Gustavo Petro is not on good terms with a large part of the national press. The president has accused the media of taking him out of context, telling half-truths and favouring the great economic powers. Journalists, who are the ones who suffer the consequences of these accusations, have raised their voices of complaint on repeated occasions and ask the president not to turn them into his enemies. There is, between both versions, an interesting debate about the limits of freedom of expression and its possible clash with other rights, such as privacy or a good name.
EL PAÍS spoke about the issue with Colombian lawyer Catalina Botero, former dean of the Faculty of Law at the Universidad de los Andes and former head of the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). From Madrid, connected via a digital platform, Botero explained the reasons why she believes that President Petro is wrong in his approach to the media and invited him to reflect.
Ask. Is President Gustavo Petro’s attitude towards the press hostile?
Answer. I think the president is having a hostile attitude towards the press in general, and towards non-governmental organisations that defend the right to freedom of expression.
P. He says he is defending his good name, that it is not hostility.
R. Power in a non-democratic regime is unaccountable, non-transparent, and silences critics. In a democracy, the opposite is true: those who exercise power have a special obligation to be accountable, transparent, and to withstand stricter scrutiny. So, in this case, it is clear that the president has the right to defend his good name. However, because of the public functions he administers, he has an obligation to withstand scrutiny. That obligation means, among other things, that he cannot use his power to stigmatize critics and human rights defenders, or to attribute illicit conduct to journalists or use adjectives that discredit them.
Newsletter
Analysis of current events and the best stories from Colombia, every week in your inbox
RECEIVE THE
P. What would that ideal defense of your right to a good name look like?
R. With sensible, balanced and reasonable arguments. Answering questions, but not stigmatising or insulting. There are presidents who find it easy to describe their critics as criminals, corrupt, terrorists or coup plotters. They cannot do that, it goes against international standards that oblige public officials to withstand greater scrutiny. In my opinion, the president is wrongly using completely disproportionate adjectives to discredit anyone who exercises a critical role in his government. I think he should correct this behaviour.
P. This Wednesday, through his X account, President Petro published a video of his Mexican counterpart, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, accusing journalists of being on the side of the powerful media owners and turning their backs on the people. Is this what he means by stigmatizing behavior?
R. Exactly. López Obrador uses his power, which is immense, to discredit anyone who questions him or investigates corruption in his administration. This is particularly serious because Mexico is, after Palestine and Ukraine, the most dangerous country to practice journalism, among those that still live in democracy. That a president labels all journalists who criticize him as corrupt, stigmatizes them, and does not respond to press investigations, is very serious.
P. In recent days, a video circulated on social media in which the president is seen walking through the streets of Panama City in the company of a woman. A debate began about the relevance of this recording. Some said it was relevant and others limited it to the president’s private sphere. One media outlet even subjected him to a process of fact-checking. Amid the difficult environment between the media and Petro, is there a practice or balance to address situations like this?
R. I want to tell you two things. The first is that journalism cannot stop being journalism because it is in difficult circumstances. In fact, there is currently extraordinary journalism in El Salvador, a country whose president has the same habits as President López Obrador. Journalists have had to leave, work from other countries and use protective measures, but they continue their work because it is urgent and necessary.
P. And the second?
R. Personally, I am a defender of privacy, even for public officials when it does not necessarily have an impact on the exercise of their power. However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have held that the media have the right to report this type of information, information about the private lives (love affairs, extramarital children, and health status, among other aspects) of presidents. Then it is up to the media and their audiences to define how much they want to get into these types of issues.
P. Are there any concrete precedents involving presidents?
R. Yes. One of the best-known cases is that of François Mitterrand, after a lawsuit was opened over the publication of reports about his illness. The other revolved around press reports about an alleged extramarital affair that Carlos Menem had had. In both cases, the courts determined that this type of information is protected by freedom of expression. This is consistent jurisprudence.
P. More than 100 Colombian journalists have signed a letter to the president in which they say they are receiving “waves of insults and intimidation” every time he publicly singles them out.
R. Yes, of course, this creates self-censorship and other adverse effects. Journalists are fired from their jobs, their advertising is taken away, they are scared, they are attacked and they are insulted in the street. This happens especially when it comes to enormously powerful presidents. The president’s speech is followed by a digital attack. This is the opposite of what should happen in a democracy, where officials should encourage criticism of those in power. Current circumstances may make this sound exotic, but it is ideal for officials to encourage their own criticism.
P. Still, despite the president’s misguided attitude, shouldn’t the press be given some space for self-criticism?
R. First of all, one cannot speak of “the press” in a generalized way, just as one cannot do with doctors, lawyers or other professions. One of the problems with the president’s speech is that he lumps everyone together. In any case, it is essential that journalism reflects and adopts ethical principles for its practice. When you finish this interview, you will have to submit it to an editor for review, who will correct it. The more internal controls there are so that journalistic content corresponds to reality, without speculation, the better journalism is. That is the difference between good and bad journalism.
P. How can this reflection be provoked?
R. I think there are some people who do very bad journalism, just as there are bad lawyers or taxi drivers. I think there should be a social debate about what these people do. It is society, not the president or the government, that is called upon to decide who does good or bad journalism. Journalism is especially useful in times like the present, when it is the only one that can confront the avalanches of misinformation circulating on the internet and social networks.
P. Do you think it is possible to rebuild a healthy relationship between President Petro and the press?
R. It is true that the media must reflect. In Colombia there is very good journalism and very bad journalism. As audiences we have to strengthen our critical sense. All of that is true. Now, the president is subject to greater scrutiny and he has to know how to handle himself, have restraint, and he cannot use his power and discourse to stigmatize an entire profession. I ask the president to think about how he wants to go down in history.
P. What does this refer to?
R. I don’t think this is a coincidence or spontaneous thing for Presidents Milei, Bukele and Petro. I think it’s a way of cornering critics. That’s why I say that President Petro has to think about how he wants to be remembered. He has time to correct the course. He can be remembered as someone who had anti-democratic actions, by not protecting an environment in which criticism was allowed and increasing the level of hostility to try to compete with journalists. Or, he can simply sit down in a friendly manner with the Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP), which often defended officials of his Government when they suffered persecution from other administrations, and go down in history as Lula, who never stigmatized journalists or human rights defenders.
Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS newsletter on Colombia and Here on the WhatsApp channeland receive all the key information on current events in the country.
#Catalina #Botero #Petros #relationship #press #history