The headline on the full page piece in El Tiempo proclaims, "MARIO URIBE, THE END OF A CHIEFTAIN." A photo of the subject occupies about a fourth of the sheet, showing him with hands clasped in front of him in an almost beatific pose. The caption informs distraught readers that he ranked as "one of the most influential politicians in Antioquia in recent years."
A quotation sidebar illustrates Mr. Uribe's character and career as a civil servant. A fellow legislator notes that "he was a serious leader in Antioquia. In the rancher's union, he always enjoyed great acceptance," and the author tells us, "…His friends and family recognized a strong and lordly character."
The article measures 22 paragraphs; over half are dedicated to Mr. Uribe's education, personal life, early professional endeavors and political career. Non sequiturs such as, "Like all Uribes, he loved fine horses," put a human face on this electoral titan.
The obvious conclusion, from the author's admiring tone and glowing summary of a life lived to the fullest, is that the piece is an ode, a eulogy—from the Greek for "praise."
The piece features precious little in regard to the actual point of the article, stated clearly in the subhead: "This week the Court sentenced him to 7 years and 6 months' incarceration." Only in the second-to-last paragraph does a reader learn why this great man is suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (at the hands of the Colombian justice system): concierto para delinquir agravado, or "aggravated conspiracy to commit crimes".* That is, he worked with paramilitaries to ensure political influence.
Rather than offering the who/what/when/where/why, El Tiempo has opted for an homage to the convicted. While there's nothing wrong with presenting another side of one found guilty, it behooves a writer, and the paper they write for, to write a balanced piece. One has to wonder where it all comes from. The story of one politician's corruption and ties to Very Bad Men reads as a footnote, an afterthought, rather than the entire point.
Is the reporter a hardcore Uribista, one of many, who believes that the Uribe clan can do no wrong? Is the editorial team facing political pressure from the Uribes or from higher up the totem pole? After all, the family of current President Juan Manuel Santos—Alvaro Uribe's handpicked successor—did found the paper and still maintains considerable influence. Or did no one care enough to do the right thing, journalistically speaking? Extricating one factor from the rest is a Sisyphean task… and ends up a moot point.
Colombia—and other nations saddled with similar social, economic and political situations—have to create a free press willing to print the news and raise hell, regardless of threats, bribery and disapproval from those in power. News outlets such as El Tiempo play an essential role in shaping the national discourse, as well as the public's perception of the national social reality. It's an immense responsibility, and it's all too easy to abuse or, in the case of ET's coverage of Mario Uribe's legal troubles, to shirk entirely.
It is, however, part and parcel of the job. If you don't like it, if you can't handle the pressure, you are, I'm afraid, in the wrong line of work.
Send lawyers, guns and money,
J.
*For those with a US or English legal background, this probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Translated from the Wikipedia article: "Conspiracy to commit crimes is, in Colombian criminal law, a criminal offense that was established to take measures against offenses such as kidnapping, the formation of ilegal armed groups, terrorism, and extortion, among others. It occurs when two or more persons meet or conspire to observe an agreement or pact that has as its purpose the organization of said individuals in a society or group with criminal ends, without being specified what type of offenses will be committed, the time and place, or against who or what they will aggress, but what will be its principal activity: committing crimes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment