 |
| Jorge Lanata |
Secret Police Target Lanata
The
harassment in Venezuela of Jorge Lanata, the journalist who has become
an unofficial leader of the political opposition to the government of
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is more significant than it
might seem at first sight.
Lanata,
who was travelling with a camera crew to cover the presidential
elections for the Clarín Group, was detained for questioning by state
intelligence agents both going into and out of Caracas. The procedures
used to harass him and his colleagues are familiar, reminding me of the
time when I travelled to Cuba to represent a human rights
non-governmental organization at a United Nations conference in Havana.
Upon
arrival, I had my first encounter with the men from the Minint, the
somewhat sinister name given to the Ministry of Interior. They wanted to
send me back to Miami. But as a condition for holding the conference in
Havana, which gave Castro-Communist Cuba a token of international
prestige, the United Nations secured a guarantee that everyone from
organizations affiliated with the UN must be allowed into Cuba to attend
the conference. A journalist who travelled on the same plane was sent
back because his US passport revealed that he had been born in Cuba.
Once
in Cuba, I was followed and harassed in ways both picaresque and
menacing. A colleague from the human rights organization got the jitters
and left early.
When
I finally left Havana my bags were searched and my notes and documents
reporting the human rights situation were seized at the José Martí
international airport.
It
was routine police state procedure and it was exactly what Lanata and
the other Grupo Clarín journalists were subjected to at the Simón
Bolívar airport in Caracas. (How galling it is that two countries that
restrict freedom of expression have airports named after genuine
advocates for freedom.) Lanata, José Gil Vidal and Nicolás Wiñazki, of
Clarín, and Gabriel Conte, editor of MDZOL, a digital newspaper in
Mendoza, were given special attention by secret police who erased their
reportage from their electronic equipment, alleging espionage, a charge
that was not followed up.
The
significance of this quasi-totalitarian attempt to restrict freedom of
information by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service is that it
is an indication of what could happen in Argentina if President Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner should decide to imitate her friend President
Hugo Chávez by trying to silence dissident voices and establish state
control of the media.
It
was clear from the start that the late president Néstor Kirchner and
his widow viewed a free press as an enemy. Both the Kirchners set out to
continue on the national stage the same policies restricting freedom of
information that were imposed in their native province of Santa Cruz,
which Néstor Kirchner dominated for almost two decades.
In
my view, this caudillo-like attitude has kept the Kirchner
administrations in the dark. Without a free flow of information from
varied media outlets, any government is bound to lose touch with
reality.
Freedom
of information is not the same as freedom of expression. In Argentina
today there is no limit on the latter, but there is a severe lack of
public information. Instead of interplay between the government and the
press, which requires not only frequent news conferences called by the
President and her ministers, but also access to them by individual
reporters, Cristina, like her husband, speaks over the heads of
journalists. Instead of allowing the press to be a bridge to the people,
the Kircher style of government bypasses the media. Without an
established right to know, similar to that secured by the US Freedom of
Information Act, the press and the people are locked out. Another
consequence of the Kirchner “dog in a manger” attitude is a deepening
estrangement from mainstream international thought. That is partially
explained by the refusal of the President to give interviews to foreign
correspondents. Their requests are not even acknowledged.
President
Fernández de Kirchner pays lip service to freedom of expression but
does not “walk the walk” by encouraging an exchange of views. The result
has been a polemical cacophony of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Because
of the lack of leadership and no identified common cause that brings
politicians together, the place that, in a democracy, is occupied by the
political opposition has been filled by journalists.
The
opposition press, which prefers to call itself the independent press,
has become like a political alliance, a coalition that has formed around
key issues that the traditional parties have so far failed to
communicate effectively to the public. These issues are, in no
particular order but in line with my own preference: the defence of
democracy; indignation over corruption; and concern about personal
safety.
The
star role has been filled by Jorge Lanata, who, in response to the
government’s programme 6,7,8, came up with Periodismo para todos
(“Journalism for everyone” which is also a jibe at the government’s
Fútbol para todos, which provides free coverage of Argentine Soccer
League matches.) Lanata has assumed the leading role in opposing the
government with his popular Sunday night programme. It is a mixture of
stand-up comedy, which Lanata does fairly well, exposure of corruption,
which he does brilliantly, and saucy satire at the expense of official
idiocy.
I
have followed Lanata’s career from afar since 1983 when he was the
founder with Gabriel Levinas of the magazine El Porteño, which was the
first serious journalistic challenge to the military dictatorship.
Returning
for four months every year since 2010, I was here when he announced on
the eve of his 50th birthday that he had decided that he would celebrate
his half century by speaking out, never holding anything back.
He
has been able to keep that promise with even greater effectiveness by
joining the Clarín Group, which has provided the resources that have
allowed him to reach a larger audience.
He
has been critical of Grupo Clarín which, while far from being a
monopoly, became the biggest media organization in Argentina by buying
up newspapers and buying out radio and television stations. However, in a
country where the state owns radio and television networks, no rival
can ever achieve a monopoly. Additionally, the Kirchner administration
has built up a network of private media that support the government.
Ten
years ago, the expansion of Grupo Clarín was a problem because
independent media were being squeezed out. Today the problem is the
expansion of media that is either state-controlled or aligned totally
with the government.
The
fact that Jorge Lanata was targeted in Venezuela and that the Argentine
ambassador sided with the secret police should serve as a warning that
totalitarianism is a temptation that authoritarian governments and their
officials find hard to resist.
That
is why it is important to defend both media and journalists that oppose
the imposition of a quasi-totalitarian state like Venezuela or a
totally totalitarian state like Cuba, both of which would probably get
an “I like” on their Facebook pages from many in the Kirchner
administration.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario