Photo Credit: Flickr user danielkaempfe
On August 26, Pablo Pasillas Fong, an assistant to the lead federal investigator in the case of Mexican crime journalist Armando Rodriguez, who was murdered last November in Ciudad Juarez, was himself shot and killed. This occurred less than a month after the former lead investigator met the same fate. Mexico’s problems protecting reporters from the violence raging between organized criminal groups are increasingly well-known. Over the past few years violence against journalists has become rampant. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 2008 Attacks on the Press report, at least 24 journalists have been killed since 2000. The country’s National Human Rights Commission puts the death toll even higher: 46 killings of journalists over the same period, with an additional 7 journalists disappeared in the country since 2005. As conflict has intensified, Mexican journalists who cover such polemical issues as organized crime, the drug trade, and police corruption have been targeted by both criminal organizations and law enforcement agencies, which has in turn fueled a growing trend of self-censorship. The legal system has failed the victims throughout, with very few of these crimes investigated and prosecuted. As Reporters without Borders has argued, this impunity has been fueled by the widespread corruption of public officials, who are sometimes either directly involved in organized crime and drug trafficking networks or are bribed to look the other way.
In addition to the threat of violence, journalists must also contend with other unfavorable aspects of the Mexican media environment. The legal sphere is one trouble zone. While Mexico has promoted several legal initiatives geared towards boosting press freedom in the past few years, most of these reforms have been marred by either inherent inadequacies or half-hearted implementation. For example, in 2007, President Felipe Calderon promulgated a law that decriminalized libel, defamation, and slander at the federal level, rendering it impossible for journalists to face prison sentences for such offenses. Nevertheless, due to the fact that Mexico’s legal system operates on separate federal and state levels, the law’s impact was significantly constrained due to the fact that states are not forced to comply. At the time, the World Press Freedom Committee has reported that several Mexican states “possess some of the most stringent and restrictive defamation laws in the entire region.” While state governments were required to decriminalize their own defamation laws, this has not come to pass in most cases. ARTICLE 19 recently reported that criminal defamation laws remain in place in 21 out of 32 states.
An effort to pass a constitutional amendment that would grant federal authorities the power to prosecute crimes against freedom of expression is more promising, but has dragged on for several years and is also likely to prove insufficient. On March 18, Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies passed the amendment to Article 73 of the Constitution, which would incorporate crimes “committed against freedom of expression exercised through the practice of journalism” into the federal penal code and impose prison sentences of up to 5 years in prison for such crimes, independent of existing penalties. The reform measure is currently awaiting approval by the Senate, which will review the law when Congress meets again this month. President Calderon has personally pledged his commitment to the project. While this represents a positive step toward a more dedicated response to the rising violence, several press freedom organizations have argued that the initiative falls short in various regards. ARTICLE 19 has suggested that federal investigators’ hands will remain tied as, among other problems, the amendment fails to provide federal officials with the authority to investigate cases covered by local jurisdiction.
Finally, despite featuring what is in many ways a vibrant media sector, the country’s economic and political environment restricts freedom in a different, though equally significant, way. Specifically, freedom of expression is limited by the dominance of two media giants, Televisa and TV Azteca, in the country’s television sector. The power that this duopoly wields over the Mexican television market has rarely been challenged. The 2006 Radio and Television Law, more commonly known as “Ley Televisa,” which ostensibly sought to modernize the country’s broadcasting infrastructure, effectively consolidated the duopoly’s control over the airwaves. In a positive 2007 development, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that many of the law’s provisions violated the constitution along with the principles of “equity, competition, and democratization of the broadcasting spectrum” and subsequently threw those provisions out. However, the congress has failed to follow through with this judicial decision, and the Televisa/Azteca powerhouse continues to enjoy substantial political clout. Most recently, ties between Televisa and Enrique Pena Nieto, the PRI governor of the State of Mexico who most consider to be the frontrunner for the 2012 presidential elections, have come to light through journalist Jenaro Villamil’s book If I Were President: Pena Nieta’s Reality Show, which reveals that the image-conscious presidential hopeful used state funds to pay Televisa to expand his publicity and boost his popularity and image.
In some ways, the Mexican media is a microcosm other Mexican institutions, which are still experiencing growing pains subsequent to the country’s 2000 democratic transition. As with limitations to its democracy, Mexico is not a country where press constraints are obvious to the casual eye. Crime still gets reported (though without bylines for papers based in the conflict zones), diversity of opinion (especially in Mexico City newspapers) is strong, and the government does not actively censor. However, this freedom remains both thin and fragile. That the levels of violence have increased self-censorship is nearly indisputable. The weaknesses of the legal regime, both in terms of libel/defamation and the level of criminal impunity, means that freedom of expression still relies far too much on journalistic courage rather than affirmative protections. The power of dominant broadcasters like Televisa inhibits the growth of a competitive broadcast sector with the capacity to provide balanced, comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Reforming the state as a whole will inevitably be a long and difficult process. However, a dose of political will from the president and congressional leaders that translates to improved legal protections and economic dynamism could go a long way toward helping Mexico’s vulnerable press sector improve its capacity to play a positive role in the critical years ahead.
