‘Al habla... con Warkentin’ | Ep. 33 Las agresiones a los periodistas en México

An aggression to the press every 14 hours, and it is a trend that practically already duplicates the pace of aggression that we had seen in the same period, the first half of Enrique Peña Nietzsche's sex scene. And that is why sometimes these practices of silence clearly benefit the crime, but sometimes they benefit from some authorities, you also have to say it. And things regarding the freedom of press in Mexico, for many years now, but particularly in this beginning of the year 2022, they are not working. In an environment in which what you want is strudence and the desire to shut up the other, the other, I think we should bet on the dialogue, we should bet on listening. Alhambra with "Barkentine". The emergency solutions of the European Parliament serve to denounce unacceptable situations that are usually unpleasant to the governments of the third countries to which they are referred. A situation that is especially difficult when it comes to a friend country such as Mexico. But we must take into account that in the last 25 years at least 150 journalists have been murdered in Mexico. Unfortunately, with the arrival of the new government, the situation has worsened. In this legislation, the figures of the previous legislation have already been exceeded. Only from this beginning of 2022, 6 journalists have been brutally murdered, marking one of the worst periods for the Mexican press in recent times. In addition, according to official statements, 90% of the aggression to journalists are imposed. We ask Mexico to strengthen the strategy of the protection mechanism of human rights defenders and journalists. To the Democrats, we do not like the president of a country to point out to journalists in their frequent locations, in public, and even less if it is the fatal coincidence that they become victims of violence. In the past days, the European Parliament made a call to the Mexican government to protect human rights defenders and communicators, and expressed in particular concern for the situation of the violent against journalists who live in Mexico. In this statement, the president of the Republic, Andrés Manuel Opsorador, responded with very harsh criticism of the euro-deputies, and also, you have to say it in an exalted tone, which has been criticized by numerous people both in Mexico and abroad. But here, talking to Barquentin, I have told him that what I am looking for is perhaps better to explain where we are standing. And on this occasion, as a result of this last episode of the confrontation of President Opsorador with international instances, we have to say that it is not the first time that from other places in the world, what is happening due to violence against journalists and media in Mexico is reported. As a result of this, I decided to have a few minutes to talk to Pedro Vaca. Well, Gabriela, thank you very much for inviting me. I am Pedro Vaca. I am currently in charge of the Special Relations for the Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. With Leopoldo Maldonado. I am Leopoldo Maldonado, regional director of Article 19 of the Office for Mexico and Central America. With Adela Navarro. I am Adela Navarrobello, general director of the Z-Mandario in Tijuana, California. With Javier Garza. I am Javier Garza Ramos. I am an independent journalist in Torreón Coahuila. I am a specialist in journalist security. And with Mario Campos. Mario Campos, journalist, professor of the American University and a politician. To try to understand what is the violence against journalists in Mexico, how it is, what we should most worry about, and above all, if the calls from the outside serve or do not serve at all. So, in Al habla con Barkentín, this week, what happens and what is the violence against journalists in Mexico? Leopoldo, you have been doing this for a long time, the defense of journalists in Mexico, the defense of freedom of expression. And maybe for those who listen to us today, I would like you to explain to us since when you have registered in Article 19 of the aggression against journalists in our country, and above all, of the dimension of this aggression. Since the year 2000, the date, we have registered 151 communicators and communicators killed in possible relationship with their periodical exercise. It is practically the whole 21st century, which obviously covers the governments of Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderón, which was when the violence in general was shot and the violence against the press in particular, Enrique Peña Nieto and the current government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. If we look, for example, at the number of murderous journalists during Vicente Fox's sex scene, regarding the sex scene of Felipe Calderón, the number of murderous journalists doubled. In Enrique Peña Nieto's sex scene, in our records, we have the same number of murderous journalists and with the current trend during the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, it is very likely that we will review the previous two sex scenes. As in all of Mexico, we work under the shadow of being attacked and murdered for our work and the crimes that are committed against us do not clarify. We will not stop demanding justice because the truth is not killed by killing journalists. Polo, and when we talk about violence against journalists in Mexico, what kind of violence are we talking about? In Article 19 we have 18 different categories of aggression, in which, of course, the murder is included as the most extreme form of censorship. But from our perspective, violence against the press in Mexico has an ascending spiral. It can start with a blockade of information, with harassment, with harassment, with threats of various kinds, even threats of death, judicial harassment, physical attacks, search for offices, attacks on the facilities of a medium, obviously also torture, disappearance, kidnapping, and, I repeat, the most extreme form is the murder. We must highlight that, in what goes from 2000 to 2021, we have registered, for example, 29 missing journalists, to whom no one is looking anymore, and whose family members, whose survivors have not access to justice. But last year we