"Frivolous journalism" receives high award

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jun 26, 2007, 19:23:

It's too bad the 11 Colombian journalists will only get $1000 USD each. That'll barely get them a week in San Andres. Ah well, it's important recognition and it'll probably help their careers down the road.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

calor11 says on Jun 27, 2007, 09:12:

would you call an award from "transparency international" a "HIGH" reward ? its an small niche organization for transparency not journalism. Obviously they gave the award to the report for its subject matter, not its journalistic talent, not to say it wasn't a good report since i've have not read it.

i'm sure Uribe as everyone knows about "infiltration", "corruption" in this country which is far being totally under central gov't control, but will avoid mass panic by not confirming this publicly.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jun 27, 2007, 09:28:

I don't think it matters if Transparency International is small, they must be doing some good work if their reports are regularly referenced on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times (polar opposites more often than not) and the jury for the award includes representatives from the NYT, The Economist and the Nuevo Herald/Miami Herald.



Those are some pretty big names in journalism, so, yes, it seems to me like winning this award would add some luster to a resume.



I understand what you're saying about "content" vs. "journalism skills" but the two intermingle at some point. You could have a juicy story but if it's not investigated well and reported well, it's unlikely to have as much as an impact.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jun 27, 2007, 10:41:

SEMANA is a very good magazine, IMHO, and congratulations to those winners.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 27, 2007, 11:32:

Calor11: You assume two things that are wrong:

1. Transparency International is a niche organization (devoted exclusively to corruption) but, within its niche, it's hardly small: It's probably the most authoritative source of research on corruption worldwide.

2. The award was not granted only by TI, but also by the Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, which is an organization primarily comprised by notable Latin American journalists. So at least some other journalists thought that Semana's reports had outstanding journalistic (?) value. Admittedly, candidates to this award are most likely Latin Americans, but then again, that's no small pot.

I've followed Semana's reports on "parapolitica" closely. I'm not a journalist, but I think their work is very professional. Whenever it is possible they cite sources--the situation they report on makes it difficult to get many names though. They interview people that have all sorts of different angles on these issues: Politicians, paracos, bureaucrats, businesspeople, regular people, military. And, most importantly, they go to the locations they write about. You'd think that's a basic requirement for a journalist, but consider this: How many US news organizations actually have their own people in Iraq? When you compared that number with the number of reports you read and hear daily in the US, the disparity is astounding.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

calor11 says on Jun 27, 2007, 17:59:

Point 1: i'm sure Uribe as everyone knows about "infiltration", "corruption" in this country which is far being totally under central gov't control, but will avoid mass panic by not confirming this publicly. This would be his reason for blowing this report off as frivolous, and for the good of Colombia at this moment, I would agree to this political strategy.

Point 2: I do not mean to undermine the report nor the journalist, nor even those working at TI striving for a better world to live in. (i've actually wanted to be a journalist and my admirations to them for their work, i'm sure they know they're on someones death list right now )

Point 3: However, yes, you all have correctly felt the animosity stemming from my comments on TI, as I do have towards a few other assumingly other "NGOs" such as the world bank, the IMF and their policies on economic restructuring and modernization. This is however, another subject. i apologize for the mix up.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 27, 2007, 18:29:

Calor11: I agree with your points 2 and to some extent 3, but not with point 1. There was no such mass panic as a reaction to the "parapolitical" revelations, mostly because, like Uribe, these connections were quite public. What was absent was pressure to the government to cut links with people with known connections with paramilitaries, and for Fiscalia to collect evidence and start a process. Interestingly, this pressure came initially from members of Uribe's coallition, from people like Gina Parody, who didn't want to be associated with shady characters. It was clearly insufficient. Uribe chose to accept the support of people with poor reputation, and did very little to have them investigated. I can only assume that this was done for his own political convenience, not because it was in the better interest of the country.

Interestingly enough, when justice started to move, Uribe took credit for what he tried to block. So I guess he doesn't think the whole deal was all that bad.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jun 28, 2007, 05:41:

I have to mostly agree with Sr Tertius, as I've also been following Semana's reporting and find it, overall, to be extremely relevant and well-researched, more often than not.

Uribe himself clearly tried to undermine some of Semana's reporting by calling it "frivolous", early in the scandal, but he's regularly being proved to be less and less correct about that.

GiB:
"I was watching a program a few days agoa dn tehy were commenting on Colombia specifically and how the good journalists have all been run out of the business or even killed. It was a real problem not having seasoned journalists on the job here. Maybe this kind of attention will encourage future journalists."

