Mexicans mourn well-known journalist as risks to reporters skyrocket

Being a journalist in Mexico is getting even more dangerous

Anabel Flores, a 27-year-old mother of two toddlers, was kidnapped by armed men who stormed her house in the early hours of Feb. 7 in the Mexican city of Orizaba, state of Veracruz. The facts are dramatic, but it’s also an old story: Flores was a reporter, and her fate was similar to that suffered by more than 100 journalists in the past 15 years.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Her body was found two days later, on the evening of Feb. 9. Like many of her slain colleagues, Flores covered the crime beat. And in the state of Veracruz, one of the most violent in Mexico, fraught with violence by drug cartels, this is a high-risk job. Her death was another chilling reminder that a kidnapping almost surely means death for a Mexican journalist. It is a trend that Mexico shares with Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq and Syria, also among the world’s most dangerous places for journalists, where the murder of American reporters Jim Foley and Steve Sotloff at the hands of the Islamic State let the world know that a kidnapping is more likely to end in death than release.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In Mexico, this has been the case in more than half of the 17 murders of journalists since 2014, as documented by the Journalists at Risk project supported by ICFJ and Freedom House. Nine of those 17 reporters, editors or news anchors were kidnapped before being killed. Their bodies were found after their abductions had been reported, and in all cases the authorities launched search operations. But the final, tragic outcomes prove that the government’s response, at both the local and national level, is woefully inadequate.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Journalists have been missing for days before their bodies are found. When Flores was kidnapped, the Veracruz state government announced an operation to look for her. It didn’t work, and she was found dead two days later. The authorities can be even more clueless, as evidenced by the case of Moisés Sánchez, also in Veracruz. He was kidnapped in the town of Medellín on Jan. 2, 2015, and according to police reports, he was killed the same day. However, authorities took 22 days to find his body — even though they had several suspects in custody who had admitted the crime.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Those are just the cases in which a homicide could be determined. In addition to those nine kidnappings that resulted in death in the past two years, two more journalists remain missing after being abducted. María del Rosario Fuentes, a blogger in the state of Tamaulipas, was last seen in October 2014. She was presumed dead after pictures of what appeared to be her body circulated in her social media accounts, but her remains have not been found. Mario Crespo Ayón disappeared in the state of Sinaloa in December 2014 and did not leave a trace.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico All told, 11 journalists who were kidnapped in Mexico in the past two years are either dead or still missing. Only five journalists kidnapped in the same period were lucky enough to be released. The problem of missing journalists is not new. The organization Article19 has documented 23 disappearances since 2003. “Mexico is the country with more missing journalists in the world. A disappearance represents a continuing crime and a sign of despair in the pursuit of justice,” says Dario Ramirez, Article19’s director in Mexico. In the past 10 years, the Mexican government has created a special prosecutor for crimes against journalists, passed special laws federalizing those crimes and set up protection mechanisms for journalists at risk or under threat, measures that were implemented as attacks against the media grew at the turn of the decade. Since then, government officials and legislators routinely promise to improve the guarantees for a free press.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The result? The situation is worse. In 2005, the Mexican press was ranked “Partly Free” in an index by Freedom House that serves as a worldwide reference. In 2015, even after the creation of laws and institutions designed to “protect” the press, Mexico was ranked “Not Free.” Mexican journalists are now less safe than ever, and as they struggle to protect themselves and form support networks, the response from authorities amount to no more than window dressing.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For example, the state where Flores’s body was found already knew it had a problem. If Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, Veracruz is the most dangerous part of Mexico. In the past five years, 15 journalists have been killed there, and seven of the 17 Mexican journalists killed since 2014 were either murdered in or working in Veracruz. Four were killed there, and three others were murdered outside Veracruz but did their work there, including Rubén Espinosa, who had fled for Mexico City, where he was killed last summer. Veracruz also accounts for three of the seven missing journalists since 2011.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Other southern states are almost as bad, though, such as Oaxaca, where six journalists have been killed since 2014, and Guerrero, where threats and attacks are frequent but not always reported. This means that violence against the media has shifted: In the early part of the decade, the northern states were the riskier places for journalists, mostly due to the violence unleashed by organized crime. Since then, as violence went down in the north, it went up in the south. More alarming, it’s not just organized crime groups killing journalists in southern Mexico, as it was in the north. Attacks or arbitrary detentions of members of the media come from criminal groups, but also from government officials or security forces. The murder of Moisés Sánchez is a case in point: Investigations alleged that his kidnapping was ordered by the mayor of Medellín, the town where Sánchez edited a small magazine, because he didn’t like stories that appeared in La Unión, the magazine that Sánchez published. Officials in Veracruz say that the hit was carried out by criminals hired by the local police chief — a macabre form of “outsourcing” violence against journalists.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For years, Mexican journalists have known that stories about corruption, crime or violence can trigger tragic repercussions from those affected: drug cartel bosses, government officials, police chiefs. Violence has been unleashed on the Mexican media in an unprecedented scale, especially at the local level. Reporters and editors in small or medium cities are the most affected, and protection is absent. Impunity in crimes against journalists is rampant and it is the cause of every new aggression: Anyone who today plans to attack a journalist or news organization can do it because the ones that did it before got away with it. **Read more:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The drug cartel that protected Sean Penn also terrorizes other journalists    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Why I turned down an interview with “El Chapo”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

So many journalists have been killed in Mexico this year that a newspaper is shutting down

There was the freelance writer, slain at a carwash. Then, the columnist that was shot twice as he left a restaurant with his wife and son. And on March 23, a 54-year-old journalist and mother of three, Miroslava Breach, was fatally shot eight times outside her home while she was in her car with one of her children. A rolled-up piece of cardboard was left with a chilling reason for the crime: “being a tattletale.” Three Mexican journalists were killed last month in an “unprecedented” wave of violence against the press. The job of a journalist has become so dangerous in the nation that one Mexican newspaper owner has decided he is no longer willing to take on the risk. In a front-page letter published Sunday with the massive headline “Adios!” the owner of Norte, a newspaper in the Mexican border city of Juarez, announced it would be ending its print publication as a result of the ongoing violence against journalists, killings that often go unpunished. “On this day, esteemed reader, I address you to report that I have made the decision to close this newspaper due to the fact that, among other things, there are neither the guarantees nor the security to exercise critical, counterbalance journalism,” wrote Norte’s owner, Oscar A. Cantú Murguía. In an interview with The Washington Post, Cantú said he also planned to announce the closure of the digital version of the newspaper Monday in a meeting with the publication’s staff. Though the newspaper has faced mounting financial woes, the decision to end its operations came after the killing of Breach, a correspondent for national newspaper La Jornada and collaborator for Norte, a colleague Cantú said he was close with.  The tragic news of Breach’s death made Cantú angry, tired and “fed up,” he said. Over the course of its 27 years in publication, the newspaper’s reporters have been in “the line of fire” and have faced a number of risks as a result of their coverage, risks that are heightened because of the newspaper’s proximity to the border, Cantú said. But with the death of Breach, the realities of the profession have hit closer to home than ever before. “For me, a free press is a pillar of democracy,” Cantú said. “If I can no longer do the type of journalism that I want to do … I cannot accept it anymore. Enough.” Shutting down the print and digital operations will eliminate about 150 jobs, he said, adding that he hopes to help employees relocate to other publications or companies. The closure was a difficult decision, he said, but added, “I would rather they lose their jobs than lose their lives.” Cantú also attributed the decision to financial troubles that he blamed on authorities: “The arrogant refusal to pay debts contracted for the provision of services.” In Mexico, government advertising is a major source of revenue for many news outlets, including Norte. But Cantu said the financial concerns paled in comparison to the dangers. The risks are especially high for smaller, locally focused publications like Norte, Cantú said. Killings of journalists who work for national outlets like La Jornada, one of Mexico’s main daily newspapers, are relatively uncommon. In general, reporters in the country are often “treated as the evil of society,” in a similar way that Trump referred to journalists as the “enemy of the people,” Cantú said. “It is an act of protest,” Cantú said of the newspaper’s closure. “It is my way of protesting with silence.” Norte, which printed about 30,000 copies of its newspaper during the week, and 35,000 on the weekend, was one of five local newspapers in Juarez, a border town of 1.3 million people just south of El Paso At least 38 journalists have been killed in Mexico since 1992 for motives confirmed as related to their work, according the Committee to Protect Journalists, a media advocacy group based in New York. Fifty more journalists were slain during the same period for reasons that remain unclear.   Breach was a highly respected, veteran reporter who covered crime, politics and other issues, according to CPJ. Her death prompted scores of journalists and supporters of free speech to protest in Mexico City. On March 2, Cecilio Pineda Birto, a freelancer and the founder of La Voz de Tierra Caliente, was killed at a carwash in Ciudad Altamirano, in the state of Guerrero. On March 19, columnist Ricardo Monlui was shot twice near the city of Cordoba in the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz, a state plagued by warfare between rival criminal groups. At least 1,258 people were murdered in the state last year, according to news reports. On Wednesday, veteran journalist Armando Arrieta Granados, the editorial director of the daily Veracruz newspaper La Opinión, was shot and gravely wounded by four bullets as he returned to his home in the city of Poza Rica, according to CPJ. Arrieta, a 51-year-old journalist with more than two decades of experience, remained in serious condition in the hospital after the shooting, media reports said. In light of the news of Norte’s closure, many readers spoke out in solidarity with the owner’s decision, while some reporters lamented the loss of jobs and vital local journalism. Hérika Martinez, a reporter and photographer for Norte, tweeted Sunday, “today, a part of journalism in Juarez died.”  “The memory of their struggle will not be erased,” the reader wrote. “Citizens will always be grateful for their valuable dedication to make this world a better place for our children.”

In Mexico, journalism is literally being killed off

WHEN ONE of his colleagues at Mexico City’s daily newspaper was gunned down in March, Javier Valdez issued a passionate statement about the importance of the work of journalists who cover the network of organized crime, drug trafficking and corruption that plagues Mexico.“Let them kill us all, if that is the death sentence for reporting this hell,” he tweeted. “No to silence.” The words proved horribly prophetic when Mr. Valdez last week became the latest casualty of the drug-fueled violence that has claimed tens of thousands of Mexican lives over the past decade. The life and death of this courageous reporter should serve as inspiration and prod to the Mexican government to undertake reforms needed to end the impunity that allows the country’s lawlessness to flourish. Mr. Valdez, 50, was shot and killed at midday May 15 on a busy street in the northwest state of Sinaloa. Authorities said unidentified attackers fired 12 shots at his car. Sinaloa is a drug trafficking destination perhaps best known as the home of Mexican drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán; Mr. Valdez, a correspondent for La Jornada, co-founded a regional weekly newspaper there in 2003 because of his belief in the need for honest reporting of the crime and corruption that victimize Mexicans — despite the risks. He is the sixth journalist to be killed in Mexico this year and one of more than 100 journalists who have been murdered since 2000. Eleven days before Mr. Valdez’s death, a delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists met with President Enrique Peña Nieto to present its newly released report “No Excuse: Mexico Must Break Cycle of Impunity in Journalists’ Murders.” Among the recommendations were better protections for at-risk journalists, timely investigation of threats and training prosecutors in how to pursue crimes against freedom of expression. It’s good that Mr. Peña Nieto immediately and strongly condemned Mr. Valdez’s murder, but that is clearly not enough. Recommendations of the CPJ report should be embraced, and the chronic failure of the judicial system in investigating and prosecuting crimes must be addressed. A good place to start is making a priority of finding those who shot Mr. Valdez and those who ordered it. **Read more:** Carl Gershman: Remembering a journalist who was killed for standing up to Putin Letters to the Editor: Journalists killed for dedication to the truth Aykan Erdemir and Cenk Sidar: Turkey’s bizarre witch hunt against the media

Mexicans mourn Juan Gabriel, a singer who captured his country’s soul

MEXICO CITY — The death of Mexico’s flamboyant musical icon Juan Gabriel set off waves of mourning in his home country on Monday, with residents gathering to pay tribute in the city of his youth, Ciudad Juárez, and in plazas and venues in the capital linked to the superstar singer. For many Mexicans, the loss of the 66-year-old singer, who died at his Los Angeles home on Sunday morning, felt like a death in the family. Since the early 1970s, Mexicans have grown up to his emotional ballads: hearing them in concerts, on the radio, on the television network Televisa, or more recently on iPods or computers. As columnist Hector de Maulóen wrote in El Universal newspaper, “We have lost the voice that was the backdrop of our lives.” Juan Gabriel, a prolific songwriter who sold more than 100 million records, performed his last show Friday night at the Forum in Inglewood. He was known as the “Divo of Juarez,” after the border town where he grew up. His charismatic and campy stage-presence made him an iconic figure in the gay community, even though he kept his own sexual orientation private throughout his life. The organization LGBT Mexico tweeted that Juan Gabriel was a “man who challenged homophobia and rose above it.” On Sunday evening, some 1,500 people gathered outside a home he owned in Juarez, placing flowers and candles at the door and singing one of his most famous songs, “Amor Eterno,” said Saul Barrera, an entertainment editor from El Periodico Norte, a newspaper in Juarez. “Juan Gabriel has played a fundamental role in the love and heartbreak of Mexicans,” Barrera said. “Many, many, have fallen in love with his songs, and many have lived the bitterness and heartbreak of his songs.” Tributes poured in from the highest levels of government, as well as from musicians and ordinary Mexicans. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto tweeted that Juan Gabriel was “one the greatest musical icons of our country.” “A voice and a talent that represented Mexico. His music is a legacy for the world,” Peña Nieto tweeted. In Mexico City, residents paid tribute to him at Plaza Garibaldi, a gathering point for mariachi musicians, placing flowers before a statue of Juan Gabriel and posing for photographs. Off to the side, Victor Manuel Jimenez, 61, a retired federal government employee, said he had come to pay homage to a man who represented perseverance in overcoming difficulties. Juan Gabriel, born Alberto Aguilera Valadez, the youngest of 10 children, was given by his mother to an orphanage when he was an infant in Ciudad Juárez. He pursued music while scraping out a living in Mexico City and even spent time in jail for an alleged robbery. “He signified struggle,” Jimenez said. Juan Gabriel’s songs felt positive, Jimenez said, with a purity and innocence, even when sad. “Through his songs, I enjoyed life,” he said. Onstage, in front of a Mexico that has traditionally valued machismo, Juan Gabriel performed with an Elton John-esque flair, wearing silks and sequins, furs and suspenders, in addition to more somber suits and mariachi costumes. “He managed to win over many people in spite of their prejudices,” said Julio Patan, a writer and host of the“Hora 21” television program. “It was very common to see in his shows the classic ‘Mexican supermacho,’ the cliche of Mexican masculinity, with homophobic prejudices, fully enjoying his show, clapping, singing, dancing. For me, it was touching, inclusive.” It was often assumed that Juan Gabriel was gay, and a former assistant, among others, published what appeared to be romantic photos of him with other men. Many people were surprised to learn the singer had fathered four children. When asked about his personal life, Juan Gabriel generally demurred. “One doesn’t judge what one sees,” he said. “Before Mexico was more conservative, now not as much,” said Laura Gomez, 50, who owns a clothing shop in Puebla. “We understand that it’s not about the person, it’s about the music, what we want to see is the music.” One of the milestones in Juan Gabriel’s long career took place in 1990, when he became the first commercial singer, as opposed to a classical musician, to perform at the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City. The institution opened its doors for the public for people to pay tribute to Juan Gabriel on Monday, and a small crowd had gathered outside in the morning. “For me, he was part of my childhood,” said Gomez, who was sitting outside the hall. She has gone to his concerts and continues listening to Juan Gabriel. “He was a special person.” Ivan Galicia, 24, came to the hall carrying a tabloid newspaper with Juan Gabriel’s face on the cover. Galicia sells cellphones nearby but wanted to take a moment to mourn the singer. He expected more people would be coming soon. “For generations, he’s been an idol,” Galicia said. “Many more people will come, that’s certain. It’s going to be massive.” Gabriela Martinez contributed to this report.