registered 644 counter-periodist aggressions. That means an aggression to the press every 14 hours. And it is a trend that practically already duplicates the pace of aggressions that we had seen in the same period, the first half of Enrique Peña Nieto's sixth year. For an abasillator, most are public authorities. Only in 2021, 42% of the aggressions were committed by authorities of various levels of government. The thickness of the aggressions is concentrated on the state and municipal levels. A very small percentage, we are talking about 5 or 6%, is identified as a direct perpetrator of organized crime. Now, when we get closer to the most serious aggressions, including the murderers, there is a greater percentage of crimes committed by organized crime. But let's not go with the tip there, because they are those who disappear, those who kidnap, those who directly murder, that is, those who pull the trigger, the scars or the members of criminal groups. But you have to take into account that the borders between public authorities, especially at the local level, and criminal groups are very diluted. And that, many times, the victims of lethal violence are investigating these threats and are denouncing them. So, when we analyze the possible intellectual authority of these criminals, it is very likely that we will find a connection between the heads of the square and the authorities themselves. How has the recent violence against the journalists been experienced in Tijuana? Well, it is certainly a very unusual climate. There is a lot of insecurity, a lot of violence. Tijuana has reappeared in the list of the 10 most violent cities in the world. So, if there is fear, there is risk, especially when in the investigations of the murderers of our lost comrades in Tijuana, Margarito Martínez and Lourdes Maldonado, it is evident that, in both cases, the murderers were hired. They were gold killers who delink for the Cartes de los Arellanos Félix. In the case of Lourdes, for example, they were hired. We still don't know for whom, because the investigation on the intellectual authority of the murder is without results. I don't want to say detained, I hope it's not like that, but we don't have results. However, we do know that someone paid $5,000 to each of them to murder Lourdes. I also come here to ask for support, help and labor justice, because I am afraid of my life. In the case of Margarito Martínez, the already detained murderers belong to the Cartes de los Arellanos Félix, the intellectual authority, until now, is in one of the detainees, to whom it can be in the Cabo 16, and who paid $40,000 to the murderers. It is a very difficult situation, because you realize that you are at risk, that any person, anyone in power, be it criminal, be it political, can hire an assassin to pay and kill a journalist. And if I have to add, that in the murder of the journalist companions in Tijuana, Baja California, and others that have happened in other states of the Mexican Republic, they are free and direct attacks on freedom of expression. In the investigations on the murder of Margarito Martínez, two witnesses with data reserve, which is now called the figure we know as "protected witness", declared that the murder mobile, what they heard from the talks of those who planned the murder of the journalist, was because it was so literal and, among other things, it burned people from here. That is to say, that it was evidencing people who delinquent in the column where Margarito La Sanchesta Boada lived, and they refer that he was doing it through different Facebook pages, through portals, news, and they even refer one of them to the week Z. And it is also necessary to clarify that Margarito Martínez was a photoperiodist, who did not write, who did not provide information, and in the case of week Z, that the information we reveal, the news we reveal regarding the criminal structure that delinquent in that area, they were carried out by a team of weekly reporters, specialized in investigation of corruption and organized crime. This obviously also puts us at a risk to those of us who work in week Z. In the last few days, we have been structuring the way to protect ourselves precisely from this delation, that they were murdered by the publications that were being made in different portals, on some Facebook pages and in week Z. In the case of the journalists, we are talking about five murderous journalists, in what is going on, unfortunately, in addition to these deaths that produce us sadness, and that only in one case we do not have detainees, of five murderous journalists, 17 detainees, these very conservative European legislators, with a colonialist mentality, they approve a condemnation resolution to the government of Mexico. The President of the Republic says that, for example, in what is going on, it has been five murderous journalists, but that there have been more than 5,000 Mexicans who have lost their lives, and yes, with great frequency, when we talk about the issue of the aggression of journalists and the murder of journalists, there are those who ask us, well, why should we care in a specific way, that they kill a journalist, for example, when, yes, there are many more murderous people who do not dedicate themselves to journalism in our country? And I ask Mario Campos, dear Mario, you who have been studying journalism for a while, and what journalism means for the nations, for the democracies, why would we have to care, that a journalist is killed in a specific way? And in the same question that you also explain to us, if you consider that there has been a kind of divorce between civil society and journalism, why suddenly society, people, feel that journalists are naive, they are far away, as if they had not done something for democracy or for the country, in this case for Mexico, dear Mario? I think that, I should say first of all, that the life of any person is worth the same, be the profession, be the one who exercises. However, when a journalist is killed, I think that they should worry about us, because it is proven that the murder of journalists leads to areas of silence, areas of silence where you stop talking about what is happening in the environment, and then there is a social cost, in addition to the cost that implies