While it reflects a real and necessary concern...I think this remark, if left alone, is practically throwing away the work of hundreds, to be conservative, of journalists who continue to work inside Colombia despite all the different risks, not only in Semana but even in El Tiempo and El Espectador among other publications and media. By saying that all the "good journalists" are either dead or out of business, the quality of present journalism is implicitly questioned. There are definitely more than enough journalists (both "good" and not) still working here and their work is not a matter of the future, it's a matter of the present.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

calor11 says on Jun 28, 2007, 14:41:

Political convenience of course ! better interest of the county, also. Up to just recently, and in all probability still today, acquaintance with paramilitary groups and drug cartels would have been unavoidable for any politician who wished to actually govern. Gina Parody is a perfect example of the success of his administration, a product of the gains Colombia has made, enjoying the luxury of political expression, without having to associate with these aforementioned groups. You could argue here, she wouldn't be there without her Uribe parapolitica association?

Colombia is a safer place to live. The facts are, to date he's had successful campaigns against the guerrillas, and the demobilization of paramilitary groups (AUC). According to official government statistical information from August 2004, in two years, homicides, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks in Colombia decreased by as much as 50% (their lowest levels in almost twenty years). In 2003, there were 7,000 fewer homicides than in 2002.

Let's not forget, Colombia is still as war, and the govt's strategy of increased military presence is winning this war, US help of course. With over $4 billion in US aid (mostly military), is Uribe supposed to, while awaiting for the next multimillion dollar handout complete with state-of-the-art Blackhawk helicopters, face over 400 US congressional gringos and publically state that on his weekends he still goes hunting monkeys at coca plantations with his old buddies from the good old days?

Is the country ready to bring down the man which is capable of and currently is bringing about progress? And is a politician such as Ms Parody capable to safely stand alone in Colombia? He is not a Saint, but the road to Utopia is hardly ever holier than the Pope. Good for Colombia ? I guess that would depend on its options.....

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 30, 2007, 16:12:

Calor11

"Up to just recently, and in all probability still today, acquaintance with paramilitary groups and drug cartels would have been unavoidable for any politician who wished to actually govern."

This is false: There many law-abiding politicians who had absolutely no relation with paracos or cartels. Besides, this is not a matter of acquaintance with criminals but of collusion for political profit. The former is easily forgivable, maybe even necessary, but the latter is a blatant violation of the law.

"Gina Parody is a perfect example of the success of his administration, a product of the gains Colombia has made, enjoying the luxury of political expression, without having to associate with these aforementioned groups."

Why? Many other conservative-leaning politicians, like Ms. Parody, have been quite free to speak before this administration took power, and they didn't need to break the law. Besides, the association between paracos (or pressumed ex-paracos) and politicians is still quite alive, as has been reported.

"Colombia is a safer place to live."

Depends on where you go. Many rural areas saw better times before Uribe took power, and some cities (mainly Bogota and Medellin) have seen improved conditions because they've had very good administrations.

"The facts are, to date he's had successful campaigns against the guerrillas, and the demobilization of paramilitary groups (AUC)."

Those are not the facts, but your interpretation of the facts. A successful campaign against the guerrillas and the paracos would sensibly neutralize both illegal armed forces, and as the latest news show, they are still quite active. The only success with the guerrillas may come from a demobilization of the ELN, but I am afraid that the spaces they may leave will be taken over by irregular and not government forces.

"According to official government statistical information from August 2004, in two years, homicides, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks in Colombia decreased by as much as 50% (their lowest levels in almost twenty years). In 2003, there were 7,000 fewer homicides than in 2002."

Break the numbers down by rural/urban, and factor in the change in definition of kidnapping, and you'll see very little progress being made. Again, the success in urban areas is mainly the work of local administrations that are in charge of security. The national government is primarily responsible of order in rural areas, where the numbers have simply shifted from some departments (like Caqueta) to other departments (like Narino). There has been a significant reduction in massacres, and that may be one important accomplishment, mainly because of many paracos "demobilizing." I use the quotation marks because they are still active and quite influential in many areas of the country. Much of their illegal activity is still going on, under their direct control. Whether the reduction in massacres is worth tolerating these activities is another issue.

"Let's not forget, Colombia is still as war,"

Not according to Uribe. There's no war or internal conflict according to him.

"the govt's strategy of increased military presence is winning this war"

I don't see any signs of that. The following question is completely unclear to me.

"Is the country ready to bring down the man which is capable of and currently is bringing about progress?"

Of course, the question stands on an assumption upon which we do not agree. I don't know much about the safety of Ms. Parody and to what extent it depends on Uribe. Ms. Parody is not part of the opposition but of Uribe's coallition. If you look at the opposition, there are many well documented cases of spionage, wiretapping, etc., conducted by the government. I don't think they feel very safe, particularly with Uribe in command.