Mexican state lawmakers want to censor bad news

Despite their notoriety as such, Mexico's drug cartels aren't really drug cartels. For one, they're too busy shooting and torturing each other to collude on the kind of price-fixing arrangement that would qualify them as a proper cartel. Nor do they deal exclusively in drugs. Over the years, many of the country's most feared criminal gangs have developed lucrative portfolios in human trafficking, kidnapping, oil bunkering and especially extortion. What's less known is that they're also big in the news business. In major border cities like Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa, the gangsters essentially edit the local news, which is to say, they censor it. Besieged residents of those places may witness a wild gun battle in broad daylight and see bodies splayed out in the streets, but when they pick up a newspaper the next day, they won't find a word about it. This was not achieved by a few threatening phone calls. Over the years, the gangsters murdered, kidnapped and ran off many of Mexico's best crime reporters. They attacked newspaper offices and television studios with bullets and grenades. And while the intimidation campaign has fallen hardest on local news reporters, gunmen have also attacked and killed correspondents from Mexico's major national media outlets. These efforts to silence and censor the news are a big reason that a new law in Sinaloa, one of Mexico's most violent states, has triggered a wave of outrage since its approval last week. State lawmakers voted for new restrictions that essentially limit reporters to covering crime and violence only after authorities have given their permission. Under the new law, reporters will be prohibited from taking pictures or filming at crime scenes, and must wait for official news releases until publishing or broadcasting their reports. It wasn't clear how the laws would be enforced and what would happen to journalists and broadcasters who don't wait for state officials to tell them what they can cover. "Let's imagine someone has been chopped to pieces, and the press arrives and starts taking photos, and publishing them online and in the media -- all of that is offensive to the victim's family and others," said Sinaloa lawmaker Roque Chavez, telling local reporters that the measures would improve the integrity of the judicial process and protect the work of forensic teams. But Javier Valdez, the award-winning reporter and co-founder of the Sinaloa-based weekly Rio Doce, described the measures as a blatant attack on the press -- and one that reflects the thinking of a political class that would rather stop journalists from covering violence than stop the violence itself. "They're more worried about the news coverage than reality," he said. "Our reality is one of murder, corruption and complicity between authorities and organized crime, and they want to cover that up for the sake of tourism and investment." Due to take effect Oct. 15, Sinaloa's new reporting restrictions have been condemned by press freedom organizations in Mexico and abroad. Mexico's National Human Rights Commissioner Raul Plascencia called it "a bad precedent" for freedom of speech. They are particularly galling for the Mexican journalists who have risked their lives to report on the country's criminal organizations, and who have been urging lawmakers to provide them with more protections -- not new obstacles. Mexico ranked seventh this year on the "Global Impunity" index of countries where killings against journalists go unpunished -- the worst rating in the hemisphere -- according to an annual survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists. After several dozen reporters staged a protest Monday in Culiacan, the state capital, Sinaloa governor Mario López Valdez said he would meet with them and that the new legislation had been poorly drafted. The backlash against Sinaloa's state legislators has been so intense that lawmakers said they will introduce a new proposal Aug. 21 to repeal the measures, blaming its approval on a busy agenda that didn't leave enough time for the fine print. But Riodoce's Valdez said he's still skeptical. "We can't let our guard down," he said, speaking by phone from Sinaloa. Of course, not all Mexican reporters are noble crusaders for truth and justice. Some take money in exchange for favorable coverage, or no coverage at all. Carnage-crazed tabloids tend to outnumber serious news outlets. Yet Mexico remains a country with a fairly vibrant and mostly-free press, and one that has hung on through a dark and scary era when powerful forces from the underworld and the political world have wanted to gag it. There were times in Ciudad Juarez in 2010 and 2011, when the city was at its deadliest, that it wasn't unusual for 10, 12 or 15 people to be slain in a single day. You could follow the local crime reporters to homicide scenes all around the city and see the bodies in the streets where they fell. These reporters and photographers followed the police radio traffic and paid cops and others for tips, wanting to arrive first so they could get close-ups of the dead before the forensic teams got there and sealed off the area with tape. Showing up at homicide scenes too early carried its own risks, especially when the police hadn't arrived yet and it wasn't clear whether the killing was finished. Gunmen would sometimes circle back to finish off the wounded. Still, I never saw reporters get in the way or interfere with a crime scene. More importantly, I know that if they hadn't been there at all, there would be no way to know whether the deaths would be noted, documented and tallied, or if they'd be simply cleaned up and concealed, as if nothing ever happened, as some would have preferred.

Mike O’Connor, advocate for journalists, dies at 67

Mike O’Connor, an experienced war correspondent who in recent years worked in defense of journalists in Mexico at a time when it had become one of the most treacherous countries in the world for reporters, died Dec. 29 in Mexico City. He was 67. He had a fatal heart attack while sleeping in his apartment, according to his wife, Tracy Wilkinson, the Los Angeles Times’s Mexico bureau chief. Since January 2009, Mr. O’Connor had worked as the Mexico representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based nonprofit group, traveling to some of the most dangerous parts of the country to investigate the intimidation, murder and disappearance of journalists targeted by drug cartels or corrupt government officials. The reports he produced with his colleagues gave outsiders an unvarnished understanding of the scope and bloody mechanics of Mexican censorship: According to the group, 26 journalists have been murdered in the country since 1992, 23 of them with impunity. Within Mexico, Mr. O’Connor’s reputation among reporters and editors was as a rare trustworthy confidant. He was especially helpful to journalists in the regions beyond the Mexican capital, where intimidation of the press is more common. Reporters from far-flung papers called him regularly to discuss details of threats, updates on the disappearance of colleagues, and advice on how they might go into hiding or exile. “He was an activist close to the low-level journalists — the ones in the streets of combat, the ones in the struggle — more than those from the journalistic heights,” Javier Valdez Cardenas, a correspondent and founder of Riodoce, a newspaper in the drug- cartel-plagued state of Sinaloa, said in a phone interview. “When other people would run away from dangerous areas, Mike would go to them to figure out what was going on with the journalists there,” he said. “He was a brave, passionate man.” Mr. O’Connor had said that his life’s work was likely rooted in his search for the truth about the mysterious lives of his parents, Jerry and Jess O’Connor. When Mike was a child, they moved back and forth between the United States and small-town Mexico, where their son learned to speak fluent Spanish. The couple, who offered scant explanation for the moves at the time, believed they were being hunted by the U.S. government, in part because of Jess O’Connor’s connections to left-wing political circles. Mr. O’Connor would write about this unusual upbringing, and his later attempt to unravel his parents’ complicated story, in a well-received 2007 memoir, “Crisis, Pursued by Disaster, Followed Closely by Catastrophe: A Memoir of Life on the Run.” Mr. O’Connor was born Feb. 8, 1946, in Germany, where his father was stationed after World War II, tasked with overseeing a camp for displaced persons. He worked as a local TV reporter in the San Francisco area, then became a correspondent with CBS News, covering the civil wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador. After another stint in local TV news in California, he returned overseas, reporting for the New York Times in Central America and the former Yugoslavia, and for National Public Radio from places such as Haiti and the Middle East. In a blog post this week, Carlos Lauria, the senior Americas program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, noted that Mr. O’Connor had been instrumental in persuading the Mexican government to pass a constitutional amendment in May that grants federal authorities broader jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against reporters. “Mexican journalists have lost one of their most formidable advocates,” Lauria wrote. In addition to his wife, Mr. O’Connor’s survivors include two sons, Sean O’Connor of San Francisco and Gabriel O’Connor of Washington; two sisters; two half-brothers; and two granddaughters. **—Los Angeles Times**

Charlie Hebdo killings highlight the increasing targeting of journalists

Perhaps the most unusual thing about the slayings of 10 journalists in Paris on Wednesday was that they occurred in Paris. Journalists are hunted and attacked regularly, though almost never in cosmopolitan Western capitals where free speech is a given. Being a reporter may not be as dangerous as being a soldier, police officer, firefighter or coal miner — although it’s hard to know for sure, given uncertainty over how many people actually are journalists. But in many places, even outside war zones, carrying a notebook or a camera is a life-threatening proposition. Journalists are killed for myriad reasons: for reporting about official corruption or organized crime, or simply for saying something unpopular. Sometimes, merely associating with the wrong sources can get a reporter killed. ●In Paraguay, radio host Edgar Pantaleón Fernández Fleitas was shot and killed in the northern city of Concepcion in June after he went on the air and accused local officials of taking bribes. ●In Syria, one of the worst places to be a journalist, gunmen killed local radio reporter Mohammed al-Qasim in September while he was on assignment interviewing a rebel military leader, according to the International Press Institute. ●In Pakistan in April, TV anchor Hamid Mir — the target of Taliban threats for his coverage of wounded schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai — was shot three times as he left the airport in Karachi. He survived. In all, some 60 journalists were killed on the job worldwide in 2014, and 70 in 2013, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an international organization based in New York. The group says the past three years have been the worst since it began compiling figures on journalists’ deaths in 1992. Even that grim tally might understate the problem: The organization is still investigating 18 reporters’ deaths in 2014 to determine whether they were work-related. The striking thing about these fatalities is that they mostly were not the result of accidents or falling bombs and errant crossfire in war zones. In two-thirds of the cases, journalists died the way those killed at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo did Wednesday: They were targeted _because_ they were journalists. “These are murders, not accidents,” Joel Simon, the CPJ’s executive director, said in an interview. “Journalists die because they wrote or broadcast something that offended powerful figures in a particular society.” The Charlie Hebdo killings captured worldwide attention because of their appalling brazenness, the ghastly death toll and the unusual setting. But a far more deadly attack on reporters is less known. In 2009, a militia loyal to the provincial governor and ruling family on Mindanao in the Philippines rounded up a convoy of journalists and others as they accompanied members of a political party seeking to register a rival gubernatorial candidate for an upcoming election. The subsequent massacre in Maguidanao province left 57 dead, at least 32 of them journalists and related employees, according to the CPJ. The attack was the deadliest involving journalists, and it might still be resonating years later. The CPJ documented the killing of one state witness to the crime and the wounding of another in November. The murder victim, Dennix Sakal, was the fourth witness killed since court proceedings began in 2010 — thus far without a single conviction. The Maguidanao massacre points to two other aspects of journalists’ deaths: Most victims are locals. And most perpetrators get away with their crimes. Despite such international horrors as the beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff by Islamic State militants last year in Syria, most of the 60 reporters who have been killed or are missing in Syria since 2012 are Syrians. Overall, 9 in 10 reporters who died on the job last year were killed in their native countries, the CPJ said. Some of this toll reflects a pullback of resources by large Western news organizations, according to Simon. Cash-strapped media companies are increasingly relying on local journalists and freelancers to cover conflict zones rather than sending experienced reporters from the home office, he said. “If [a Western journalist] spotted trouble before, he could simply leave and go back home,” Simon said. “You can’t do that if you’re already in your home country.” The CPJ maintains an “impunity index” of how often journalists’ deaths go unpunished. Although the figures vary by nation, about 90 percent of journalist deaths are never prosecuted. Iraq has been the worst offender for six years running, with a 100 percent impunity rate. Several observers suggest that the death rate for journalists has been rising as the tools to bypass the traditional media have developed apace. In short, journalists are more expendable. “People in conflict zones used to consider reporters as something like the Red Cross or Red Crescent Society — neutral noncombatants,” said Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute, the educational arm of the Newseum in Washington. Warring factions “needed reporters to get their story out,” he said. “If no one reported their side of the story, it didn’t get out.” No longer, he said. Militant and terrorist groups are as adept at using social media as the savviest teenager. Rather than conduits for spreading the word, he said, reporters have become mere bargaining chips to be ransomed for cash — or worse. “Now,” Policinski said, “having a journalist [around] is intrusive.” The Newseum maintains a memorial to journalists killed around the world since the 1800s while in the act of reporting. It includes 2,200 names and is by no means complete. “I think we have to thank God that there are still people with the courage to stand up and report, despite the dangers of the job,” Policinski said. “It’s awe-inspiring that there are still people who will go into conflict zones and report. People are always critical of the news media, but there hasn’t been enough recognition for the people who lay their lives on the line to bring back a story or to stand up for freedom of expression.” Maybe, he said, the horrors of Paris this week will remind the world of that.

