by David Luhnow, Chronicle Foreign Service
Mexico City
"The Indian rebellion in the southern state of Chiapas has breathed new
life into Mexico's small but growing group of independent media, analysts
say.
"Dependent on the government for advertising and other business
patronage, the nation's press is largely controlled by the ruling
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). For years, the result has been
unfortunately tame, uncritical coverage of the government that leaves
Mexicans in the dark about domestic problems.
"Although the pro-governemnt press has given harshly negative coverage of
the Zapatista rebels, newspapers like La Jornada in Mexico City and El
Tiempo in San Cristobal de las Casas have fought to provide unbiased
information about the conflict --allowing themselves to shine by contrast
with the competition and pick up extra readers.
"'The Chiapas rebellion could revolutionize the Mexican press,' said
Raymundo Riva Palacio, a Mexico City-based political columnist and media
critic. 'The independent press has gained strength, and the official
press has lost credibility.'
"La Jornada, a left-leaning daily, covered the insurrection agressively
after it began on New Year's Day. Full-page interviews with rebel leaders
painted a picture of beleaguered Indians desperate to change their grim
social conditions --a depiction that clashes with official descriptions
of the rebels as foreigners and 'professionals of violence'.
"...
"La Jornada's hard-hitting coverage earned it respect among many
Mexicans, and executives say circulation has more than doubled to 140,000.
"...
"Independent newspapers are not the only media to take on a more
aggressive attitude after the Chiapas uprising. Many radio stations
bucked government orders to broadcast only "official" information about
the rebellion, according to Riva Palacio.
"And a cable TV network, Multivision, recently broke Mexican TV taboos by
broadcasting a prime-time interview with Subcommander Marcos, the
Zapatista leader who has acquired cult hero status around the country.
"PRI CONTROL
"The PRI has long used control over the media to keep its 64-year hold on
power, and party foes say it often assumes sinister forms. The slayings
of 17 Mexican journalists since 1990 remain unresolved, according to the
latin American Journalists Federation.
"But a checkbook is the most common tool of influence. The government
places paid advertisements in nearly all newspapers, and is a primne
factor in profit margins, helping to ensure a soft editorial line.
"The practice of buying a favorable story about the government persists
even at La Jornada, according to analysts. La Jornada prints its
government-bought stories in italics, but most newspapers do not
distinguish them from regular news stories.
"The government still maintains a subtle but firm control,' said Riva
Palacio. 'Mpstly the media censors itself, but when a newspaper or radio
station goes too far, the government reacts. Some advertisign is pulled,
some editors fired, and things go back to normal.'
"In general, the press does little investigative reporting, repors
nothing on the private life of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari and
alternated between ignoring and villifying opposition politicians.
"...
"BROADCAST STRANGLEHOLD
"PRI abuses of the broadcast media process are focused on national
television giant Televisa, the party's unabashed ally.
"Televisa dominates Mexican politics, with an estimated 85% of television
audience and 90% advertising revenue.
"...
"In the first weeks of the rebellion, Televisa reportedly ordered its
reporters to avoid conflict zones and concentrate instead on towns that
the military had "rescued" from rebel control, areas where the government
enjoyed support or hads recently installed public works.
"SLANTED COVERAGE
"Televisa routinely referred to the Zapatistas a "violent law-breakers"
and accused "liberal" elements of the Catholic Church of being rebel
leaders and "promoting" violence among Indians.
"Mexicans say Televisa's coverage takes its cue from the bottom line.
"The hugely profitable network pays no taxes, giving the government in
exchange two to three hours of air time each day to use as it sees fit.
Its owner, Emilio Azcarraga, is Mexico's richest man, worht more than $5
billion, according to Forbes magazine.
(They should have kidnapped him instead of Helu and done the nation a
service. --Fatimah)
"Televisa is free and widely available, while Multivision, which carried
the interview with Subcommander Marcos, reaches only about 500,000 of
Mexico's 13 million households with TV receivers. Multivion sells for
around 60 new pesos ($20) a month --well beyond the means of most of the
poor.
"The Zapatistas have blasted Televisa, saying it 'has no need to look for
news because it just invents it,' and they pointedly barred its reporters
from covering the peace talks in Chiapas."
Excerpts from an article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on
March 8, 1994, that is related to this and may be of interest to the forum...
From:
Fatimah Araneta
City and Regional Planning
UCBerkeley
faraneta@ced.berkeley.edu
**************************************************************************
Subject: Re: touchy subject indeed
It seems to me that the question of language is important and the answer
is clear. Chiapas-l was created to accelerate the dissemination of
information and the circulation of political discussion about the
Zapatista uprising, its context and its implications. Therefore what we
want is the best possible communication and mutual understanding.
Therefore, ideally we should do what we can to make everything we post
here accessible to everyone on the list. But though the political spirit
is willing, the linquistic flesh is often weak and we cannot all write and
rewrite our thoughts in several different languages, or even in just two
(Spanish and English --is there anyone on the list who can't read and
write in at least one of these? It seems doubtful.)
>From what I have seen those with the ability have been very good about
going out of their way to translate material (usually from Spanish to
English) that they felt was particularly important (e.g., EZLN statements)
and I would expect that to continue. On the other hand, to all
appearances there are many on the list who are either not confortable in
in restating their thoughts in two languages or feel that it is not
important enough to justify the effort. I don't see any problem with that
situation. If others see the need for restatement they can ask for it, or
they can provide a translation.
As this kind of political use of cyberspace grows and spreads, and the
participation of more and more people with more and more languages
increases, the problem we are now facing will multiply. But the solution
can remain the same: a combination of individual and collective decision
making withint the overall framework and project of participating in
accelerating the circulation and effectiveness of struggle.
The anti-NAFTA network which has contributed to that circulation in the
case of Chiapas is composed of people in Mexico, the United States and
Canada. Certainly we want the participation of French speaking persons
from Quebec even if they cannot speak English (which is admittedly
unlikely) or Spanish (more likely). Information on Chiapas has gone out
accross the world and generated support and actions. At every point of the
diffusion people have spontaneously taken responsibility for translating
material they have felt was important. This seems to me to make perfectly
good multicultural/multilinguistic politics. I can't see any good reason
whatsoever to restrict communication by mandating the use of a single
language.
Forwarded message from:
chiapas-l@listas.unam.mx (Chiapas List)