January 10, 2005

Scared Into Silence

by Garry Leech

While the 56 journalists killed worldwide last year made 2004 the deadliest year for the press in the past decade, there were no reporters killed in Colombia, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. In fact, last year was the first year in more than a decade that no Colombian reporters were killed. However, the statistic, while welcome, was due more to the increased caution being practiced by journalists rather than an improvement in the country’s security situation. From a journalistic perspective, this is cause for concern because it appears to have resulted in a self-censorship that has rendered serious investigative journalism virtually non-existent and led to a distorted portrayal of Colombia’s conflict.

Colombian journalists based in rural communities in conflict zones have always faced the greatest risks. Consequently, they have learned to be selective about what stories to report and how to cover them. A journalist in Puerto Asís in the department of Putumayo, who requested anonymity for security reasons, admits that reporters “mainly cover social and politic life in the region. Most of us prefer to handle public order issues in a cautious and precise manner.”

The manner in which local journalists in Puerto Asís and other rural towns throughout the country cover the conflict is literally a matter of life and death. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 30 reporters have been killed in Colombia over the past decade, making it one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to practice journalism. As a result, says another reporter in Puerto Asís, who also requested that his name not be published, “There is no freedom of the press. You can report information, but not say the truth. It is impossible to report the real news.”

Reporters are fearful of the reactions of right-wing paramilitaries and leftist guerrillas to the stories that they report. Paramilitaries from the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) are prominent in Puerto Asís and other towns in Putumayo, while Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas control many of the rural areas. Due to their fear of the armed groups, local journalists in Putumayo practice what they call “social journalism,” in which they focus on local social and political stories that do not involve the armed groups.

As one journalist points out, “It is difficult to report selective murders in the urban areas of Puerto Asís because if you don’t mention the authors you are omitting part of the story. But if you do, then you are getting directly involved with the authors.” Journalists are afraid, says the reporter, because “most of the selective murders in Puerto Asís are committed by paramilitaries. So you have to present the information in a slanted way. When you publish this information it is better to use an official source, like the police or the army, and let them say it was this or that armed group. It is one of the most complicated topics to handle so you avoid naming the author as much as possible and just describe the incident itself.”

Another journalist explains in greater detail how this strategy works: “If there is an attack in Puerto Asís, obviously we have to say that an attack just happened, but our job is not to assign responsibility for that attack to X, Y or Z. We state that this happened, at this time, in a car like this, and this number of people were hurt.” Clearly, working under these guidelines makes conducting serious investigative journalism impossible.

It is not always fear for their own lives that leads journalists to withhold information. As one journalist notes, “Sometimes you decide not to talk about the armed groups because you fear for the person’s life who is sharing the information with you.” Local reporters do not see it as their responsibility to investigate violence related to the conflict; they prefer to leave that task to the police and the army. One local journalist is critical of foreign journalists who investigate conflict-related violence. “Sometimes they’ll get information from any useful fool around here and later it can cost [the source] his life,” he says. “We are careful about this. We have learned how to live with the conflict. We have learned to build a protective shield around us and our families.”

But the practices of foreign correspondents in Colombia have changed since rebels kidnapped two Los Angeles Times reporters in Arauca in January 2003. Since then, there has been a noticeable decline in the amount of reporting from rural conflict zones by foreign correspondents. Like their local counterparts, they also became more selective about what stories to report and how to cover them, effectively building their own “protective shield.” While journalists’ concern for their safety is understandable, it has inevitably led to an increasingly unbalanced coverage of Colombia’s conflict. Instead of conducting their own investigations in embattled communities in remote rural regions, foreign correspondents have become hyper-dependent on official U.S. and Colombian sources in Bogotá and Colombian Army press junkets to conflict areas.

While it is good news that no journalists were killed in Colombia last year, it is troubling that it has resulted primarily from a reduction in press freedom due to self-censorship. Those who target journalists brave enough to cover the conflict, or other sensitive issues such as corruption and drug trafficking, continue to do so with impunity. The Uribe administration has not made protecting journalists in order to ensure press freedom a priority. Until it does, the public will continue to receive an increasingly distorted view of Colombia’s violence because, as the Committee to Protect Journalists notes, “Provincial reporters are simply too afraid to cover the ongoing civil conflict.”

Back to Top . Comments