Gustavo Abad
A young Ecuadorian is the only survivor of the slaughter perpetrated a week ago, in the state of Tamaulipas (Mexico) for a drug gang (Zeta) against 72 people who tried to cross the border into the United States. The media published the news, some with more, others less detail. Where I do almost all agreed that effort was sick of publishing the names and photos of the survivor and their families, as if identifying victims traits the credibility of journalism.
I refuse to accept that, at this point, the editors of major media in the country, such as trade, for example, which advocates say good job, friendly reader, who works in the service of people, and a lot of talk devalued by misuse, have not yet solved in a matter of ethical procedures elemental, such as the obligation the medium to refrain from publishing information where there is the slightest possibility of exposing people.
Photos published in the newspaper, no matter if you went full and a "pixilated" - helped increase the state of helplessness, not only of fellow wounded, but their entire family. Needless to say, this is an environment marked by poverty in a village in the province of Canar, which facilitates the abuse of all kinds. Everything indicates that media and journalists who do not aware of their capacity to cause harm.
If it were not sad, it would be funny the argument of one of the heads of El Comercio newspaper, who suggested in an article that the responsibility for protecting witnesses is not the media but by the authorities. Amazing discovery. Then he says that the newspaper has not been exposed to victims since the mafia involved in trafficking of people know them very well having previously had dealings with them. Then publish the list of all villagers.
If this reasoning came from a freshman in journalism, could be understood by their level of training, but you can not admit the same people who take more than twenty years in this profession exercise also be responsible for the reporting of one of the largest newspapers. If they do, those who aspire to be a reference to the young, are not clear, what to expect from the rest.
"What makes a company not knowing the face of the witness?" Asks the same newspaper chief to justify the unjustifiable. The question should be the reverse: What makes a society to know? Furthermore: What makes a victim all to look at the inner state and inviolable as is the suffering? If the newspaper's journalistic leaders admit they were wrong and they apologized, that one gesture would make them worthy of some respect. But do not show the intention to do so, therefore, no reason to respect them.
The problem is that certain media are still guided by the false premise that the contemplation of the horror serves as a lesson humanity to not to repeat. Great pretext invented to gloat over another's pain exposure. Let this occasion to remind them that Susan Sontag said on this subject: "The only people who are entitled to look at the pain of others are those who have some chance of cure."
Indeed, the physician who soothes the wounds, the authority that could bring some justice, family run, offering companionship and spiritual strength are the only right to look at the suffering of others . The remainder, ie most of us, we are simply eavesdroppers. And there are still media and journalists they do not realize. Or pretend not to notice, which is worse.