Why Sean Penn’s El Chapo meeting was an ‘epic insult’ to imperiled Mexican journalists

As the Mexico City bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News for almost two decades, Alfredo Corchado has been on the front lines of the journalistic struggle to document the brutal toll of drug violence across Mexico. That struggle is among the world’s deadliest, with more than 60 Mexican journalists killed or having disappeared over the past decade, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists,” according to Reporters Without Borders. “They are threatened and murdered by organized crime or corrupt officials with impunity. The resulting climate of fear leads to self-censorship and undermines freedom of information.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Stories about government corruption, Mexico’s middle-class exodus and drug violence have placed Corchado on the receiving end of numerous death threats that have forced him to flee the country for months at a time. Like many of his courageous Mexican contemporaries, he has attempted to forge ahead, even as entire regions of the embattled nation — Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Durango — have had their independent media silenced by the specter of violence. In these places, Corchado notes, nobody prints anything without cartel approval, including — it would seem — Sean Penn. _[Censor or die: The death of Mexican news in the age of drug cartels]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For Corchado and many of his colleagues, therein lies the problem with the American actor’s controversial first-person account of meeting with the notorious drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Corchado said the story — published Saturday by Rolling Stone and submitted for Guzmán’s approval before it was made public — is evidence of the inherent conflict between journalism and entertainment.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “When you’re not really challenging the person and have agreed to submit the story for approval, it sounds more like a Hollywood entertainment,” Corchado, who was recently named the borderlands director of Arizona State’s Walter Cronkite’s School of Journalism, told The Washington Post. “It’s not on par with the sacrifice of many of my colleagues in Mexico and throughout the world who have lost their lives fighting censorship.” “Is he serving the public or is he aggrandizing himself?” he added, referring to Penn. It’s a question that has rippled across the journalism world, with the Rolling Stone story drawing as much criticism as it has undoubtedly drawn clicks. As The Post’s Dana Priest reported in December, newspaper readers in Mexico “are unaware of the life-and-death decisions editors make every day not to anger different local cartel commanders.” Hildebrando “Brando” Deandar Ayala — editor in chief of El Mañana, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the region with a print circulation of 30,000 — told Priest that submitting to cartel censorship demands is a self-preservation tactic. “You do it or you die, and nobody wants to die,” he told The Post. “ _Auto censura_ — self-censorship — that’s our shield.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico He added: “The readers hate us sometimes. But they don’t know the real risks we go through.” Priest’s report noted that “four El Mañana journalists have been killed in the past 10 years. Others survived assassination attempts, kidnappings, and grenade and machine-gun attacks on their offices. Deandar has been shot, kidnapped and had his home set on fire, he said.” The report added: To many observers, Penn’s sometimes playful prose revealed a troubling admiration for the man who “is one of the main players in the country’s bloody drug wars, which have claimed at least 100,000 lives over the last decade,” according to Quartz.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “As you dive deeper into the meandering mess, it becomes clear that Penn holds some sort of Hollywood-inspired reverence for El Chapo,” Gawker’s Melissa Cronin writes in a post that catalogues the story’s worst lines.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For others, Penn’s controversial account was reminiscent of the magazine’s 9,000-word debacle about a gang rape at the University of Virginia that never occurred. Jeet Heer, a senior editor for the New Republic, alluded to the fabricated account on Twitter, writing: “Rolling Stone sets standard journalist ethics aside to get story that will attract enormous attention. What could go wrong?” Others, such as Vice correspondent Danny Gold, called out journalists for their hypocrisy. He argued that Penn did what any other journalist desperate for the most sought-after scoop in the world would have done, according to CNN.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Never a fan of Penn’s journalism,” Gold wrote, “but me and every other journo would have compromised a whole lot more to get an interview with El Chapo. Anyone else who says otherwise is lying.” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes noted that ethical considerations have a way of becoming immaterial in the face of “enormous traffic.” Joel Simon, the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told The Post that he would let the media debate the ethics of Penn’s actions. Before making a judgement, however, he suggested that people consider the degree of self-censorship occurring in communities across Mexico. Journalists in Mexico, he noted, receive no protection from their government, which is often complicit in the risks they take to write about. Considering that meetings with high-level cartel members and the media are “highly unusual,” but not unheard of, he said the actor’s story should be judged by what it reveals.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Should journalists ever interview criminals?” Simon asked. “I would say sure.” “But if you as a journalist interview someone like El Chapo, you better deliver some valuable and important information, in my view,” he added. “In this particular instance, he had an assignment for a highly visible and important publication, and whether he delivered a story worthy of the risks he took, that’s something the editors have to decide and the media itself should be debating.” Noting how rare such an interview is, Corchado said he hopes some insight will come from giving the public any glimpse of the criminal mastermind. And yet, he’s still troubled by how the information was acquired. “Do I or other journalists wish we would have gotten the interview?” he added. “Of course, but I doubt that we would have been provided with the same protections of a Hollywood star. The interview also came with big strings attached, like final approval by Chapo of the article. That amounts to similar censorship that my Mexican colleagues face today. Except if they don’t comply, they may not live to tell about it.” _This post, originally published on Jan. 10, has been updated._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **MORE READING:**Can Mexican authorities hold ‘El Chapo’ now that they have him again?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Why actress Kate del Castillo could be the biggest White House dinner ‘get’_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

The most common punishment for killing a journalist in Mexico: Nothing

The committee said government indifference and rampant corruption have contributed strongly to the attacks on journalists. “Endemic impunity allows criminal gangs, corrupt officials, and cartels to silence their critics,” the CPJ said in its report, released Wednesday, which was World Press Freedom Day. “Despite federal government efforts to combat this deadly cycle, justice remains elusive, and impunity the norm.” According to the CPJ, between 2006 and 2016, 21 journalists were killed in Mexico. The country ranks sixth on the organization's index of journalist killings that go unpunished. “The messenger risks being a victim of the story he or she investigates, at times at the hands of government officials, police commanders, common criminals, and drug traffickers who go unpunished,” wrote Adela Navarro Bello, director of Tijuana-based Zeta magazine, which is under police protection after authorities learned that a cartel planned to attack its headquarters. Carlos Lauría, the CPJ's senior program coordinator for the Americas, told The Washington Post that even when suspects are identified in journalist killings, the authorities rarely link the crimes back to cartels or their leaders. “The criminal justice system is incapable of providing any answers for journalists and their families who are being killed with impunity,” he said. “The collusion between the government and organized crime, yes, it’s a fact that it’s blocking the possibility of investigators ever getting to the bottom of these cases.”  “On this day, esteemed reader, I address you to report that I have made the decision to close this newspaper due to the fact that, among other things, there are neither the guarantees nor the security to exercise critical, counterbalance journalism,” wrote Norte’s owner, Oscar A. Cantú Murguía. In March, Norte journalist Miroslava Breach, 54, was fatally shot outside her home as she sat in her car with one of her three children. She had been reporting on killings assumed to be cartel-related, including attacks on police officers and gruesome beheadings. Breach was the third Mexican journalist slain in a month. The gunmen left a note near her body on a rolled-up piece of cardboard with a chilling reason for the crime: “being a tattletale.”  Lauría told The Post that it's impossible for Mexicans to make an informed decision about their government or other issues if newspapers aren't protected and are afraid to print the truth. “It's a full-blown freedom of expression crisis,” he said. “It’s clearly affecting the health of the Mexican democracy. There are entire communities across Mexico where the people are not really aware of what’s going on.”

For the seventh time this year, a Mexican journalist is slain

Experts pointed out that Mexican prosecutors have previously come under fire for ascribing vague motives such as “personal problems” to the killings of journalists.     In May, prominent Mexican journalist and founder of the publication Ríodoce was fatally shot 12 times as he drove away from his newspaper’s offices in Culiacan, Sinaloa. In March, three Mexican journalists were killed in an “unprecedented” wave of violence against the press: A freelance writer was slain at a carwash, a columnist was shot twice as he left a restaurant with his family, and a reporter was shot outside her home while she was in her car with her child. A rolled-up piece of cardboard was left with the reason for the crime: “being a tattletale.”    “We cover social issues and sometimes annoy the authorities by doing so, but I have never had any problem with them,” Adame told CPJ at the time. He said he and his wife were filming the removal of women from the sit-in demonstration. He said he believed a government official ordered police to detain him and his wife. He said he was even considering leaving the state. Their coverage “may have angered someone,” Adame told CPJ, “but we were just doing our job.”

Virginia journalists shot were the seventh and eighth killed in the U.S. since 1992

A television reporter and news videographer were shot and killed Wednesday during a live report in southwest Virginia, sparking a manhunt in the region.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The two people who were killed — Alison Parker, a 24-year-old reporter, and Adam Ward, a 27-year-old cameraman and videographer — became the seventh and eighth journalists killed in the United States while working or for reasons related to their work since 1992, according to records kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists. They are the first journalists believed to be killed since Chauncey Bailey, a newspaper editor in Oakland, was shot and killed in 2007 on his way to work. Bailey, 57, was the editor of the Oakland Post, a black weekly newspaper.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Authorities said that the suspected gunman in Wednesday’s killings, Vester Lee Flanagan, is believed to be a disgruntled employee of the news station where Parker and Ward worked. _[What we know about the shooting of two journalists in southwest Virginia]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico At least 39 journalists have been killed around the world this year for reasons related to their work, according to the committee. Eleven other journalists have been killed for reasons that may have been work-related, but that has not been confirmed, the committee noted. “We do not yet know the motive of the attack that killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward, but we do know that being a journalist is potentially dangerous anywhere in the world,” Carlos Lauría, senior coordinator for the committee’s Americas program, said in a statement Wednesday. “We condemn this fatal shooting and send our condolences to the journalists’ families and colleagues.” The Committee to Protect Journalists keeps records of journalists killed in work-related situations or journalists who die in circumstances where their work may have been related. So their database does not include the death of Charnice Milton, a reporter for neighborhood publications in Washington, D.C., who was killed in May while heading to a bus after a routine work assignment.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _[Live updates on the Virginia shooting]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Worldwide, the most dangerous country for journalists so far in 2015 has been France, in large part due to the January shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a weekly newspaper. The other deadliest countries are South Sudan and Syria, according to a database kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Since 1992, the year the committee began compiling records on such deaths, more than 1,140 journalists have been killed around the world. Deaths of journalists in the United States have been rare. In 1992, a former magazine editor named Manuel de Dios Unanue was shot and killed in a New York City restaurant. The following year, Dona St. Plite, a reporter and commentator in Miami, was killed. In 2001, two journalists were killed. William Biggart, a freelance photographer who died after rushing to the World Trade Center to cover the Sept. 11 attacks. Robert Stevens, a photo editor in Boca Raton, Fla., died the following month after inhaling anthrax.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico James Edwin Richards, who edited an e-mail newsletter covering crime in Venice, Calif., was shot near his home in 2000, though authorities were not sure about a motive, so the committee said it had not determined if his work was related to his death.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “I am horrified by the fatal shooting of reporter Alison Parker and videographer Adam Ward in Moneta, Va., as they went about their jobs serving their community today,” John Hughes, president of the National Press Club, said in a statement Wednesday. Hughes called the shooting “a sad and tragic reminder that journalists both abroad and closer to home put their safety at risk each day.” _This post has been updated._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

The Charlie Hebdo killings are the deadliest attack on Western journalists in decades

At least 10 journalists of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo were murdered by a pair of masked gunmen Wednesday, along with two police officers. The attack amounts to nothing less than an assault on the idea of open expression; the magazine had previously been the target of a bomb attack for publishing a caricature of the prophet Mohammad, and it seems likely the shootings are intended as a response to the magazine's continued lampooning of Islam.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The shootings represent the deadliest attack on Western journalists since at least 1992, according to data on journalist deaths compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Most journalist killings happen in the Middle East, with Iraq being a particularly dangerous place to work over the past decade. The single deadliest attack on journalists anywhere in the world was the 2009 Maguindanao massacre in the Philippines, in which 30 local journalists died.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Reporter murders have varied since 1992 when the CPJ began tallying figures, but the overall trend through 2014 points upward -- it's getting more dangerous to be a journalist, primarily in the Middle East, the Philippines and Russia. The Charlie Hebdo killings come as a shock because they occurred in France. That country had seen only one journalist death before this year, and it remains unclear whether that victim, Nicolas Giudici, was killed for reasons related to his work as a reporter.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The murder of reporters in this fashion has an unquestionably chilling effect on news outlets' willingness to publish potentially controversial material. Already in the wake of the shootings, many news organizations are censoring images of the Charlie Hebdo cover pages that allegedly provoked the attack. In 2011, after the magazine was firebombed for publishing cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammad, some media figures were harshly critical of the magazine for publishing offensive material. This line of criticism extended all the way up to the White House, which questioned the "judgment of publishing something like this."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico It shouldn't require any cognitive dissonance to maintain both a) that some images and writings are offensive and mean-spirited, and b) that one requirement of an open society is the freedom to publish and disseminate such images without fear of losing one's life. Freedom of expression protects the right to offend -- there is no such thing as a right to not be offended.

Veteran journalist Javier Valdez killed in Mexico’s Sinaloa

MEXICO CITY — Javier Valdez, a veteran reporter who specialized in covering drug trafficking and organized crime, was slain Monday in the northern Mexico state of Sinaloa, the latest in a wave of journalist killings in one of the world’s most dangerous countries for media workers. Valdez is the fifth journalist to be killed in Mexico in just over two months and the second high-profile reporter to be slain in the country this decade. The first was Regina Martínez Pérez, who was killed in 2012. A Sinaloa state government official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Valdez was killed in the state capital, Culiacan, near the offices of the publication he founded, Ríodoce. Ríodoce confirmed Valdez’s killing on its Web page, saying he was driving about a block from its offices when he was intercepted by gunmen. Valdez was the author of the books “Narcoperiodismo” and “Los Morros del Narco,” the latter of which chronicled the lives of young people swept up in Mexico’s drug underworld. He was also a correspondent for the national newspaper La Jornada. According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, unknown attackers threw a grenade into the Ríodoce offices in 2009, days after it published an investigation on drug trafficking. No one was hurt. “Living in Sinaloa is a threat, and being a journalist is an additional threat,” Valdez said in a 2011 interview with the CPJ, according to the group’s website. “We learned how to live in times when bullets are flying around us.” Sinaloa is a trafficking hotbed and is home to the Sinaloa cartel, led by the notorious Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, who is in a New York prison awaiting trial on multiple charges. According to the CPJ, 40 journalists have been killed in Mexico since 1992 for reasons confirmed as related to their work. An additional 50 were slain during the same period under circumstances that have not been clarified.

