Closing down 21 community radio stations and a radio programme critical of the government are not isolated events. In less than a month, Colombia’s new president has imposed a policy of censorship that harasses critical journalists and dismisses troublesome officials. A moral police force reminiscent of the worst times of unanimism.
Germán Ayala Osorio*
The closure of a media outlet, whatever its orientation or political agenda and, of course, its corporate, group or community interests, constitutes a failure both for modern society and for democracy.
And, of course, it is a blow to journalism as a profession, to the journalists who depend financially on the media outlet where they work and to the construction of plural public opinion in a country such as Colombia, where the right wing has historically always controlled the traditional press with the aim of keeping the old Establishment afloat. The removal from the air of the radio programme on Blu Radio hosted by journalist Camila Zuluaga has a whiff of official-corporate censorship.
A censorship motivated by the already proven and evident animosity shown by then-presidential candidate and now head of state, Abelardo de la Espriella, towards journalists who dared to ask him about his close relationships with paramilitary leaders during the deceitful peace process that Uribe pursued with those criminal organisations. Or who asked him about the handling of the DMG case (David Murcia Guzmán) and about the business dealings that, according to press reports, he had with Alex Saab, front man for the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros. Saab is facing prosecution in the United States on several federal charges. Camila Zuluaga herself said on air that during the presidential campaign, De la Espriella ordered his team of advisers not to respond to calls from the journalist.
Both Zuluaga and her colleague on the journalism panel, Ana Cristina Restrepo, became an inconvenience for De la Espriella, which would explain the decision by the company’s president, Gonzalo Córdoba, to close the analysis and information programme. Sebastián Nhora was also part of the programme.
Of course, the economic factor favours those who made the decision: audiences have undoubtedly shifted and changed, which translates into lower profits, but the ego-political factor also hangs over that same decision. It emerged in the media that De la Espriella met with members of the Santo Domingo family to express his displeasure with the two journalists. Mañanas Blu, a Colombian radio programme hosted by Néstor Morales, remains on air because the company’s executives and the journalists themselves on that panel decided to kneel before the power of the President of the Republic. Morales and Zuleta most likely did so out of conviction.
That said, it should be remembered that during the four years of the previous government they “showed their mettle” with the owners of the radio network and De la Espriella himself: they attacked President Petro mercilessly; they harassed him and even went so far as to mock the infidelity of the girlfriend of the progressive former president.
That behaviour, often far removed from the professional ethics of journalism, secured their continued presence on air despite the rejection they generate among sections of public opinion because they stopped acting as journalists to become messengers of the right wing and now staunch defenders of the pastor-president’s government. El Heraldo was the first media outlet to declare itself a supporter of Abelardo De La Espriella during the presidential campaign.
The removal from the air of the journalists in question raises serious doubts about the democratic character of the head of state, who, in less than a month in government, closed down 21 community radio stations created as a result of the Peace Agreement between the State and the Farc-Ep. These actions were preceded by legal proceedings against independent journalists critical of Abelardo de la Espriella’s past, which have been described by FLIP and lawyers as judicial harassment affecting freedom of the press and freedom of opinion. I am referring to journalists Gonzalo Guillén and Julián Martínez, as well as the creator of the series Matarife, Daniel Mendoza Leal.
What happened to Camila Zuluaga and Ana Cristina was foreseeable. They themselves warned on air that very powerful people were interested in taking them out of circulation. That moment, curiously, came just as De la Espriella’s government was beginning. What a coincidence.
What happened to Zuluaga and Restrepo also has a component of misogyny: in Colombia, there are still powerful men who cannot stand the existence of women capable of confronting them publicly.
The ideological and political unanimism that we experienced during the eight years of Uribe’s government is being surpassed by Abelardo de la Espriella.
It is most likely that this ideological persecution and the scrutiny of the morality of prospective new public officials will continue to spread to private and public universities that attempt to move closer to the government.
The dismissals of Sepúlveda from the DNP, Carolina Soto from the Colombian Chamber of Infrastructure (the Char clan is seeking to place one of its own at the head of the CCI), and Hannah Escobar, supporters of De La Espriella but pro-abortion, show that the installation of the moral police in the country is a reality. These dismissals do not, strictly speaking, constitute acts of official censorship like the removal of the three journalists referred to here, but they are part of the ideological and moral purging already practised by the agents who created and defend Patria Milagro.
Thinking differently has never been so uncomfortable as it is now. And he has not yet completed a month at the head of the State and is already governing with journalist-messengers who must, yes or yes, bend their knees because, deep down, they are protecting the lunchbox and the visibility that the traditional media give them.
The closure of the radio programme clearly exposed the difficulties of consolidating a professional body of journalists in the country that, rather than defending companies and sponsors, fights for journalists’ rights and defends freedom of the press and freedom of opinion, which are today hanging in the balance and curtailed from the Casa de Nariño (the seat in Barranquilla).
I imagine that Morales and his colleagues were forbidden to refer to the closure of Zuluaga and Restrepo’s programme.
Solidarity is not a traditional value within the journalistic profession.
On the contrary, there are disputes, hatred, envy and, above all, an incontrovertible inability to engage in self-criticism. And there is no need even to mention the fear they feel when powerful people are hovering around them.
Four years remain. The message is clear for teachers, journalists and public officials or those aspiring to enter public service: keep a low profile or fall into line, that is, align yourselves with the government, or you will feel “how hard the tiger bites” or simply become victims of the power that filters down to human resources offices, where they tell you, “here’s your bonus: ‘bonus’ means you work more here”.
Addendum: the La Silla Vacía news website reported that the government will only “hold press conferences for friendly media outlets”.
*Germán Ayala Osorio: Political scientist, Specialist in Contemporary Humanities and Social Communication-Journalist. Author of the blog La otra tribuna.
(Photos: Pixabay)
.jpg)