Now, I fail to see how any of these serves as an excuse for Uribe's attempt to minimize what eventually turned out to be one of the most important investigations on political corruption, if not of the decade at least of the year. Let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that Uribe indeed is all that he pretends to be and that some people like to believe he is. Why, again, did he attack a publication and its director for revealing the corrupt network of paracos and politicos that operates (it still does) in the Atlantic coast? Didn't he promise transparency and a no-quarter war against corruption? Would he have reacted just the same if it turned out to be the opposition and not his own coallition the one involved in the scandal? You have to stretch it pretty thin not to smell something other than the greater interest of the nation in his actions.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Jul 6, 2007, 04:37:

Sr Tertius, so can we deduct that you dont care for Uribe? What party do you belong to?

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jul 6, 2007, 17:27:

Scotty: No, you cannot deduce that. What you may deduce is that I disagree with his attack to a reputable publication and its director, in terms that do not correspond to his position, for publishing well documented cases of the worst corruption involving his political allies. You can also deduce that I believe that his actions were not congruent with his ostensive anti-corruption agenda. And you can also deduce that I believe it is possible that, with these actions, he was putting his own political capital before the best interest of the nation. Actually, you don't need to deduce any of these: They are pretty explicit in my posts.

As for my political affiliation, I don't have any, formally. I've considered signing up for the Polo Democratico, but I would be unwilling to support some of their most important candidates, like M. M. Mejia for mayor of Bogota. So I'm a bit conflicted about that. You may say I'm an independent.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

calor11 says on Jul 16, 2007, 13:41:

St. Tertius, I apologize for the delay.

The breakdown approach and spewing out stats to prove our points will not have us come to agreement, but in fact will entrench us further in our stances. I stand by my points which strongly backed by easily found stats and clearly evident in Colombian society (as I'm sure yours are as well), "para-political associations are a reality and necessity in the past and present day politics (although I'm sure much more obscured); Colombia is a much SAFER and better place to live present day for the average civilian; Para-miltia and guerrilla activity has been diminishing and these advancements have been more successful than past attempts;

I will agree on your point, which is fact, the initial subject of this blog, that URIBE's reaction to the investigation are not too much to be proud of, to which I gave my explications of these actions, not an excuse.

As I have hinted to in a prior reply, your purist "holier than thou" approach to your definition of advancement, while morally upstanding, are not congruent with a functioning democratic system where its all about "give and take" and "moving forward in a less than perfect world". You'd make a great opposition party leader though :)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jul 16, 2007, 22:21:

No need to apologize, calor11. And thanks for the kind words.

My intention is not to come to agreement--that'll be great, but not necessary. I learn (and force myself to learn) a lot of stuff just by discussing issues without necessarily aiming at persuading.

I don't disagree that some stats will show that, in terms of security, Colombia is doing better now in most areas of the country than just prior to Uribe's administration. No argument there. My disagreement is not with the "what" but with the "why."

The problem is, safety in large urban centers is primarily the responsibility of local governments and metropolitan police forces. THEY deserve the credit, not Uribe. Central government (Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Police) are primarily in charge of the rest of the country (the first 3 should be in charge of national defense, but that's another issue), where in many places things have gone very bad. I'm all for stats, but well sliced stats and from several sources. Government stats, I take them with a rock of salt.

It is also arguable that the reduction of paramilitary activity has helped to "pacify" the country. But at what cost? I'm not so concerned of whether paramilitary bosses are going to see jail or not, but are the displaced people going to see their land again? Are the paracos REALLY going to stop their illegal activities (note future tense) and demobilize? Are we going to know how politicians and businesspeople have been associated with the paracos? Instead of facilitating this process, Uribe has tried to block much of the independent investigation on these matters. If the latter is necessary to attain "peace," then maybe we should reconsider that goal. I don't care for a peace that doesn't include its essence: Truth and reconciliation. Safety? Sure, but that comes third, at best.

My approach is hardly purist. I think the country has seen a lot of progress, and some of them has been thanks to Uribe. But his policies towards rural areas in terms of security and political integration have done a lot of harm, much of which is not as visible because Colombia remains strongly divided in what Lopez Michelsen called "la brecha": The gap between what happens in El Plato, Magdalena, and Bogota and Medellin. The gap that has served as fertile soil for clientelism, both bureaucratic (the old and new caudillos) and armed (paras and guerrillas). What I criticize Uribe for is not for "moving forward in a less than perfect world" but for moving backwards in what was the main point of his agenda: Bringing an end to the conflict by strengthening the national government through democratic policies.

When you go back to his original 100 points (which he makes sure noone remembers), you'll notice that he has failed on virtually all of them. They are here. I'm not nitpicking or being a purist: Uribe has been essentially a failure successfully marketed as an astounding success. Reminds me of Maturana, when he tried to convince us that our failure in the US World Cup was actually a good thing. The problem for Maturana was that, in other respects, he was an honest man, and to succeed lying you need to be systematic. Like every single Defense Minister under Uribe.

Anyway, I've said more than I should by now. I look forward to more discussions though.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.