Mexican journalist suffers brutal beating after critical stories

For more than a year, Karla Silva typed out the news in a cramped storefront office for El Heraldo de Leon, a newspaper in the central Mexican town of Silao. The front door was always open, she said, so that passing residents could drop off tidbits of local interest. The city styled itself as a tourist destination, but the 24-year-old reporter’s stories sometimes explored darker themes. Last month, she quoted a local leader accusing the mayor of ignoring the plight of farmers and the crime wave in the area. She wrote about a video circulating of a rough police arrest and an “extreme abuse of authority.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico At 5:30 p.m. Sept. 4, three young men walked into the office and faced Silva and a secretary. “They simply entered, one of them said my name, and when I looked up, he punched me in the face,” Silva recalled in a telephone interview. “After the first punch, I fell. And then he kicked me in the face, in the head, all over my body.” “He kept telling me to stop with my stories,” she said. News of the savage beating has spread widely in Mexico, a particularly dangerous country for reporters, as photos of Silva’s bloodied face circulated on the Internet. Suspicion immediately fell on the mayor, Enrique Benjamin Solis Arzola, who is from the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, the PRI. He has denied involvement.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Threats, intimidation and physical violence are common against reporters in Mexico. More than 50 journalists have been killed or have disappeared there since 2007, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, who condemned Silva’s beating. In dangerous cities, newspapers often go silent about violence, fearing retribution. Reporters for even the biggest national papers sometimes don’t use bylines when reporting from cartel-controlled areas. In the days since the attack, Silva’s colleagues have rallied around her. Earlier this week, about 100 journalists marched on the mayor’s office in Silao, shouting, “Karla is not alone" and “We are all Karla,” and demanded his protection of the free press. But now that she's out of the hospital -- with swelling on the brain and blurred vision -- she said the attack may be enough to drive her from her profession. “I’m worried and scared,” she said. “As a journalist, I don’t know if I’m going to return to my job. Time will tell. I will do what is possible so that this doesn’t affect my work, but I haven’t decided.” “It’s very difficult what the journalists are confronting here every day,” she said. And as she told the Spanish newspaper, El Pais: “There is no worse enemy than a man who is afraid.” _Gabriela Martinez contributed to this post._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Watch: Mexican protester seizes Malala’s Nobel spotlight

MEXICO CITY — It seemed at first like some geopolitical non-sequitur: While the Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai was onstage in Oslo on Wednesday collecting her Nobel Peace Prize, a clean-cut young man in a gray blazer with headphones around his neck jumped in front of her and unfurled a Mexican flag as if he were cheering at the wrong soccer game. But the man, 21-year-old Adán Cortés Salas, was making his own human rights protest with his red-stained flag — about the disappearance and likely deaths of 43 Mexican teachers’ college students in September. Cortés's spotlight-stealing security breach has been enthusiastically covered in the Mexican news media. Reports have said that he is an international relations student from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the prestigious public institution in the capital, who has requested asylum in Norway. Reporters have pored over his social network photos from earlier protests and his various travels.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The flag-waving is the latest example of how the popular movement provoked by the students' disappearance has spread far beyond the rolling woodlands where the crime occurred. The rallying cry for the Mexican students has been taken up by celebrities and politicians around the world. At the premiere of his new movie, "Rosewater," Mexican actor Gael García Bernal used his red-carpet interview to call the crime “one of the most incredibly hurtful things that has happened to Mexico….in its history.” Academy Award-winning director Alfonso Cuarón and other prominent Mexican directors wrote a statement saying, “We believe that these crimes are systemic and indicate a much greater evil: the blurred lines between organized crime and the high-ranking officials in the Mexican government.” President Obama said in an interview with Telemundo this week that the United States has offered forensic help to the Mexican government in getting to the bottom of the case. Obama called the disappearances an “outrageous tragedy” that has “no place in civilized society.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico T-shirts, flags, banners, graffiti and popular songs have sprung up on behalf of the missing students, who were taken by police in the town of Iguala, in Guerrero state, in late September. The government has confirmed through DNA tests that charred remains found in a trash dump outside the city were those of one of the students. There have been repeated marches demanding that the government address political corruption and ties between state institutions and drug cartels. Cortés Salas's twin brother, Austin Nitzar Cortés, wrote on his Facebook page that Adán had been exonerated for his actions after an anonymous “angel” paid a fine on his behalf. He wrote that Norway’s immigration department was evaluating his brother's request for political asylum. Their mother, Monica Salas, recorded a video — which was posted on Facebook — saying that her son “looked for the opportunity to give voice to millions of Mexicans that have not been heard in this country and the only thing that I can share is to remember the message that he sent: Mexico needs you.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Yousafzai, for her part, expressed sympathy for Cortés Salas, despite the interruption of her award. His actions were a reminder, she said, that “there are problems in Mexico.”

An interview with the AP photographer who took the iconic shot of Russian ambassador’s assassin

The man who captured the terrifying image, who kept his camera trained at the gunman during the chaos and fear, was not even there to cover the event. The 30-year Associated Press photographer was meeting on a whim for dinner with an old friend, who suggested they meet at the photo gallery first. But Burhan Ozbilici, 58, is a pro. He rarely goes out without his laptop and camera. A journalist does not stop being a journalist. And in that moment, his duty to document the event outweighed the grave personal risk of standing in plain sight of a man waving a gun. He has received accolades from all over the world, from people both in the media and outside it, awed by his resolve in the midst of an unfolding crisis.  But a career covering chaos prepared him as best as anyone could be prepared to witness a murder. Early in his journalism career, a year before he started working for the Associated Press, he was covering an event in June 1988 when an assassin attempted to kill then-Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal. People ran; Ozbilici stayed. The police shot the gunman, and Ozbilici knelt by him and took pictures. “When that happened, everyone was in panic, and of course I saw my life in front of me, my childhood, my teenage years, like a movie scene,” he said Wednesday in an interview in English and Turkish. “Then I had a sense that I never harmed anybody, I never did anything bad, I never stole anything, I am a decent person. That gave me some peace. This also brought me confidence. I said to myself, ‘Nothing will happen to me, and God will protect me.’” Ozbilici has covered wars and earthquakes and famine and devastation. He has seen death and heartache and people at their absolute lowest moments. He has lost friends who died photographing conflicts. So on Monday evening, when Ozbilici steadfastly began photographing the armed shooter, his experiences kept him grounded. He said he also remembered how his father always told him that if you are ever in a dangerous situation and you have the chance to do good, take the risk. As a boy in Turkey, he said he was always writing and exploring. He loved nature and was filled with curiosity. He was, he said, a journalist even then, keeping a diary of everything he did. His father called him a “wild wolf,” he said, and would tease that he best be careful that the real wolves didn’t eat him. To this day, he has remained fearless. Suzan Fraser, a colleague in the AP’s Ankara bureau since 1996, recalled a time they went to interview a government minister. The official did not like her questions and accused her of being a “foreign agent” working on behalf of “foreign interests.” As the tense interview neared its conclusion, Ozbilici looked up from his camera and defended her. “Suzan,” she remembers him saying, “you have to show the esteemed minister some understanding. He is not used to being interviewed by independent journalists who dare ask difficult questions. He is used to taking questions from journalists who are close to the government.” Fraser said both she and the minister were stunned by Ozbilici’s boldness. But Ozbilici is also deeply empathetic. In the two days since the shooting, he has thought mostly of the slain Russian ambassador, Andrei Karlov, whom he described as a calm, soft-spoken and decent person. “I was so sorry, so sad. … He lost his life in front of my eyes,” he said. “I was so sad and wishing people would all learn enough, get enough of a lesson from this tragedy so it never happens again.” Brian Murphy, a Washington Post editor, who worked closely with Ozbilici when he was on assignment as a foreign correspondent in Turkey, said his friend was often thinking about others. He recalled a time they were covering the 1999 earthquakes that devastated Istanbul, sleeping outside to report on the devastation that befell one town east of the city. “I was working on a story about one block of the town, recounting the deaths and misery house-to-house,” Murphy said. “Down the street — amid piles of rubble and shattered furniture — I saw kids gathered around Burhan. He had brought a bag full of sweets from Istanbul and was giving them to grateful kids who lost their homes and, in some cases, their parents.” He had similar instincts when earthquakes hit Pakistan in 2005. Most journalists stayed for only short stints because there was no water to bathe or wash clothes in and because food was scarce. But Ozbilici stayed longer than most, cleaning himself in rivers and often putting down his camera to aid wounded people. “To do humanitarian missions is really important,” he said, “and it’s part of journalism.” So is getting the story. “I thought it was my professional and moral responsibility. I could be wounded or even killed, but I have to do my work,” Ozbilici said of his courage Monday. “I believe in the power of photos. I believe the power of the photo will be more powerful than a million words.”

2015 was a dangerous year for journalists

JASON REZAIAN, the Post journalist imprisoned in Iran, has now been held longer than any U.S. correspondent jailed anywhere abroad in at least the past quarter-century, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). On Wednesday he will spend his 527th day in captivity, deprived not only of freedom but also of any semblance of justice. Though his trial ended Aug. 10, neither Mr. Rezaian nor his lawyer has yet been informed of a verdict or sentence against him. In continuing to hold him, Iran openly violates its own laws, not to mention basic standards of human rights. Unfortunately, such arbitrary and cruel treatment is not unusual for journalists in the world’s unfree countries. According to the CPJ, 199 were in prison because of their work in 28 countries on Dec. 1. Mr. Rezaian was one of 19 jailed in Iran alone. At least 70 other media workers were killed in 2015, including 47 who were singled out for murder in order to silence them. The first death recorded by the CPJ was of José Moisés Sánchez Cerezo, of La Unión in Medellín de Bravo, Mexico, who was kidnapped on Jan. 2 and decapitated after reporting on local corruption. The most recent came Sunday, when Syrian journalist and filmmaker Naji Jerf, who had documented atrocities by both the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State, was assassinated in a Turkish town near the Syrian border. Syria, not surprisingly, was the deadliest country in the world for journalists for the fourth consecutive year, with 13 killed. Second, shockingly, was France, where nine died, including eight from the satirical journal Charlie Hebdo when it was attacked by al-Qaeda in January. Overall, more than 40 percent of the journalists’ deaths documented by the CPJ were attributed to jihadist groups. But journalists were also killed in places where the Islamic State and al-Qaeda have no presence, including Brazil, Ghana, South Sudan and Poland. Two, Adam Ward and Alison Parker of WDBJ television in Roanoke, were American. The leading jailers of journalists identified by the CPJ were grimly familiar: China, Egypt, Eritrea and Turkey were at the top of the list, along with Iran. A quarter of those imprisoned globally are held by the regime of Xi Jinping — a record 49, according to the CPJ. But the worst deterioration in press freedom, it said, occurred in Egypt, which nearly doubled its number of jailed journalists in 2015, from 12 to 23. Imprisoned journalists in Turkey also doubled, to 14, as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sought to intimidate opponents before an election. Autocratic regimes single out journalists because they almost always get away with it. The State Department, like other Western government agencies, issues protests when reporters are jailed, but rarely takes action. That’s been true even in cases like that of Khadija Ismayilova, an Azerbaijani journalist who works for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an outlet sponsored by the U.S. government. In Mr. Rezaian’s case, the Obama administration did not seek his release as part of the nuclear accord reached this summer. The lack of consequences surely has contributed to Mr. Rezaian’s record confinement — which, unlike the nuclear deal, President Obama should not want for a legacy. **Read more on this topic:** The Post’s View: This week, Jason Rezaian will have been in an Iranian prison for 500 days The Post’s View: Iran’s cruel and arbitrary treatment of The Post’s Jason Rezaian Khadija Ismayilova: A letter from an Azerbaijani prison The Post’s View: Jailed without trial in Azerbaijan The Post’s View: Ethiopia’s stifled press Andy Parker: My daughter was killed on live television. I will do whatever it takes to end gun violence.

Charles Bowden, author of probing, lyrical accounts of the Southwest, dies at 69

Charles Bowden, a Southwestern writer who composed probing, poetic accounts of the social effects of poverty, the drug trade and rampant killings along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, died Aug. 30 in Las Cruces, N.M. He was 69. His partner, Molly Molloy, said she found him unresponsive at their home. She did not know the exact cause of death, and results of an autopsy were not complete. Based for most of his career in Tucson, Mr. Bowden (pronounced BOH-den) led a peripatetic life before being drawn to writing in his 30s. He published more than 20 books, which ranged from lyrical accounts of the desert landscape to hard-edged investigations of political corruption, Mexican drug cartels and professional assassins. Mr. Bowden focused much of his attention on Juarez, Mexico, a city across the Rio Grande from El Paso. He cultivated sources among the police and in the drug trade, often at great risk, while compiling dramatic tales that explored the ways in which the narcotics industry was subverting the civic life of Mexico. “There are some things that if learned change a person forever,” Mr. Bowden wrote in perhaps his most powerful book, “Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields” (2010). “You cannot know of the slaughter running along the border and remain the same person. You cannot know of the hopeless poverty of Mexicans who are fully employed in U.S. factories and remain the same person. And you cannot listen to a [hired killer] — who functioned for years as a state policeman — tell of kidnappings, tortures, and murders and remain the same person.” Mr. Bowden was often regarded as a cult writer, something of a charismatic maverick who was extravagantly admired by many, unknown to most. He wrote in an impressionistic, first-person style that evoked comparisons to Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez, the New Journalists of the 1960s and writers of the Beat generation. Critic David Rieff, reviewing Mr. Bowden’s 1989 book “Red Line” in the Los Angeles Times, described his writing as “an original synthesis of Peter Matthiessen and William Burroughs.” Novelist Ron Hansen, writing in the New York Times Book Review in 1991, called Mr. Bowden “a thrillingly good writer whose grandness of vision is only heightened by the bleak originality of his voice.” The older he got, the more chances Mr. Bowden seemed to take as a reporter and as a prose stylist. His gritty books about the borderlands, such as “Juarez: The Laboratory of Our Future” (1998), “Down by the River: Drugs, Money, Murder and Family” (2002) and “Murder City,” were compelling and personal, even without a clear narrative framework. Tension and a dark sense of terror emerge through the accretion of facts and from Mr. Bowden’s observations and sensibility. “When I cross from El Paso to Juarez in January,” he wrote in “Murder City,” “the river is dry. Nine thousand jobs have vanished in the past few months as the economy sinks. It is thirty-three degrees and very still. Air presses down like Jell-O and has a gunmetal blue cast from the wood fires of the poor.” Mr. Bowden often waded into a murky underworld, where violence, corruption and amorality were the norm. Drug Enforcement Administration authorities warned him that drug lords had put out contracts on his life. For a time, he had bodyguards and kept a gun in every room of his house. He described himself as “a coward” who “would rather write about a bird or a tree,” but he knew that the victims of the drug wars had no other voice. “The way I was trained up,” he told the Arizona Republic newspaper in 2010, “reporters went toward the story, just as firemen rush toward the fire. It is a duty.” For “Murder City” and “El Sicario: The Autobiography of a Mexican Assassin” (2011), Mr. Bowden spent hours interviewing a hired killer whose official job was as a Mexican police commander. “We are both trying to return to some person we imagine that we once were, the person before the killings, before the tortures, before the fear,” Mr. Bowden wrote in “Murder City” of his encounters with the assassin. “He wants to live without the power of life and death and wonders if he can endure being with the money. I want . . . to be in a world where I do not know of sicarios, where I do not think of fresh corpses decorating the calles. We have followed the different paths and wound up in the same plaza, and now we sit and talk and wonder how we will ever get home.” Charles Clyde Bowden was born July 20, 1945, in Joliet, Ill., and grew up in Chicago before moving to Tucson with his family when he was 12. He graduated from the University of Arizona in less than three years in the 1960s and received a master’s degree in American intellectual history from the University of Wisconsin. He spent the late 1960s in California, working in a variety of jobs, before teaching for a short time at the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois. In the early 1970s, Mr. Bowden settled in Tucson, determined to live in the desert and write nonfiction chronicles of his times. He had $14 and no experience in journalism when he talked his way into a job with the now-defunct Tucson Citizen newspaper in 1981. He wrote about sex-abuse crimes and topics that few other reporters wanted to touch and, in 1984, was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize. He later co-founded a short-lived magazine in Tucson, where he reported on the fraudulent financial dealings of Charles H. Keating Jr., who went to prison after the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s and 1990s. For the past 25 years, Mr. Bowden wrote books and contributed to such magazines as Mother Jones, Harper’s and Esquire. In Arizona, he befriended the gadfly environmental author and activist Edward Abbey and became a well-known figure in his own right, a 6-foot-4 “morph of Neil Young and Robert Mitchum,” in the words of the Phoenix New Times weekly. Mr. Bowden was long considered a hard drinker and heavy smoker who nevertheless rose most days at 3 a.m. to work at his writing desk. His marriages to Zada Edgar Soto and Kathy Dannreuther ended in divorce. Survivors include his partner of more than five years, Molly Molloy of Las Cruces; a son from another relationship; a brother; and a sister. Mr. Bowden, who had lived in Las Cruces since 2009, wrote the text of several books of nature photography. After his grueling reporting expeditions, he found solace in bird-watching and long walks in the desert. “I have spent my life in cities and am intoxicated by the fierceness of such places,” he wrote in his 1989 book “Mezcal.” “And I have always felt something missing that led me back to empty, wild places. I have been told that this is a romantic flaw in my character and in the character of my countrymen. I disagree. “I think this is our character.”