violence in itself and the loss of a life in particular, because you stop talking about what affects people and you just have to turn to the issue of social networks with the pros and cons that this can have, but without the role of the newspaper. And at the same time, there is a social cost, because you stop pointing to the authority, demanding the authority, and that's why sometimes these practices of silence benefit, of course, the crime, but sometimes they benefit from some authorities, you also have to say that, I don't know if they are directly responsible for violence, but they end up being beneficiaries of the silence that implies violence, and that's why, because of the social cost, I think everyone should worry about us, the aggressions to journalists. It is true what you say, Gaby, that there has been not necessarily a close relationship between public opinion and citizenship and the media, and in part, I think it has a historical explanation, it has to do with that the media, for a long time, were too close to power, close in two senses, sometimes in some cases with corruption or with the games of political struggle, but also close to the language, in the issues, in the concerns, and that explains why in Mexico, unlike other countries, when there have been attacks against journalists, there has been no immediate social response from the media. However, I think we have to say that in the last years in Mexico we have had a periodism closer to people, and very clearly critical of power, and although it is true that there has always been a periodism closer to power, in its different expressions, it is also true that, many years ago in Mexico we had a media power, or some media, watching, against, and denouncing the abuses of power, and that people also observe and recognize. Freedom of press, freedom of press, freedom of press, freedom of press. I am now here in Washington, in the office of Pedro Baca, Pedro Baca is a special rapporteur for the freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, and we stopped for a while to talk about what is happening in our country, precisely because of this pronunciation of the European Parliament, but also because the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights has been pronounced, regarding violence against journalists, against media in Mexico. So, Pedro, let's start the conversation and I ask you directly, what worries you, Pedro, about what is happening in these moments in Mexico, with freedom of expression, with journalists and media, Pedro. It is the most lethal country in the western hemisphere for the press, and this, also with a component that is important, and is that Mexico is comparing itself in terms of numbers of lethalness, of violence against the press with countries that are in war, I think it is already a very worrying symptom. But we are not only talking about a phenomenon of sustained violence, a tragedy of sustained violence against the press, which is not necessarily attributable to a particular government, because it is something that is dragged along the years. I think there is an additional ingredient, and it is that there is a regression in the public environment to exercise journalism, and that regression can very clearly be located in the place where less should occur, and it is in the most important authorities of the state. That is, when people voluntarily decide to enter public life, as in the case of a president, or the people who surround them, not only do they have the mandate to take forward some ideas, some transformations that they promised their voters, but also, and especially, to guarantee the rights of the citizens, and one of them is freedom of expression, perhaps one of the most important in democratic life. And it seems, and I think there is enough evidence, in fact, every week, every Wednesday, there seems to be an evidence of how, in a recurrent way, the environment and the confidence to express freedom of expression are affected. The section of these confessions is intended to give the lies that are spread in media. And it intends to be a scandal with that fact that it is not false, but it is exaggerated. This is what is particular here, that when I add those two elements, that is, a violent country for the press, and a public speech that estimates the environment for the exercise of freedom of expression, it is the perfect cocktail for repetition, among other things, because there is no justice for criminal cases against the press. And this, I think, has immediate effects, it has effects in the medium term, and also in the long term. In the immediate effects, there is the fact that the press begins to censor itself, and I think that here there is a mix of factors, and in a certain way there is a professional press, but also a press that is hurt by the official speech. And this, I think, is an element of concern in the medium term. We have audiences who can begin to perceive media not by what they say, but through the label seen from the official prism, and this is not a favorable sign for democratic life. And in the long term, we can be in an environment where the debate is no longer important, because the debate would be annulled according to those labels. So, of course, public leaders have the right to freedom of expression, the right to a replica, but we should not confuse that with a kind of "A Dog" of journalism, or with some credentials about what I think is good and bad journalism, which I think is a terrain in which you are entering, and in which I feel frankly frustrated, because the calls of this office have been insistent, so that the State considers some measures that are completely atypical in the standards of freedom of expression. And the door of my office is open, but no one has wanted to enter. The letters have been sent, no one has wanted to answer them, but we are talking about a proactivity in these initiatives without absolute resistance to put them in dialogue with instances that we are to accompany the States in the best decisions. You mean specific issues, Pedro, what do you mean? Let's see, within the most strange aspects that are happening is this program, "Who is who" of the lies in the morning. It is completely strange that there are exercises of government auditory in