Picture taken from Freedom of the Press 2008 map. Yellow indicates "Partly Free," with green indicating "Free."
A recent article in the New York Times Magazine highlighted the mounting conflict between the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and the country’s media outlets. The article traces the evolution of Carlos Fernando Chamorro, a prominent independent journalist who comes from one of Nicaragua’s most influential families. Chamorro currently runs a weekly newspaper and an investigative magazine program, both of which have caused quite a stir in the country due to their coverage of such polemical issues as corruption, cronyism, and election fraud. As a result, Chamorro has been a major target in the government’s campaign to curb critical reporting.
This clash between the government and the media represents yet another twist in media-government relations in Nicaragua. Before the country’s precarious democratic transition in 1990, both the right-wing and left-wing authoritarian regimes were able to convert the media sector into their own personal propaganda machines. In fact, Chamorro himself was directly involved in the highly politicized media system of Nicaragua’s past. During the 1980s, he ran Barricada, “the official organ of the Sandinista Front.” This newspaper existed solely to serve the Sandinista cause. Interestingly enough, his mother and other family members ran La Prensa, the main opposition newspaper at this time. La Prensa, however, was repeatedly shut down, censored, and silenced by the Sandinistas – just as it had been by the preceding Somoza dictatorship.
Despite the current government’s efforts to curb press freedom, critical journalism is still thriving in Nicaragua, with Chamorro and his family members at the helm. In contrast to past times, the Nicaraguan government now finds itself engaged in a struggle with a redoubtable media sector rather than an easily malleable force. This has made the government’s efforts to buy off or restrict the media increasingly difficult.
Similar situations obtain in several other Central American countries. Indeed, the one-time cozy relationship between the government and media sectors has largely collapsed throughout the region. In Honduras, the battle between the government and a powerful media sector has become especially intense. Recently, President Manuel Zelaya has faced a growing onslaught of criticism from the media, which is largely dominated by his opponents. This is unfamiliar territory for the country, as Honduras’ political and media elite have traditionally been one and the same. The media, while quite powerful, has normally promoted the interests of the president. Today, media ownership in Honduras is still concentrated in the hands of three moguls who have been at the forefront of the country’s politics for years: Jorge Canahuati, Jaime Rosenthal, and former President Carlos Flores. However, media outlets no longer serve the president. Instead, they almost exclusively criticize him. While the media elite belong to the same Liberal party as President Zelaya, their opposition to the president has been on the rise due to the perceived threat his policies pose to the livelihood of the business sector. Zelaya has become increasingly frustrated and flustered by this situation. He has frequently pointed his finger at these media elite, calling them "powerful economic groups motivated by self-interest to exploit political and social problems to provide grist for their mills." As the 2008 Freedom of the Press report on Honduras notes, tensions reached a pinnacle when Zelaya required that radio and television stations include a series of 10 interviews with public officials in order to counteract what he perceived to be a strong bias against him.
While not as extreme, the situation in Guatemala has some parallels to the Honduran case. The Guatemalan media is also in the ownership of those in opposition to the president. As the 2008 Freedom of the Press report on Guatemala indicates, the sector is dominated by a small group of businessmen with conservative leanings. Prensa Libre dominates the newspaper market, while Mexican entrepreneur Angel Gonzalez controls all of the country’s television stations. As such, center-left President Alvaro Colom by no means faces acquiescent and affable media forces. At the same time, government repression is not nearly as prominent a threat to media freedom as is the violence and disorder characterizing Guatemalan society. Many journalists have been attacked and threatened in recent years, including one who was killed by an arrow fired by a crossbow. As in Mexico, criminals associated with the drug trade are largely blamed for this phenomenon, and widespread self-censorship has been the predictable result.
Finally, it seems plausible that the situation in El Salvador will soon come to resemble that of its neighbors. If the bitter media war that dominated the 2009 election is any indication of the future trajectory of Salvadoran politics, then a major clash between President-elect Mauricio Funes and the media is likely imminent. As is the case in Honduras, the ruling elite and the media powers have traditionally reinforced each other in El Salvador. El Salvador’s biggest media powers are for the most part owned by staunchly conservative businessmen who are predominantly concerned with the country’s financial interests. The strong alliance that was forged between the conservative ARENA party, the business sector, and the media during the years of the right-wing dictatorship has yet to be shaken. During the run-up to this March’s presidential election, the power of this relationship was evidenced by the anti-Funes bias present in most of the country’s newspapers and television programs. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that Funes will be forced to reckon with a media sector that is just as powerful as it is hostile. Of course, Funes was himself a prominent journalist, and thus may have an advantage in handling media relations. His trick will be to ensure that he personally remains the face of the government in the press, rather than more radical elements of the FMLN party he leads.
The consequences that this turn of events will have for governance issues are varied. On the one hand, the strength of the opposition media has served as a bulwark against authoritarianism. This is especially the case in Nicaragua and Honduras. In both countries, pseudo-leftist presidents have recently ramped up their efforts to directly wield control over the press and stifle criticism emanating from the opposition. Both Presidents Ortega and Zelaya have allegedly attempted to mold the media into a more government-friendly sector by denying government-paid programming and advertising to newspapers and television programs that cast them in an unfavorable light. Powerful media outlets in both countries, however, have thus far been able to weather the storm. As such, freedom of the press has been upheld to a certain degree. Regional democratic norms also help: every government in the region wants to maintain at least superficial democratic credentials, so the type of blatant repression seen in other parts of the world is unlikely (though far from impossible, and the Chamorro case comes close).
Nevertheless, the inherent nature of the media structure in almost of these countries is hardly conducive to good governance. As explained above, the strongly politicized media sectors in these countries are controlled by oligarchies made up of businessmen who do not always espouse the interests and opinions of the majority of the population. With the exception of perhaps Nicaragua, there is for the most part a paucity of independent journalism in the region. Oftentimes, the viewpoints of the other side – which at present happens in some cases to be the ruling party – are hardly represented. As was the case in El Salvador’s presidential election, the result of this media bias could be an exaggerated targeting that is in some ways akin to the campaigns waged by the dictators of a previous generation. In this scenario of thin, politicized media, the conflict between the government and the compromised press sectors can hardly be considered a healthy manifestation of freedom of the press.