In Mexico, a grim truth just below the surface

MEXICO CITY -- Really, it should not have come as a surprise that the 28 bodies found in mass graves outside the town of Iguala do not correspond to those of any of the 43 student protesters who went missing there three weeks ago. The forested hills above Iguala were a well-known human dumping ground, according to the families who live nearby. They often saw pickup trucks with tinted windows driving late at night up through the cornfields into the brush, followed by snaps of gunfire. But they didn’t dare say anything. This week’s announcement by Mexican prosecutors that the 28 corpses appear to belong to a different set of victims was heartening perhaps only to the families and classmates of the missing students, who attend a nearby teachers college. For them, it was a new strand of hope that the 43 may still be alive. But for the rest of Mexico, it was yet another stop on a carousel of horrors, deepening the sense that there are clandestine graves all over the country, into which an untold number of Mexicans have vanished. Scratch the surface a bit and the ghastly secrets emerge. Rights groups point to the list kept by the Mexican government with the names of more than 22,000 people who have gone missing in the past eight years. No one knows how many have been lost to cartel funeral pits like the ones found outside Iguala. “We don’t have the complete test results” from Iguala, Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam told reporters, adding wearily that the discoveries “have confirmed the dangerous nature of the criminal organization that operated in this area.” The mass graves there are not the first and certainly not the largest uncovered in recent years. But they have shattered President Enrique Peña Nieto’s public relations push to shift international attention away from Mexico’s security failures. Once more, many here are asking how the country can possibly tout its modernization efforts if it continues to be a place where gangsters casually kill and bury their victims, often with government complicity, while the rest of the society is too intimidated to stop them. “From Mexico’s Moment to Mexico Murder,” wrote columnist Carlos Loret de Mola in El Universal. “That summarizes the change in international perceptions of our country in the short time between the approval of the reforms” backed by the president “and the explosion of criminal violence in Iguala.” Farmers living on the outskirts of Iguala told reporters that they have long seen strange vehicles driving up into the hills where the graves were found. They say it’s hardly the first time bodies have turned up, describing the area as a giant cemetery. “Sometimes we heard gunshots, but other times we didn’t hear anything because we had music playing or the dogs were barking or we slept through the noise,” one woman told the Milenio newspaper. “I just shut my door and that was it.” The 28 bodies found so far were pulled from five graves, prosecutors say. But since there are at least eight more burial sites in the area, it’s possible that the students ended up in those. Authorities haven’t said how many dead were recovered from the other graves or who they think the victims were. The wait for answers is draining the patience of the Mexican public and especially the students’ classmates, who are demanding that authorities find them or free them if they’re alive. On Monday, a group of protesters stormed government offices in the Guerrero state capital of Chilpancingo and set them ablaze. One of the criminal suspects who may have known about the fate of the 43 students, Benjamin “El Benjamon” Mondragon, died Tuesday, allegedly shooting himself after a standoff with police in the nearby state of Morelos. Mondragon was a leader of the Guerreros Unidos, the gang blamed for the graves outside Iguala and the disappearance of the students after clashes with local police on the night of Sept. 26. The territory where the Guerreros Unidos operate is along the strategic smuggling corridor between Mexico’s ports on the Pacific coast and the capital. It was in this area that one of the first mass grave sites of Mexico’s drug war was discovered in 2010, near Taxco, just down the road from Iguala. There, forensic teams found dozens of bodies at the bottom of an abandoned mine ventilation shaft. Many of the victims were found bound and gagged, and were thought to have been thrown alive down the 500-foot shaft. Recovery teams rappelled down and returned with the remains of dozens of corpses. Asked to clarify how many victims were ultimately found in the mine, officials reached by phone in Guerrero on Wednesday said they did not know. “We didn’t have computers then,” said Tulio Armenta, a spokesman for the state prosecutor’s office.  _Gabriela Martinez contributed to this report._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

How the Venezuelan press is remembering Hugo Chavez

Venezuela -- and the world -- is divided over the death of Hugo Chavez, the polarizing political figure who led the Latin American country for 14 years. As the Post's Nick Miroff reported this morning, poor Venezuelans have tearfully mourned Chavez's death, even as American politicians celebrated the "welcome news." American outlets alternatively described Chavez as "poisonous," "exploitative" and "flamboyantly provocative."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University But the most telling accounts of Chavez's life and death are in the Venezuelan press, which has reported breathlessly on his lengthy illness, funeral preparations and boyhood photos since Tuesday. They reflect, if nothing else, the lasting impact Chavez will have on Venezuelan life. Full-page government ads in several papers showed a smiling Chavez under the red text "hasta la victoria siempre" -- "toward victory forever!" -- a phrase made famous by the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara. An editorial in El Nacional, one of Venezuela's largest national papers, describes Chavez's hold over the state:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University But at El Universal, another national paper, some see hope for change. The paper ran an editorial headlined "The story is barely starting":    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Notably, Venezuela has a history of press censorship and intimidation. As recently as January, Human Rights Watch slammed the Chavez government for building "a legal regime that allows it to censor and punish its critics, in clear violation of international norms."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

Donald Trump’s no-win media predicament on the day of his immigration speech

Donald Trump can't win with the media on his signature issue. And it's his own fault.    Again, Trump's predicament is one of his own making. Trump may have put the media in a tough spot, too. The reviews of Trump's address in Arizona haven't literally been written — yet — but the most likely outcomes are obvious, and most of those outcomes are negative. Whichever direction Trump goes, he will almost certainly alienate one of two groups: the voters he has, or the voters he needs. It will be journalists' job to report on those ramifications, but it's already clear that most of the coverage is likely to be bad. The situation is similar when it comes to the real estate mogul's pre-speech trip to Mexico to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto. Before Trump even took off for the hastily arranged summit, many in the media — The Fix included — took a hard look at the risk involved, and concluded it probably wouldn't pay off. This is called analysis. Of course, Trump and his supporters have their own word for it: bias. And here is where the billionaire can potentially wring a kind of victory out of what appear to be no-win circumstances. He could make the case that the "dishonest" media dubbed the trip and the speech failures without giving him a fair chance to prove otherwise — and that the reason isn't because his own rhetoric has made positive outcomes almost unimaginable, but because journalists are out to get him. Because he is a political outsider who threatens the Washington establishment, media included. Trump's friends at Breitbart are already making this argument.  The GOP standard-bearer might have put himself in an immigration bind, but his bet is that voters care more about his anti-establishment, anti-media swagger than the particulars of his deportation plan.

‘Where I work … it is dangerous to be alive’: A slain Mexican journalist’s prescient speech

“Where I work, Culiacán, in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, it is dangerous to be alive.”  “To do journalism is to walk on an invisible line drawn by the bad guys — who are in drug trafficking and in the government — in a field strewn with explosives,” he said at the time. “This is what most of the country is living through. One must protect oneself from everything and everyone, and there do not seem to be options or salvation, and often there is no one to turn to.”  Riodoce, which Valdez founded in 2003, focused almost exclusively on crime and corruption. The reporter was an expert on drug trafficking and organized crime, subjects he covered extensively in his books. It was a dangerous enterprise, and Valdez had come under attack before. In 2009, assailants hurled a grenade into the Riodoce newsroom.

Mainstream media’s ignorance of Jenni Rivera raises image of parallel Americas

The Chicago Sun-Times declared Jenni Rivera “a heroine” and quoted an entertainment executive who lauded her “extraordinary gifts.” The New York Times compared her to Diana Ross and Tina Turner. Numerous media accounts labeled her a superstar. Chances are, this was news to you. Chances are, you’d never heard of Rivera until you learned that she died in a plane crash in Mexico on Sunday. The American-born Rivera has sold at least 15 million records — more than many other successful and widely acclaimed singers in the United States. But she did not enjoy much attention from the English-language media. Although she was bilingual, Rivera sang only in Spanish. Her most ardent, record-buying fans reside primarily in the American Southwest and farther south, across Mexico. Rivera’s life and death suggest once again that it’s possible to live in parallel Americas, with the larger part only dimly aware of the enormous things happening in the other one. For all our instant connectivity, it’s possible for someone to be hugely famous and perfectly obscure — all at the same time. The American media certainly were interested in Rivera’s death, if not her long singing career. Of the 1,717 articles in the Nexis database that mention her name, nearly 30 percent were about the end of her life rather than the events of it. There’s a long list of singers who have died in plane crashes — all more famous because of how they died. The Washington Post had never mentioned Rivera’s name until Sunday, nor had the news divisions at ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC, according to Nexis. Rivera’s hometown newspapers in California — she grew up in Long Beach — weren’t much more attentive. The Los Angeles Times name-checked her in about a dozen short pieces over the years; the paper’s most prominent treatment of her was a story about her purchase of an Encino estate. The Long Beach Press-Telegram profiled her once last year; most of its coverage concerned the trial and conviction of her ex-husband on charges that he molested their pre-pubescent daughter. This degree of cluelessness elicited an acid-laced comment on Monday from the Orange County Weekly’s Gustavo Arellano, who writes the paper’s amusing and often thoughtful “Ask a Mexican” column. Arellano upbraided the mainstream news media for “their pathetic record on reporting on a mega-superstar [who] operated in plain sight under a media that, like usual, didn’t bother to pay attention while she was alive because she was a Mexican and popular mostly to Mexicans — and they never matter unless you can get a diversity grant to cover them. “Now that she’s dead? Look everyone: we cover Mexicans!” Actually, Rivera was an American who racked up huge record sales in the United States, but point taken. Added Arellano: “For all the racket that the [mainstream media] has made about diversity over the past 15 years, they continue to fail — as if we ever expected them to succeed in the first place?” To be fair, Rivera’s popularity provides a glimpse of the even more complicated prism of American “diversity.” Rivera was closely identified with one subgroup in the larger Latino community. She recorded banda and norteña songs, traditional (and male-dominated) genres indigenous to, and most popular among, Mexicans and the Mexican diaspora in the United States. Other American Hispanics — those of, say, Puerto Rican, Colombian or Salvadoran background — might be aware of Rivera and be fans but were unlikely to buy her music. Even so, Rivera drew fans from a populace that can no longer really be called a niche. Mexican Americans are the largest subgroup of Hispanics in this increasingly Hispanic nation — some 12 million in all, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Indeed, says Mark Hugo Lopez, the center’s associate director, Mexican-born immigrants to the United States constitute the largest group of immigrants in any nation. This is, in part, what made Rivera such a potentially huge star, says Leila Cobo, Billboard magazine’s executive director of Latin content and programming. Rivera could not only count on a vast Latino fan base, Cobo says, but her American roots (and English fluency) enhanced her potential appeal to Anglos. Her compelling personal story — former teenage mom and abused spouse, single parent of five — added another universal element. “There was no place for her to cross over to,” Cobo says. “She was raised here. She lived in a bilingual world. She was culturally an American. It would have been very organic for her [to find] an English-speaking audience.” Rivera was the star of her own English-language reality show, “I Love Jenni,” carried on the NBC-owned Mun2 (“mun-dos” in Spanish, or “worlds”) cable channel and the Style channel. She was also developing a sitcom for ABC. “She was really a very compelling, very charismatic person,” Cobo says. “She was a big presence. If that sitcom had gotten on, she could have been huge.” We’ll never know now. What’s perplexing is that we really didn’t know much before, either.