the media, it is perfectly normal in all democracies that there are controversies between media and public leaders, and what is expected is that the same debate, and particularly what has to respond to the authority that may have been involved in the controversial matter, may be free enough for people to be able to make an image, to bring their discernment of what is happening. But when from the official speakers, there is a selection of the contents, where only those who keep an interest in the issues in which the government has a controversy and it is stashed without a greater look at the democratic contribution, then we are facing a process of incubation of stigmatization, and stigmatization is a path that does not lead to any healthy place for democratic life. Another of the measures, and I think this is one of the great paradoxes we have in Mexico, is that while it is very clear that it is not advisable, there are at least good practice of auditory and governmental of the media, which is something in which there is an investment of resources, there is an investment of time, there are other aspects in which there is consensus of official action, and it is necessary that it is done, for example, to protect journalists who are facing risks. So when we have such a lethal year for the press in Mexico, where several cases have been journalists who have knocked on the door of the State, and that State on some occasions opened the door, on other occasions it did not even open, but the lethality of the facts shows us that the effort and the display was not enough to avoid a fatal outcome. Then I would invite the State to focus on its efforts, for example, to protect journalists in a better way, before playing the evil of public auditory and the public and official scratch of media and journalists, which is a land that does not correspond to it, then we see few efforts to focus on what they do have to do, and many efforts, erratic steps, and I think very confused in their messages of guarantee is freedom of expression, I did with two more. It has been insisted from international standards, particularly the inter-American, that one of the most important antidotes to overcome violence against the press is that there is an official discourse that embraces the existence of plural journalism, that recognizes the democratic importance of the work of the press and that completely rejects the violence against the press, they can be exercised. Do you think that it is because it is a journalist of high-ranking, very intelligent, a good writer? No! We find a certain level of timidity when they want to make that type of message, we find a certain official allergy regarding to back up the work beyond if it is agreed or not with what the press does, and I think this is a symptom that I am particularly worried about, the impunity to accelerate the repetition of this violence. Do not be indifferent society, accompany us, we are journalists, we are demanding justice for other journalists. I am worried that they pass from being words to action, and not by the president, there is a phrase that I like a lot that I think is attributed to Álvaro Obregón, but it is very true and that says "God does not free us from a pendulum with an initiative", because there are many of those. So there are many people who may be listening to the sympathetic presidents of their movements, followers or public officials at a low level, who may be from the party to the president, may be from other parties, but what are they saying? Let's see, if the president of the republic is saying it, if the president of the republic does not like journalists, if the president of the republic is launched verbally against journalists, who are critics of their government, who investigate their government, then what prevents someone, an mayor, a governor, a police chief, a deputy, a regidor, to launch against a journalist who does not like it and does it in a much more violent way, because they are also seeing, not only does the president attack verbally the journalists, but also his government does absolutely nothing to stop physical aggressions. So anyone who is thinking right now about attacking a journalist, knows with absolute certainty that he can leave with his own, or that it is most likely that he leaves with his own. And that's what the media criticizes, I don't care what they are publishing, except that they can make money. What worries me the most is that, it is the constant attack towards freedom of expression by the president of the republic, is the statement that the president makes about the journalists who are critics of their government, of their administration, and how it governs them against organized crime, against any entity of power that can take the words and attacks of the president as a permission to attack the journalists in Mexico. So I think it is very, very worrying what is happening in the country, and that we live times of much darkness, of much opacity, and that what the government is pretending with these attacks is precisely to give value to the investigations that are evidencing corruption, abuses and excesses both in the government, in the president López Obrador, as in his personal, family and cabinet environment. The freedom of press and the free and secure exercise of the journalist's profession are signs of identity of democracy and the state of law in a free world. And on this tour that I am doing for the podcast, a little to understand the violence against the journalists in our country and especially the dimension of the same, I want to talk briefly also with Javier Garza, of whom we have already heard an audio a few minutes ago, Javier Garza, journalist of the lagoon to the north of our country, but also expert in security issues. And Javier, I would like you to tell us a little about the case of the lagoon, which is where you live and where you work, and where you had to live in a very direct way the violence against journalists, against you in the middle in which you worked then. What happened so that things would change? Because obviously today the same violence against journalists is no longer alive, that is, it is seen well then there in the lagoon, Javier. What made things change particularly in the region of the lagoon was