for attacks against journalists and the media include various types of policemen (highway, federal, judicial, state, municipal, anti-riot), as well as the military, commanders of the Attorney-General's office and bodyguards of public figures. Usually the cases originate when a journalist is covering the news, as happened last December when Jesus Alberto Hernandez, a reporter for Reforma newspaper in Mexico City, was insulted and held in a police cruiser for 30 minutes after he wrote down the car's license number when the occupants accepted a bribe.

Government departments and public servants occupy the not honorable second place at 17 percent of the actions in the first four years of the Zedillo government. As example is the case of Nancy Azpilcueta, editor of Demócrata in San Pedro de las Colonias, Coahuila, who was beat up and threatened after publishing photographs of municipal workers attending a meeting of the official PRI party during office hours. Or when the Attorney General's office in the Federal District cited 13 journalists whose testimony was sought after dissemination of news stories about a group of corrupt officials in the Secretariat of Public safety.

These two groups are followed by unknown assailants (12 percent) and others (5 percent) and, with less than 4 percent, political parties, drug traffickers, ex-government employees, educational institutions, etc.

One group whose attacks against the media have been persistent are the drug traffickers. Benjamín Flores, editor of La Prensa of San Luis Río Colorado was assassinated in July of 1997, presumably for having denounced local drug dealers. Four months later, for the same reasons, Jesús Blancornelas, editor of the weekly Zeta in Tijuana, was threatened with death by drug dealer Albino Quintero. A month later, Blancornelas' bodyguard, who had been assigned by the state of Sonora to protect him, was beaten up by members of the Federal Judicial Police.

The types of aggressions are as varied as the aggressors who oppose the exercise of press freedom. Strictly peaking, such acts which damage freedom of expression also constitute an office to all citizens.

After all, freedom of expression does not belong only to those who practice journalism with efficiency sand responsibility, but to those who defend them. By doing that, they are providing a service to all of society.

(Omar Raúl Martínez is editor of the Revista Mexicana de Comuniación, published by the Manuel Buendía Foundation.)

(Posted in Spanish Aug. 27, 1999)