‘Journalism is becoming powerless’: Inside a nervous Turkish newsroom as the government closes in

ISTANBUL — He was anticipating retirement, after nearly half a century as a journalist. Then Aydin Engin, 76, a columnist for the daily Cumhuriyet newspaper, received a frightening visit from the law. Eight policemen arrived at his Istanbul house early one morning last fall and took him into custody on terrorism-related charges. Across the city, police officers swept up a dozen of Engin’s colleagues, including the newspaper’s cartoonist, its editor in chief, a staff lawyer and Kadri Gursel, another noted columnist — the beginnings of a sudden and startling assault by the authorities on one of Turkey’s oldest newspapers. Now, five months later, 11 members of the Cumhuriyet staff remain locked up, their portraits printed each day on the newspaper’s front page and its website in a plaintive protest. Engin and another columnist were released because of their age, but last week they were formally indicted along with their imprisoned colleagues on charges that included publishing propaganda for various terrorist organizations. Some could be sentenced to decades in prison. Journalism has been a risky enterprise in any of Turkey’s recent eras, with reporters perennially facing arrest for offending the military or some government official, or facing dismissal by a media boss beholden to powerful political patrons. But since a failed coup attempt last summer sent the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan into a frenzied hunt for its enemies, members of the news media have faced exceptional peril, according to press advocates. Prosecutors have focused most of their ire on outlets the government associates with the state’s two principal enemies: the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which is classified as a terrorist group by Turkey as well as the United States; and a network loyal to Fethullah Gulen, an exiled Turkish cleric living in the United States whom the authorities accused of spearheading the coup attempt. A crackdown has shuttered dozens of Kurdish or Gulen-related outlets and has landed more than 120 journalists in prison, Amnesty International reported. That earned Turkey the distinction last year of being the world’s leading jailer of journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Government officials dispute the figures and have repeatedly insisted that many of those arrested should not be considered journalists because of their alleged crimes. But several of the prosecutions, including the decision to pursue Cumhuriyet — which is associated with the mainstream anti-government opposition and frequently attacks the Gulenists — is evidence, press advocates say, that the authorities are seeking to stamp out critical or independent voices altogether. In the background is a referendum set for Sunday that could greatly expand Erdogan’s powers and extend his term in office. The government’s advocacy for a “yes” vote has dominated the public space, including the airwaves, in a sign of the shifting media landscape. The debate over the referendum, which has captivated Turkey for weeks, has included speculation that a government victory might prompt the authorities to ease their tightening grip, including over journalists. Staff members at Cumhuriyet seemed doubtful, and they frequently used the word “irrational” to describe the campaign of arrests. “I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Engin, adding that he had worked through military coups and states of emergency and had been in and out of jail for his journalism seven or eight times. He sat at his desk at the paper’s offices on a recent afternoon, his plans for retirement postponed while his newspaper was under siege and as he took on the responsibilities of the now-imprisoned chief executive. “Never before have I seen the law chewed up like it is today,” he said. Those left behind in the sullen newsroom shuffle around their comrades’ empty desks as uncomfortable new habits and rhythms take hold. Engin said he and others had prepared “prison bags” for themselves, with slippers and sweaters for the feared trips back to jail. Then there were the visits to courtrooms and the families of those behind bars to comfort. As journalists, “these are things we shouldn’t know,” said Pinar Ogunc, a reporter who covers human rights issues. For the first four months after his colleagues were locked up, Bulent Ozdogan, Cumhuriyet’s acting editor in chief, said he worked without a break. There was no time for one. A thicket of legal cases threatened the newspaper and the foundation that runs it. The families of the journalists needed support, including a bus to shuttle them to prison. And the paper was facing a worsening financial crisis. Advertisers, afraid of offending the government, were pulling their accounts, and newsstand sales were plummeting, he said during an interview in his office on a recent morning. It was becoming harder to pay salaries and even to produce the newspaper, he said. When he finally did take a day off, he spent it on his couch, unable to move. The pressure was not unfamiliar at Cumhuriyet, which has been a consistent voice of opposition to Erdogan’s government and has seemed to delight, at times, in poking Turkey’s famously sensitive president. Ozdogan assumed his post late last year, after his predecessor was imprisoned. A previous editor, Can Dundar, who lives in exile in Germany, was convicted on charges of leaking state secrets after Cumhuriyet published pictures that purported to show Turkish intelligence sending weapons to Syrian rebels. The paper had touched on a sore subject for the government, and its pursuit of Dundar was perhaps predictable. But after the coup attempt, the government’s red lines had become much harder to find, Ozdogan said. “Investigations are being launched against us for our news articles, even though other papers are producing articles on the same subjects.” As a result, it is hard to know where to step. “I wouldn’t say we are self-censoring,” he said. “We are acting a bit more cautiously given what we are facing.” “If we sacrifice ourselves to self-censorship,” he added, “we would betray our friends who are in jail right now.” Some of Cumhuriyet’s reporters said they felt paralyzed as a result of the scrutiny, or had started to question the impact of their work on a public that had become both polarized and inured to Turkey’s incessant political churn. Fear, as well, had made some people withdraw. There was a shooting outside the paper’s offices recently that authorities insisted had nothing to do with Cumhuriyet. At one point, rumors surfaced that an Islamic State militant had cased the newspaper’s offices as a target, before unleashing a rampage at an Istanbul nightclub that killed 39 people. For Canan Coskun, Cumhuriyet’s 30-year-old court reporter, there was no escape from the realities of Turkey’s post-coup-   attempt landscape, as she covered the cases of some of the thousands of people facing trial in a court system that seems barely able to keep up. Her daily routine sometimes bordered on the surreal. Coskun, who joined Cumhuriyet in 2012, is one of many of the newspaper’s journalists facing various investigations by the authorities. None of the charges were as serious as those facing her imprisoned colleagues, but they were enough to cast a shadow on a young journalist’s career. At the same time, she found herself last month covering the trial of other journalists who worked for publications associated with the Gulen network, including people she knew. One of the defendants was Yakup Cetin, 32, a court reporter for the daily Zaman newspaper who used to sit near Coskun in the pressroom at the Istanbul courthouse. As she covered a session from the crowded gallery on a recent morning, a judge asked the defendants to state their profession. “Former journalist,” some replied, with no hint of irony. From time to time, the defendants would turn around, waving at the journalists covering the trial, their erstwhile colleagues, still free. Some of the journalists seemed hesitant to acknowledge the defendants, Coskun said. “It is painful to watch,” she said. Cetin, the Zaman court reporter, was “just someone sitting next to us in the pressroom. “He was a correspondent who did the same thing. He is being tried for the same things we wrote — the same trials we covered,” she said. A few weeks after the court session, word spread that prosecutors had dropped the charges against the 29 journalists and that a judge had ordered them freed. But the order was reversed, and the judge who had issued the decision to free the journalists was suspended. Coskun, who went from covering trials two or three days a week before the attempted coup to spending all her time in the courthouse, said she considering leaving journalism and starting law school in the fall. “After all I have been through,” she said, “I would like to be a lawyer for the press.” In a recent column, Engin wrote about his fear that the crackdown on journalists would become normalized in Turkey, his concern that he and others at Cumhuriyet were losing the public by constantly writing about the imprisonment of their colleagues. The response was heartening, he said. The column drew more than twice the traffic he normally receives. But it seemed a small comfort to maintain the support of the paper’s loyalists, including what is known as the secular Kemalist elite. Journalists in Turkey face a far deeper challenge addressing their broader audience: a polarized society in a country arguing over its identity, the nature of its democracy and the question of who belongs. In that environment, “whose idea can I hope to change?” asked Ogunc, whose reporting often focuses on minorities struggling for recognition in an increasingly rigid society. “Who is going to listen to the stories of the others?” she said. “What I feel now is my kind of journalism is becoming powerless,” she said. “Day by day.”

Video: A friend and colleague describes James Foley

James Foley, the U.S. journalist believed to have been executed by the Islamic State militant group, appeared to have touched many lives. On the journalist's Facebook profile, friends and colleagues paid tribute today, one of them saying she was "devastated, shocked, angry, saddened" and "deeply touched by his dedication to truth in journalism, his compassion for humanity, and his ability to have fun and joke around, despite all he had experienced."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Shortly after his disappearance in 2012, Foley's family launched a social media campaign to appeal for his release. Contributing to the initiative, in January 2013 the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) posted an audio- slideshow in which Foley's colleague and friend Nicole Tung, a freelance photographer, described the abducted reporter as a "very easy going and friendly guy."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico You can watch the 2013 audio slideshow of Nicole Tung describing her friend James Foley below:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Tung describes how after meeting Foley in 2011 in Libya, the two began to travel and work together because they felt comfortable with each other work-wise and wanted to cover similar things, according to Tung. Both journalists went to Syria together more than half a dozen times, where Tung experienced Foley as a "cool-headed guy [who] thinks before he speaks and makes a move. [...] I knew I could rely on him. He was very dedicated and passionate about covering Syria as an objective journalist and spending as much time as possible there so that he could understand the story better." The day Foley disappeared, Tung was supposed to meet him – they had been in contact only hours before he was captured. She did not hear from him again.

Mr. Trump, let journalists do their job

When Turkish editor Can Dündar was thrown into solitary confinement last year for publishing news that embarrassed the government, he discovered that not only cellphones and laptops but even flowers and colored pens were forbidden. Now Mr. Dündar is in exile, but scores of his compatriots are still locked up — Turkey is “the world’s biggest prison for journalists,” he noted last week — and Turkey is hardly alone. “Virtually every corner of the Earth is now threatened by the rise of nationalist, authoritarian factions that seek to destroy diversity and replace it with a gray, concrete cell.” Mr. Dündar was honored by the Committee to Protect Journalists in a ceremony in Manhattan last week that was more warning than celebration. Around the world, journalists are being killed, imprisoned and threatened for doing their jobs — and while they pay the most direct price for their courage, people everywhere suffer when their governments can no longer be held to account. As another honoree, Malini Subramaniam, told us during a recent visit to The Post, “The government would rather keep it all quiet.” Ms. Subramaniam was referring to the conflict she has sought to illuminate in the east-central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. When she wrote about sexual assaults and unjustified shootings by security forces, she found herself and her daughter under threat and forced to flee. So, for a time, did Óscar Martínez, who came under pressure from both gangs and government officials when he reported on the vicious gang wars in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Meanwhile freelance photographer Mahmoud Abou Zeid, also known as Shawkan, has been imprisoned in Egypt for more than three years, merely for seeking to document clashes between Egyptian security forces and protesters in Cairo. Some of these stories may seem more relevant to Americans than others; the soaring murder rate in Central America helps fuel immigration to the United States. But no matter how remote their coverage may seem, these International Press Freedom Award winners share a conviction that is as essential to Americans as everyone else: Democracy cannot function unless citizens can be informed, through fair news coverage and not propaganda, of the activities of their rulers. The Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent, nonprofit organization, noted recently that U.S. attitudes toward the press can have an outsized influence across the world. In a Nov. 17 letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was a founding member of the Congressional Caucus for the Freedom of the Press, CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon warned of “the danger that harassment of the press in the United States will be used as a pretext by repressive leaders around the world to persecute their critics.” “President-elect Trump has obstructed major news organizations, attacked reporters by name, and contributed to a threatening climate for journalists covering the election,” Mr. Simon wrote. “These actions in the United States set a terrible example for the rest of the world.” **Read more on this issue:** Can Dündar: What’s freedom worth? Less than 3 billion euros, apparently. Dana Milbank: Journalists shouldn’t try to win a popularity contest with Trump The Post’s View: Donald Trump, bully in chief The Post’s View: A cult of personality dashes Turkey’s democratic dreams The Post’s View: 2015 was a dangerous year for journalists The Post’s View: Turkey’s president deepens his attacks on the press The Post’s View: Iran’s appalling treatment of journalists has not ended

Statements from Martin Baron, Frederick J. Ryan, Jr. on the passing of Michel du Cille

Washington Post photojournalist Michel du Cille died Thursday. The Post obituary, “Michel du Cille, Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, dies at 58,” is available here.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Martin Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, shared this note with The Washington Post newsroom: Below are the official statements from Frederick J. Ryan, Jr. and Martin Baron: “All of us here at The Post are devastated by the news of Michel’s death. He was a cherished colleague and one of the world’s most revered photojournalists. Michel was completely devoted to the story of Ebola, and he was determined to stay on the story despite huge personal risks. That is the sort of courage and passion he displayed throughout his career. The loss to our newsroom and to our profession is incalculable.” **-Martin Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Only a day before his death, we exhibited Michel’s stunning Ebola photographs before an all-employee meeting at The Post. Once again, Michel had been witness to history and to human struggle and, as always, his photographs constituted storytelling of uncommon power. To learn now that we have lost this beloved colleague and exceptional journalist is absolutely heartbreaking.” **-Frederick J. Ryan Jr., publisher of The Washington Post**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

After months of restraint, Mexico adopts new strategy: Standing up to Donald Trump

MEXICO CITY — The rise of Donald Trump and the anti-immigrant wave he is riding in his presidential primary campaign have alarmed the Mexican government so much that it has reshuffled top diplomats and, according to officials, adopted a new strategy — to defend the image of Mexicans abroad. Trump has consistently targeted the United States’ southern neighbor, calling Mexican border-crossers “rapists” and criminals and threatening to cut off the money they send home to their families unless Mexico pays for a border wall. But for months, the Mexican government has opted to remain quiet, with a few high-profile exceptions, rather than publicly challenging Trump’s claims. Under mounting domestic pressure, Mexican officials now say they have chosen a new strategy: to stand up for Mexicans and defend the reputation of their countrymen living in the United States. “In recent months, we have seen a growing anti-immigrant discourse in general, anti-Mexican in particular, and not exclusively from Donald Trump,” said a Mexican official who was not authorized to speak publicly on this issue. “This set off our fear that it would damage the image of Mexico in the United States.” After just seven months on the job, Miguel Basáñez Ebergenyi, Mexico’s ambassador to Washington, will be replaced by Carlos Manuel Sada Solana, the consul general in Los Angeles. Paulo Carreño King, a top aide to President Enrique Peña Nieto whose portfolio has included dealing with the foreign media and improving the country’s brand, will take over as the senior Foreign Ministry official responsible for North America. The United States is Mexico’s biggest trading partner, with more than $1 billion in bilateral trade each day, and millions of Mexicans live north of the border. The Mexican government is worried that Trump’s rhetoric and wider anti-Mexican sentiment could hurt foreign investment and tourism and lead to damaging U.S. policies in the future. Foreign Secretary Claudia Ruiz Massieu told El Universal newspaper on Tuesday that the government must “reevaluate our performance and strategy toward the United States.” “We see an exacerbated mood, in some sectors, against our countrymen, against our country,” she added. “There is a fear on the part of our community in the United States that this spirit can grow and overflow and may generate hostilities." As Trump’s stature grew at home in recent months, Mexican officials conducted public opinion polling in the United States and spoke with their network of consulates. The outreach, they said, raised new worries about the scope of anti-Mexican feeling. “We found young people have begun to adopt arguments that are anti-Mexican,” the official said. Now the government hopes that its diplomats can make a more forceful argument about the benefits that Mexico provides to the United States. Basáñez took over the Mexican Embassy last year after serving as a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. In his brief tenure, he earned a reputation as a low-profile leader who was restrained amid the Trumpian storm. Last year, he played down Trump’s comments as “just part of the primary campaign” and reportedly argued that attacking the Republican presidential front-runner would serve only to elevate him. Basáñez could not be reached for comment. Sada, the incoming ambassador, pending confirmation, has served in several Mexican consulates, including in Chicago, San Antonio and New York. He has also been the head of congressional affairs at the Mexican Embassy in Washington. Arturo Sarukhán, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2013, said Mexico must rebut Trump’s claims. The new strategy is a “very welcome tack,” he said. “There is a clear need for the Mexican government to do something about this, and there was intense domestic pressure on this front,” Sarukhán added. An ambassador’s job, he said, should be to “counter lies, distortions and negative narratives with hard data and facts.” **Read more:** Mexico’s top diplomat calls Trump’s policies ‘ignorant and racist’ Mexico’s miserable year Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Bill Moyers’s journalism legacy

