Journalists wait outside prosecutor Viviana Fein’s office.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Anyone paying only limited attention to the local news would have been able to foresee the reaction from the main political and media players as special prosecutor — the late Alberto Nisman presented his complaint against President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and other ruling party activists for allegedly seeking to cover-up the responsibility of the 1994 AMIA Jewish community centre bombing.
All of those predictable reactions surfaced immediately on that January 14. On the one hand, this was the charge: the president had orchestrated a “criminal conspiracy” with “terrorists” (in Nisman’s words) to provide impunity to those responsible for the death of 85 people, one of the worst possible charges in the Penal Code. The betrayal of victims of a devastating attack was more serious than any criticism against “populist” policies or accusations of government corruption, and had only one possible outcome: the president leaving the Pink House and going to prison. Sentence: guilty.
On the other hand, this was the explanation: the president, responsible for historical transformations in Argentina, faced the most serious coup attempt ever with Nisman’s complaint. The conspiracy against her included intelligence agents, the leading media group and its allies, the judicial corporation which was exacting revenge for the 2013 failed justice reform and, less eloquently, the United States government. Sentence: victim.
So binary are these statements that they can leave out many readers who aspire to a more nuanced vision of reality. However, we must recognize that cautious, complex analysis plays a limited role on the great Argentine stage, playing second fiddle to the clamour for a black-or-white approach.
That is why information, data and unbiased opinions are not always welcome in such a toxic environment. The fierce opposition stance, which is barely able to differentiate between the Kirchners, the Nazi regime and Jorge Rafael Videla’s dictatorship (anyone who reads the newspapers will find this a familiar comparison) must not ignore a hardly minor element: the extreme weakness of Prosecutor Nisman’s complaint backing his allegations.
In turn, the point of view in which an “epic Kirchnerism” defends the people against infamous corporations is forced to gloss over the question of why the government established long-term pacts with the mafia that is now allegedly harassing it. (Was it due to an unavoidable pragmatism? Taking one step back to take two steps forward?) The latest broken agreement with the former spymaster Antonio “Jaime” Stiuso took place in December, 11 years after the ruling party took office. It’s just a detail.
Nisman was found dead by gunshot in his Puerto Madero home four days after he filed the complaint against the president. The evidence so far indicates that he committed suicide: his body was found in the bathroom blocking the entrance, with all the doors of the apartment locked, with no signs of a struggle and a gun — requested from a friend just hours before the final shot — underneath his body. Having said that, the strange circumstances and the huge institutional importance of his death calls for a comprehensive investigation. Beyond the facts, the divide surges once again. Stance A: the AMIA special prosecutor was killed or pushed to commit suicide by the government. Stance B: he was killed or pushed to commit suicide by the mafia that he had served.
For some time, the mainstream of Argentine journalism (indeed, the most succesful in terms of influence and revenues) has been devoted to confirming what their audience already knows or imagines. In a self-fulfilling loop, convinced and even enraged audiences access hypotheses or partial information confirming the boldest speculations and prejudices, which increases their loyalty.
No information that contradicts general assumptions is expected. To some extent, these are years of journalism for believers, and that leads to the paradox in which the era of communication doesn’t mean the era of information.
Politicians are lagging behind this system. For its part, Kirchnerism blocks nuances in its political discourse. Barring a few exceptions from the intellectual camp, anyone who points out subtle criticism receives merciless punishment. Even those dissidents who support the central line of officialdom will be targeted. Then, if dissidents cross to the opposition camp, they become traitors.
In the opposite corner, no leader dared to keep a clear distance from Nisman’s complaint. There are some, but they prefer not to speak out publicly or barely disguised rhetoric to avoid definitions, as if it were not possible to maintain a critical attitude toward government accountability in economic stagnation or corruption cases while also adopting a discourse that is not the most acceptable for television screens.
The attempt to circumvent this state of affairs is not only challenging for those who participate in public debate but it also turns journalism into a much more enjoyable activity and it also seems to be more useful for readers. In light of the journalism that is produced for the faithful, it makes sense to speak of blessings and curses when somebody tackles the Buenos Aires Herald — a small daily, the only English speaking one in South America, and which makes lots of mistakes. But as this blind-belief approach is more typical of religions than of journalism, in these pages we prefer to respect the limits of reasons, information, data, values and diversity.
@sebalacunza