a response from the government to a very particular fact that had a lot of impact, which was the kidnapping of five comrades of the Torreón century in February 2013. It was a very opportunistic reaction from the federal government. At that time the Peña Nieto government had just entered, particularly from the Mexican army, to disarticulate the criminal cell that had committed that aggression. The response was so intense that from there it began to also lower the violence in general in the comarque lagoon, there began a descent in the homicides, and from that point on, there has not been an aggression again by criminal groups to journalists in the comarque lagoon. So what was there is what has not been, in other cases, which is a very specific response from the government, that I have always attributed also to a cojuncture, that the comarque lagoon was the most violent region in the country, at that time, just when the new Peña Nieto government was entering, then it was its first fire test, and I think there was at least an incentive to not test it. That's why I later became aware of how the same government that could have fixed the security situation in the lagoon ended up presiding over the decomposition of many other regions, like Michoacán, Guerrero, Vajío and others. In this case of reporters, who gave them the order to kidnap them? There is a call from above that we do what we have to do, what we have to do, and I wanted to raise some journalists. And we were closing the conversation this week, where we started it. I was talking at the beginning of this presentation of the European Parliament, about the violence that is experienced in Mexico, violence against journalists, against human rights defenders, and the very angry response that was received by the government, the President, the observer. And I ask you, Pedro and Leopoldo, in a very direct way, What do these pronunciations that come from outside the country, be it the European Parliament, but we have also heard from the US government, for example, from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, from private organizations, from other public organizations, what do these pronunciations that come from outside Mexico really serve, Pedro and Polo? Well, I think that human rights are a common reference point for peaceful coexistence, and it is a form in which states have found a circuit of observation between pairs. When we look at the tragedies of the past, which in these days also seem tragedies of the present, we find that the work of international organizations, the international observation of democratic states, far from being perceived as an insidious act should also be considered as the Amigo Nesto, the Amigo Nesto is the one that in difficult circumstances tells you, maybe you should reconsider something that is happening, and you have to distinguish between the facts and perceptions. The facts are still that Mexico is a violent country against the press, and if you ask me, if calling drunkards, or if calling international organizations as pamphlets, would help to contribute and decrease the violence against journalists in Mexico, I think it could make some sense, but I think that this has the opposite effect, it has an effect in which it seems that there is a certain level of atrocity in the perception itself, and few levels of self-criticism in what must be improved to protect human rights. The strongest contradiction is that Mexico is a country that historically has been allied with the fight for human rights, and the fight for human rights also happens because of accepting, and accepting with good will, accepting with good criteria and as an Amigo advice from the international community, when things are not working well, and things with respect to freedom of press in Mexico, for many years, but particularly at the beginning of 2022, they are not working well. From our perspective, a resolution like the one that the European Parliament helped a lot, focus on the international level, on this crisis of generalized violence, and also the crisis of violence against the press, and the human rights defenders that are also mentioned in that resolution, it is part of belonging to an international community, it is part of having approved and ratified international treaties, of having been open 30 years ago to international scrutiny in terms of human rights, it always helps that the UN, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, in this case the European Parliament, other governments make emphasis on concerns because we believe that it can move wills. Unfortunately, the president, through this communication that he has already admitted that he redacted, along with his spokesman, Jesús Ramírez Cuevas, only confirms the fears that are exposed in the resolution of the European Parliament, and it is the profound intolerance to criticism and to consider any criticism as an attack. Today, finally, the threats are met, and one of our companions lost his life in the hands of three people who arrived, they shot him, in a row, in a cowardly way. Thank you again to Pedro Baca, Leopoldo Maldonado, Javier Garza, Dela Navarro, Amario Campos, for having spoken to me, and with you, of course, in this podcast, in this delivery of Alhabla with Bárquentín, to understand a little more the context of violence against journalists and media in Mexico, and also a little what worries forward. Violence against journalists and journalists in Mexico is a reality. There are the numbers, there are the figures, there are the stories, there are the names, there are the pains. And hopefully, as a society, we will recognize that every time a journalist is murdered or attacked by a journalist, there is something very important about the democracy that is dying. That's why we have to talk about the subject, we have to try to understand it, getting out of the stridges of the Polos, which sometimes pull us to not want to understand and only to keep shouting. Violence exists, let's talk about it for a day, and no longer talk about it. I am Gabriela Bárquentín, and I wait for you next week, in another delivery. That's it, Alhabla with Bárquentín. Thank you. [Music] Alhabla with Bárquentín. Don't miss a new episode every Tuesday on your favorite podcast platform, the country.