After more than 40 years on the air, Bill Moyers has turned off his microphone. While the longtime face of public broadcasting had threatened to retire in the past, this time he has assured us that we have heard his final farewell. His voice and regular presence will be deeply missed, but his legacy, and his impact on public life will surely live on. During his storied career, the former White House press secretary and newspaper publisher produced groundbreaking reports on subjects ranging from the Iran-Contra scandal and the Iraq war to economic inequality and the corrosive influence of money in politics. His relentless commitment to the truth made Moyers the target of vicious attacks from Republicans, who for decades have sought to dismantle the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but he never backed down. Always fearlessly independent, Moyers provided an invaluable counterpoint to Washington’s conventional wisdom. Yet his true legacy is far greater than the stories he covered or the politics he espoused. Indeed, Moyers constantly reminded us of journalism’s indispensable role in our democracy. Moyers distinguished himself as a journalist by refusing to be a stenographer for the powerful. Instead of providing yet another venue for the predictable preening of establishment leaders, Moyers gave a platform to dissenting voices from both the left and the right. Instead of covering the news from the narrow perspective of the political and corporate elite, Moyers gave voice to the powerless and the issues that affect them. “We journalists are of course obliged to cover the news,” he once said at an event hosted by The Nation Institute in Washington, D.C. “But our deeper mission is to uncover the news that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden.” As politics became a spectator sport, Moyers, guided by his abiding belief in journalists as truth-tellers, refused to play along. “These ‘rules of the game’ permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too often simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny,” he explained in 2005. “Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers, sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin, invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.” And when the media failed to report the truth — most notably as the Bush administration built the case for the war in Iraq — Moyers demanded to know what had gone wrong. In 2007, Moyers produced “Buying the War,” an extraordinary documentary that explored the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and featured tough interviews with prominent media figures, including Tim Russert and Dan Rather, about the mistakes they made. “How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored,” he said at the time. “How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?” Moyers understood that one of the most pernicious threats to journalism, and indeed democracy, is a media dominated by corporations that prioritize profits over the public interest. He was a longtime modern-day Tom Paine, warning against the perils of media consolidation — in print, on radio and television, and online — which he said “can take the oxygen out of democracy.” And he inspired and encouraged a movement of media reformers to fight for a free and independent press, including those of us at The Nation, where he was a regular contributor. Above all else, Moyers treated his audience, in the words of The Nation columnist Eric Alterman, “as adult citizens of a republic, who bear collective responsibility for the society we share” — a reflection of his deep and humane thinking about the roles of media and government. “I don’t harbor any idealized notion of politics and democracy. Remember, I worked for Lyndon Johnson. Nor do I romanticize ‘the people,’ ” he said. “But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens (something otherwise known as social justice) and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud.” Upon receiving the Freedom of Speech award from the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in 2007, Moyers recalled FDR’s influence on his childhood. “I don’t know quite how to explain it, except that my father knew who was on his side and who wasn’t, and for 12 years he had no doubt where FDR stood,” Moyers said. “The first time I remember him with tears in his eyes was when Roosevelt died. He had lost his friend.” For anyone who tuned in to his programs over the past four decades, there was no doubt where Bill Moyers stood. We knew he was on our side. He was our friend. _Read more fromKatrina vanden Heuvel’s archive or follow her on Twitter._ ****

Donald Trump is crashing the system. Journalists need to build a new one.

Journalists commonly divide information from persuasion, as when they separate the “news” from the “opinion” section, or “reporters” from “columnists.” This is fine as far as it goes (and they get criticized harshly when they don’t honor this norm), but the distinction won’t help much in understanding why the 2016 campaign has been such an intellectual challenge for the media. Everything that happens in election coverage is premised on a kind of opinion: that our votes should be based on reliable information about what the candidates intend to do if elected. Remove that assumption and the edifice crashes. But this is exactly what the candidacy of Donald Trump does. It upends the assumptions required for the traditional forms of campaign journalism even to make sense. Take one of Trump’s most famous claims: that he will build a wall on the border with Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it. Is that a serious proposal? Should journalists review it as one? If they do examine it as a policy idea, are they helping us achieve greater clarity about the Trump candidacy (by taking a hard look at what he would do if elected), or are they distorting the Trump phenomenon by treating a parody of policy discussion, a kind of goof on the political class, as a genuine proposal? “Mexico will pay for the wall” chips away at one of the foundations of campaign coverage: that running for president is serious business. If you take it seriously, you become the joke. If you don’t, then you let him get away with an absurdity. The fact that there’s no right answer should tell us something. Trump is crashing the system — violating norms and assumptions that were previously taken for granted because so far, everyone who had reached the point of consideration had obeyed them.   Under conditions like these, fact-checking may still be worthwhile, but not because it has any shaming effect on the candidate. In fact, it could even be useful to Trump in whipping up resentment against the media, a key part of his appeal. My point is this: When the assumptions underneath a practice collapse, the ethics of that practice may shift as well. Traditionally, journalists have called out untruths. Here they may have to explain how untruths are foundational to a candidacy. Traditionally, journalists have thought it “ethical” not to worry about the consequences of election coverage: as long as it was truthful, accurate and newsworthy, all was well. Here they may have to worry that their checking actions have no effect, and regroup around that discovery.   I know what you’re thinking, journalists: “What do you want us to do? Stop covering a major party candidate for president? That would be irresponsible.” True. But this reaction short-circuits intelligent debate. Beneath every common practice in election coverage there are premises about how candidates will behave. I want you to ask: Do these still apply? Trump isn’t behaving like a normal candidate; he’s acting like an unbound one. In response, journalists have to become less predictable themselves. They have to come up with novel responses. They have to do things they have never done. They may even have to shock us. They may need to collaborate across news brands in ways they have never known. They may have to call Trump out with a forcefulness unseen before. They may have to risk the breakdown of decorum in interviews and endure excruciating awkwardness. Hardest of all, they will have to explain to the public that Trump is a special case, and the normal rules do not apply.

Anthony Lewis, indefatigable champion of civil liberties and winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, dies at 85

Anthony Lewis, an indefatigable champion of civil liberties who became known during his half-century with the New York Times as one of the most trenchant legal journalists of his generation and was twice a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, died March 25 at his home in Cambridge, Mass. He was two days shy of his 86th birthday. He had complications from renal and heart failure, said his daughter Mia Lewis. By the time he retired in 2001, Mr. Lewis was widely recognized as the dean of liberal American columnists and had written a book that is regarded as the seminal account of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case _Gideon v. Wainwright_. As a Times columnist for 32 years, he wrote his most noted work on First Amendment rights and the American justice system. In a crowded field of columnists, many of whom were at times enticed to bloviate, Mr. Lewis distinguished himself with the consistent lucidity of his writing and his reportorial approach to the job. He received his first Pulitzer for national reporting in 1955, at age 28, while working for the now-defunct Washington Daily News. The award recognized his series of articles that cleared a Navy Department employee who was fired for alleged security risks during the Red Scare stoked by then-Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.). “Mr. Lewis received the full support of his newspaper in championing an American citizen . . . against an unjust act by a government department,” the Pulitzer citation read. “This is in the best tradition of American journalism.” In 1963, by then a reporter for the Times, Mr. Lewis received his second Pulitzer, also for national reporting. The citation praised his coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, and in particular _Baker v. Carr_ , the history-making decision that underlies the “one person, one vote” doctrine in electoral redistricting. Taken together, the Pulitzers reflect the two most salient themes of Mr. Lewis’s career: a self-professed affinity for the underdog and seemingly infallible command of the law, despite his limited formal training in the field. “I was probably made to be a lawyer,” he once said. “It just didn’t turn out that way.” Mr. Lewis covered the Supreme Court for the Times for most of the Warren court years, which lasted from 1953 until 1969 and which was credited with handing down some of the most influential decisions of the latter 20th century. Mr. Lewis filled pages of newsprint with analysis of the court’s rulings days or hours after they emerged from the shrouded chambers. One of those decisions was Gideon, the 1963 case in which the high court established an indigent criminal defendant’s right to legal counsel. Besides his newspaper reportage, Mr. Lewis wrote a book about the case, “Gideon’s Trumpet” (1964), that remains a mainstay of law school curricula. In a 1980 movie based on the book, Henry Fonda played the case’s namesake, Clarence Earl Gideon. He was a “gambler, drifter and ex-convict,” Mr. Lewis wrote in a quintessential column upon Gideon’s death in 1972. “Gideon must have seemed the most obscure of patients: a gaunt figure, cast aside by life, without money or influence,” Mr. Lewis continued. “Understandably, it was a death that went almost without notice. But Clarence Earl Gideon was not really so obscure or unimportant. For in his life he had, in a matter of speaking, changed the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Lewis covered _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_ , the 1964 decision that limited the circumstances in which public officials can sue for libel. Mr. Lewis later wrote the book “Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment.” It, too, has found a place in the law school canon. Mr. Lewis began his column, variously called “At Home Abroad” or “Abroad at Home,” in 1969. He delved into matters including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, immigrant rights, apartheid in South Africa and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some of his final commentary examined the legal quandaries presented by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the First Amendment as it relates to reporters and their sources. Mr. Lewis said that he drew two conclusions from his decades of work. “One is that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right,” he told the Times upon his retirement. “And secondly that for this country at least, given the kind of obstreperous, populous, diverse country we are, law is the absolute essential. And when governments short-cut the law, it’s extremely dangerous.” Joseph Anthony Lewis was born March 27, 1927, in New York City, and went by Anthony from birth. His father was a textile executive; his mother, he said, dabbled in playwriting. Mr. Lewis attended the private Horace Mann School in New York, where he edited the school newspaper and where one of his classmates was Roy Cohn, the future counsel to McCarthy’s Communist investigations. Another friend from his youth was future journalist and author Stanley Karnow, who died in January. They traveled to Europe together during a hiatus from their education at Harvard University, where Mr. Lewis was a top editor of the Crimson and where he received a bachelor’s degree in English in 1948. Mr. Lewis described himself as “a conservative young person.” He told the Times that he became interested in First Amendment rights through his profession. “As a journalist,” he said in 2007, “I saw again and again how much we need free criticism of government to keep it honest.” He joined the reporting staff of the Times right out of college — he had started during college as a copy boy — but was fired after four years. It was a “polite” dismissal, he once told the Boston Globe, and he went off to seek more experience. He worked for the Democratic National Committee and on Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful 1952 presidential campaign before being hired by the Washington Daily News that year as a general assignment reporter. He was at an interview for a job with the Times when someone informed him that he had received the Pulitzer Prize. He spent a year at Harvard as a recipient of the prestigious Nieman fellowship for journalists, readying himself academically to cover the court for the Times. “There are not two members of the court itself who could get the gist of each decision so accurately in so few words,” Justice Felix Frankfurter once said about the writer’s court reporting. The Globe reported that in 1964 Mr. Lewis was passed over for the job of the Times’s Washington bureau chief in part because he had developed too close a relationship with then-U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. The job instead went to Tom Wicker, who died last November. Mr. Lewis became London bureau chief. He wrote, among other articles, the obituary for Winston Churchill in 1965. “Sir Winston Churchill is dead,” he began. “The great figure who embodied man’s will to resist tyranny passed into history this morning.” Mr. Lewis also reported from Vietnam during that time and continued writing about the conflict as a columnist. In a 1972 piece about U.S. bombing in Vietnam, he called the United States “the most dangerous and destructive power on earth.” Henry Kissinger, secretary of state and national security adviser under President Richard M. Nixon, was reported to have said of Mr. Lewis that “he’s always wrong.” “Probably because I wrote in a very uncomplimentary way about him,” Mr. Lewis responded in a 2007 interview with the Times. “He did things that were very damaging to human beings.” Mr. Lewis taught for many years at Harvard and Columbia University. His books included “Portrait of a Decade” (1964), about the civil rights movement, and “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” (2007). His first marriage, to the former Linda Rannells, ended in divorce. Survivors include his wife of 28 years, Margaret H. Marshall of Cambridge, a former chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; three children from his first marriage, Eliza Lewis of Newton Centre, Mass., David Lewis of Atlanta and Mia Lewis of Columbus, Ohio; and seven grandchildren. In his exit interview with the Times, Mr. Lewis remarked that, after witnessing the atrocities of the 20th century, he had “lost my faith in the idea of progress.” But, he added, he was “not willing to give up on rationality.” “Look, why have I been writing columns rather than jumping off the George Washington Bridge?” he said. “I believe it’s worth appealing to reason.”

A presidential candidate in Brazil just died. Now what?

Eduardo Campos, one of Brazil’s presidential candidates, died Wednesday morning. He was on a private jet that crashed over a residential area of the city of Santos in São Paulo state. All seven people aboard the jet died immediately. Thus far there has been no indication of foul play; the crash has been attributed to severe weather. Regardless of their politics, Brazilians seem to be united in their shock over the accident. Campos had celebrated his 49th birthday only a few days earlier, and leaves behind five children — the youngest of whom is eight months old — and his wife of 30 years. The night before his death, Campos gave his first high-profile interview as a presidential candidate. The interview was broadcast on TV Globo, by far Brazil’s most watched television channel, and was part of an ongoing series of interviews with all major presidential candidates. On Wednesday, morning news programs across the country were featuring extensive analysis and discussion of his performance in the interview and its potential to increase his numbers in the polls when the tragedy was announced. Recent polls had Campos in third place in polls of voters’ intentions (9 percent), behind Aécio Neves (23 percent) and the incumbent Dilma Rousseff, who is seeking reelection (38 percent). However, many political analysts consider the upcoming election, scheduled for Oct. 5, to be in its early stages. Voting in Brazil is mandatory for all citizens between 18 and 60 years, leading to a very high turnout: in 2010, about 100 million Brazilians (out of 135 million registered to vote) cast their ballot in the presidential election, with 55 million choosing Rousseff.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday Despite his relatively low numbers in the polls, Campos was seen as having a real opportunity to expand his appeal. He was well known in the northeastern state of Pernambuco, where his family has a long political history. His grandfather was Miguel Arraes, a national figure who was elected governor of Pernambuco in 1962. Arraes’s left-leaning politics (he had strong ties to the Communist Party) would eventually result in his prosecution by Brazil’s military dictatorship. In a sad coincidence, Eduardo Campos passed away on the anniversary of his grandfather’s death nine years ago. Campos was very popular in his home state: He was reelected governor in 2010 with more than 80 percent of the vote and had left his post to campaign for the presidency with a remarkable 76 percent approval rating. His greatest struggle in the presidential election was overcoming his limited national visibility, which he and his supporters expected to change. They were betting on the fact that in Brazil, starting 50 days before the elections, all political parties are entitled by law to free time on every radio station and open television channel. In practice, this means not only brief radio and TV ads, but twice-daily, mandatory half-hour allotments of air time for political party media. Since only a quarter of Brazilian residences subscribe to cable, everyone else watching TV during the “Free Electoral Hour” ( _Horário Gratuito Eleitoral_ ) has no option but to see the candidates’ propaganda. Campos was counting on this new phase of the campaign to finally gain traction at the national level. Only 12 percent of prospective voters said they would not vote for him under any circumstance, compared to 17 percent who said they wouldn’t vote for Neves and 35 percent who wouldn’t vote for Rousseff.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday The question now on the mind of every pundit in Brazil is what Campos’s sudden, tragic death will mean for the presidential race. The first and most crucial decision that his party, Brazil’s Socialist Party, and its political coalition must make is who will take his place. Brazilian law stipulates that the party has 10 days to designate its new candidate. The most prominent perspective replacement for Campos is Marina Silva, Campos’s vice-presidential candidate. Given her long-standing support for Amazonian rubber tappers, her role as then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s environment minister from 2003 to 2008 and for her own bid for the presidency in 2010, Silva is already well known to most Brazilians. Although she ended up in third place in her presidential run, her 20 million votes was seen as an electoral “wonder.” One reason for her alliance with Campos was that she herself could not run for president as a candidate of her proposed new party ( _Rede de Soliedariedade_ ). New parties in Brazil must have about half a million verified signatures to be established, and the Supreme Electoral Court did not believe this was the case for Silva’s party. Right now, it is in no way certain that Marina Silva will be Campos’s replacement. Once the new candidate is presented, we’ll know more about how voters are likely to respond.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday _Déborah Barros Leal Farias is from the state of Ceará in Brazil and is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of British Columbia._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday

