Hopes and sorrow: 50 years of professional journalism

Abraham Santibáñez

Periodista

Universidad Diego Portales

2006

El gran salto adelante

• Half a century ago, our journalism gave a big leap forward.

Un Colegio y la Universidad

• Many years of efforts, made by many well known journalists ended in the approval of a law that created the Colegio de Periodistas. Some years before, another legal modification made possible the teaching of Journalism at university level.

• In a short period of time, both: the Universidad de Chile and the Universidad de Concepción, started in 1953 courses in Journalism. On July the 11th, 1956, the Colegio de Periodistas was created officially by law.

They loved their profession...

• These two facts were the coronation of a long fight: to get the recognition of journalism as a profession. Or, as many journalists used to say: a fight to dignify the profession. 

• They came from very different backgrounds. But they have a deep sense of responsibility. They loved what they did. They thought their mission was to get people “truthful informed, with loyalty and on time”.

..and were loved by chileans

• Chilean society took them seriously. Ours was a small, democratic country. Journalists were taken into consideration as a vital part of our daily existence. Citizens needed them.

• That is why so many well known journalists are remembered through the years.

Who were they?

• Lenka Franulic, Luis Hernández Párker, Tito Mundt, René Silva Espejo, Carlos Silva Vildósola, Juan Emilio Pacull, Mario Planet, among many others.

The big nightmare

• From those years, chilean history has had many vicissitudes. After that very quiet time –the 50’s-, we lived through the revolutionary 60’s and the final crisis of democracy in the 70’s till the bloody military coup, on September 11th, 1973, our “Nine eleven”.

Hard times

• Starting that day, journalists began to suffer the longest and hardest period of repression and censorship of our history. All media that were not unconditionally pro dictatorship were closed. Later, during the military government , when some opposition papers were authorized, they have to work under severe restrictions: censorship, clausuras, internal exile, beating and even death were the price.

“Democracia difícil”

• When we returned to democracy, there were some new characteristics:

• 1.- The emergence of a new kind of journalism in our country, under the shadow ot the “duopoly” (El Mercurio and Copesa), the biggest publishers.

• 2.- The disappearance of all opposition media to Pinochet.

• 3.- The public indifference –mainly during the first years of democracy- regarding investigative journalism.

Trying to get an explanation

• You can find many explanations to understand what happened in Chile during and inmediately after dictatorship.

• One explanation is the success Pinochet and his men had convincing many chileans that human right violations were his enemies’ “inventions”

Friends of Pinochet

• Another explanation is the natural gratitude from the duopolio (El Mercurio y Copesa). They were spared from bankrapcy by Pinochet through the Banco del Estado. And you have to have in mind the fact that for most of the 90’s Pinochet was still Commander in Chief of the Army. He had threatened: “If any of my men is touched, that will meant the end of the rule of law”

The London affair

• This abnormal situation was bound to end... some day.

• It end came unexpectedly in 1998 when Pinochet, after leaving his post as commander in chief, went to London and there was arrested.

New times in Chile

• After a long debate, Pinochet was set free, by reason of health, of mental health. He was received in triumph at his arrival, but he was no more the strong man he used to be. His detention was a milestone: at long last, public opinion in Chile, was free from fear.

• In journalism, the best expression was the starting of The Clinic, a new publication.

New breed of commentators

• The Clinic changed that. At the same time, there were other signs: more investigative reporting on TV, less self-censorship and –both in the press and the broadcast media- a new kind of commentators: “los opinólogos”.,

The new Ley de Prensa

• More important, in a very “legalistic” country, after many years of delays, finally, in 2000, we have a new Press Law. After many years, it has a positive accent: to promote the freedom of expression. That is why, after all, we can look with optimism to the future. The way our founding fathers look at the future of journalism at the beginning of the republic. And more recently, the dream Lenka, Lucho, Juan Emilio and the others had when they fighted for the Colegio and the University.

It has been a long and difficult road.

• We have mentioned already the weak reaction of many of our countrymen when we faced censorship, closing and media restrictions. It was more comfortable to ignore what was going on and took refuge in the idea that journalists were lying when we talked of abuses and crimes. It was easy to think of us as “antipatriotas”.

The first positive changes

• From his arrival to the Palacio de La Moneda, President Patricio Aylwin made and effort to end any legal restriction. But there were many obstacles. He was only able to have a law that changed some excesses, like the power of military courts over journalists.

Still there are some shadows

• But we have to wait eight years before the big change: the Ley de Prensa. But only last year, when there was and agreement to change the Constitution, we can say that we live in a country were we are really free to express ourselves.

• It is a good law. But still there are some shadows. The most important one is the attitude of public opinion. Our society is still afraid of freedom. We are still afraid of speaking freely.

Whose responsibilty?

• We still are afraid of people that there to contradict official versions or authorities. But, the worst, in my experience, is that we do no appreciate media and journalists as we used to do. Chileans discovered that authorities had lied to them. But they choose –and to some extent, still do- to make responsible the messenger.

Self control: the answer

• Today, what we really need are critical readers, radio listeners and TV viewers. On this point, both the media owners and the journalist agree on one point: we do not need more laws. What we really need is responsibility. We do have self-control mechanism, but not many people know them.

• And, as long as there is no enough pressure, many journalist will continue forgeting the dreams and hopes of Lenka, Luis, Juan Emilio and the others.