Julio Scherer García, journalist and irritant to politicians, dies at 88

Julio Scherer García, a Mexican journalist who founded the newsmagazine Proceso, one of his country’s most crusading publications, died Jan. 7, it was reported from Mexico City. He was 88. Proceso announced the death and said the cause was septic shock. Mr. Scherer helped expose many of Mexico’s greatest scandals for decades, probing a secret army unit set up to combat guerrillas, a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account of a president’s brother, and official involvement in the assassination of a journalist. His tough independence stood out at a time when independent reporting critical of the government was rare in Mexico, and he inspired and trained a new generation of the country’s journalists. As editor of Excelsior, then Mexico’s leading newspaper, from 1968 to 1976, Mr. Scherer took on the omnipotent ruling party over corruption and human rights abuses, and he questioned the government’s version of an army massacre of students. He so irked President Luis Echeverría that the government maneuvered to push him out of the newspaper in 1976. Just months later, Proceso published its first issue with the help of journalists who left Excelsior with Mr. Scherer. In the decades since, the weekly newsmagazine has become the country’s most consistent source of investigative journalism. Mr. Scherer wrote nearly two-dozen books, often analyzing the terms of Mexico’s presidents. In 1971, he won the prestigious Maria Moors Cabot award from Columbia University. In 1994, the Zapatista rebels invited Mr. Scherer to participate with a Catholic bishop and the Nobel laureate Rigoberta Menchu as intermediaries in a dialogue with the Mexican government. Mr. Scherer demurred. “My condition as a journalist obligates me to impartiality, difficult to sustain as both mediator and chronicler of the events we experience. I must then comply exclusively with the rules of my profession.” Seven years later, when the Zapatistas’ charismatic leader was on verge of talks with then-President Vicente Fox, the masked rebel commander sat down for an interview with Mr. Scherer. Mr. Scherer scored another coup in 2010, when he interviewed Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, a leader of the Sinaloa cartel and one of Mexico’s most-wanted drug lords. Just reaching the interview site, a rustic two-room house in the mountains, was a multi-day affair. Proceso reported that Zambada said he had always wanted to meet Mr. Scherer and opened up about his life as a fugitive, admitting, “I’m terrified of being incarcerated.” Last year, Mr. Scherer’s daughter María Scherer Ibarra wrote in the magazine Letras Libres that her father had repeatedly refused colleagues’ requests to let them write his biography. “My father has insisted, and with reason, that his work speak for him: his interviews, his reporting.” — Associated Press

The free press is in really bad shape around the world. A new report says populism is to blame.

Reporters are under siege around the world, even in countries once celebrated as free-press bastions.  This year, the experts say, things are worse than ever. In the past year, the outlook for journalists and the media has gotten worse in nearly two-thirds of the 180 countries surveyed. In the past five years, the level of media freedom constraints and violations has risen 14 percent worldwide. “Violations of the freedom to inform are less and less the prerogative of authoritarian regimes and dictatorships,” the report's authors write. “Once taken for granted, media freedom is proving to be increasingly fragile in democracies as well.” A key explanation for this is the rise of populism around the world, the report's authors say. They write, “discrediting the media is the preferred weapon of those who are 'anti-system.' " So outsider candidates such as President Trump call the media “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” and accuse them of spreading “fake news.” (In part because the report says Trump has set off a “witch-hunt against journalists,” the United States dropped two spots in 2016.) Nigel Farage, of the anti-immigration U.K. Independence Party, frequently disparaged the media during his Brexit campaign. Beppe Grillo, the comedian who heads Italy's xenophobic Five Star Movement, prefers blogging to answering questions from the journalistic “caste.” The report also raises alarm bells about another scary trend — spying on sources. Germany, for example, passed a law extending mass surveillance powers of the country's intelligence agency without an exception for journalists. This year, the United Kingdom passed a similar measure. Chile, Luxembourg, England and New Zealand have weakened protections of whistleblowers. And in Canada, a new anti-terrorism measure allows police officers to spy on journalists if they suspect that they are talking to criminals. In November, it was reported that at least six journalists had been spied on by the Quebec police. Weeks before, another reporter had his computer seized. In Montreal, a journalist had his mobile phone tapped by authorities. Different regions face different challenges. In the Middle East, for example, wide-ranging wars make reporting a dangerous endeavor. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, semi-despots tightly control what kinds of journalism citizens can access. In the Asia-Pacific, the issue is prison time for journalists, as well as dictatorships that create information “black holes.” Things are even getting worse in Europe, a longtime leader on these issues. North Korea, Eritrea and Turkmenistan — total autocracies all — ranked as the worst press offenders. In North Korea, for example, “even listening to a foreign radio broadcast can lead to a spell in a concentration camp.” Syria, the world's deadliest country for journalists, ranks just a bit higher, at 177. China and Vietnam also rank near the bottom, since they jail more reporters than any other country. A few other countries to watch:

Husband of former Post reporter among journalists killed in Egypt violence

Mick Deane went to work on Wednesday much as he had for the past 40 years, lugging a TV camera. As street violence tumbled about him in Cairo, Deane squinted into his camera and began rolling. Within hours, Deane, 61, was dead, one among scores of victims in a bloody series of clashes across Egypt between security forces and supporters of the nation’s ousted president, Mohamed Morsi. Deane, who worked for the British broadcaster Sky News, was the husband of former Washington Post reporter Daniela Deane. A 15-year veteran of Sky, Mick Deane was one of three journalists reported killed in Egypt on Wednesday. Also killed Wednesday was Habiba Ahmed Abd Elaziz, a 26-year-old reporter for Xpress, a sister publication of Dubai’s Gulf News. She was fatally shot near Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque, the scene of a major crackdown by the Egyptian military and police on a pro-Morsi encampment. Abd Elaziz was on leave from the newspaper and was visiting Egypt, her native country, Gulf News said. Social media users in Egypt reported the death of a local news photographer, but the reports could not be confirmed. At least a dozen other journalists were detained, injured or threatened Wednesday as the violence raged, suggesting increasing danger for journalists in an already hostile working environment. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said it has documented at least 78 assaults on journalists in Egypt from August 2012 until Morsi’s removal from office early last month. The detained reporters included Tom Finn of Reuters, who tweeted his arrest and eventual release, and Newsweek’s Mike Giglio, who wrote an account of his detention for the Daily Beast on Wednesday morning. In it, Giglio said he and several other journalists, including freelance photographers Mahmoud Abou Zeid and Louis Jammes, were beaten in police custody after identifying themselves as journalists. Sky News said Deane, a British citizen, was based in Jerusalem, where he lived with his American wife. The couple have two adult sons, who work in London and Rome. The family lived in the Washington area for more than a decade; Mick Deane worked at Sky’s Washington bureau while his wife was at The Post. They moved to London in 2009 and to Israel in 2012. Sky said Deane was shot while filming Wednesday morning and died from his injuries a little later. Some of the video he shot Wednesday was posted on the broadcaster’s Web site. Daniela Deane, now a freelance reporter, writes a blog called Letter From the Holy Land about life in Israel. She worked for The Post until 2008 as an editor and staff writer, primarily covering real estate. She continued to freelance for the newspaper from abroad until last year. Sky News chief John Ryley, in a video tribute, called Mick Deane “an astonishingly good cameraman, [who] took some brilliant pictures. But he also had a first-class editorial brain. He had brilliant ideas.” Washington Post Managing Editor Kevin Merida called Deane’s death “a tragic loss.” He said, “Our hearts are heavy with sadness for our former colleague, Daniela, and the entire Deane family.” Other journalists were swept up in the fast-moving events in Cairo on Wednesday. Reuters photographer Asmaa Waguih, was shot in the leg while reporting, according to freelance photojournalist Haleem Elsharani. A mob attacked Kristen Chick, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, stealing her phone and notebook. Several other journalists, including The Post’s Abigail Hauslohner, reported threats from police on the scene, who reportedly broke cameras and wiped images from phones. “If I see you again, I will shoot you in the leg,” one police officer told Hauslohner. Newsweek’s Giglio wrote on Daily Beast that he was released from police custody after four hours but that “many others, including other journalists, were not so lucky.” In a statement, Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which advocates for reporters, said: “We call on Egyptian authorities to issue clear orders to security forces to respect the right of journalists to work freely and safely while covering events in Cairo and the rest of the country. The killing of Mick Deane underscores the urgent need for such action and for all sides to show restraint and allow the media to do their job. The authorities must investigate all attacks on journalists and hold those responsible to account.”

The families of hostages are told to keep quiet. They shouldn’t.

Nearly four years ago, Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, flew to Iran to visit his grandmother. Days before he was scheduled to return home, he vanished. Frightened family members searched frantically for him. It took months before they found out that Iranian authorities had secretly detained him. U.S. and Iranian officials urged his relatives to remain quiet, family members said recently, arguing that public attention would complicate his release. They complied. Nevertheless, in December 2011, Iran abruptly charged Hekmati with spying and sentenced him to 10 years in prison for cooperating with a hostile government. The advice routinely given by American and European officials (as well as private outfits) involved in hostage and prisoner negotiations is this: If you want to help, keep the abduction a secret. In cases involving hostages taken by Islamist militiamen or by governments — from the dozens of kidnappings in Syria to the four Americans detained by Houthi fighters in Yemen last month — the prescription appears to be the same. And family members, terrified by uncertainty, defer to the experts. But some families are beginning to question whether following this course is the right move when secrecy has failed them repeatedly. “Our family learned later that our silence allowed Amir to suffer the worst torture imaginable,” Hekmati’s sister told a congressional hearing this month. This advice can also put others unwittingly in harm’s way, by keeping the public in the dark about the risks. That’s what happened in Syria, where the Islamic State repeatedly targeted journalists and aid workers in the hopes of ransoming them, as still others trickled into the country. In the end, worldwide attention may be better than none at all. According to families of hostages held by the Islamic State, U.S. officials argued that revealing their identities or other details would put them in grave danger — as if they weren’t already in the gravest possible danger. (Officials also sent this message to me and other journalists covering the hostages.) In the first few days or weeks, they might be right. During that time, hostage negotiators and governments are working for a quick resolution, believing that silence buys them time to pay a ransom or launch a raid or reply through diplomatic channels. There is also a risk in raising a hostage’s profile so much that impostor hostage-takers claim responsibility, forcing investigators to waste time on a goose chase: Is this a ransom or a swap or merely a stunt to garner attention for someone’s cause? Those questions take time to answer. But after sorting out the basics, there is no guarantee that a reticent approach will work — and remaining silent indefinitely seems pointless. “Going public is appropriate when negotiations break down,” says Jack Cloonan, a former FBI agent and head of special risks for Red 24, a London-based risk-management company. “When demands are totally unrealistic, financial or otherwise, then external pressure points need to be applied.” Last year, the Islamic State beheaded James Foley and Steven Sotloff, two journalists who had been working in Syria. Foley was kidnapped in late November 2012, but the FBI urged his family to keep quiet until January 2013. The world didn’t know about Sotloff until he appeared in an Islamic State video. Foley was killed in August 2014, and Sotloff the following month. “We don’t think that was particularly helpful, but we trusted their recommendation at the time,” Foley’s mother tells me. “That’s why we went public six weeks later.” Some journalists knew about the hostages in Syria yet decided that the best approach was not to publicize the spate of kidnappings. After these deaths, many rethought that course, including the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon. “Initially, I supported the use of media blackouts in selective cases,” he wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review last September. “. . . The rationale behind blackouts is that they can save lives by facilitating hostage negotiations. But I have seen scant evidence to support this. Meanwhile, because the news is suppressed and sometimes never released, blackouts themselves stifle the public debate and undermine the media’s own credibility.” Simon added that media outlets can sometimes do more harm than good, as in Syria. Their deference “obscured the scope of the problem and reduced media coverage of the troubling shift in the security environment: The Islamic State was actively hunting for journalists to abduct,” he wrote. Like Hekmati’s sister, other families have begun to question whether they should go public and not wait. Austin Tice, a journalist and former Marine officer, was abducted in Syria in 2012. Tice is believed to be held in Syria by the regime or its proxies, according to U.S. intelligence officials. “When Austin first went missing, there is a question you face: Should there be a blackout or press?” Debra Tice, his mother, said this year at a news conference. His father added that “governments, like people, respond to encouragement.” Speaking out does not guarantee that a loved one will be returned; Foley’s parents went public before he was executed on camera. Sotloff and another American, Abdul-Rahman Kassig, were both killed after their families pleaded for their return. It is even conceivable that public exhortation could make things worse. But for now that is just a theory — one U.S. officials propound with the confidence of fact. On the other hand, there are many examples of muteness that failed to save people’s lives. In March 2007, Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent, went missing in Iran. He had been working for the CIA as a contractor, a secret the government at first did not tell his family. After discovering his link to the agency in e-mails, the family kept his secret for years, hoping journalists wouldn’t disclose it. I was a correspondent for the Associated Press at the time, and when I received a tip about Levinson’s spy connection, the CIA and the FBI implored me and a colleague not to report it. The family argued to us that we would put Levinson in harm’s way. Both parties told me the Iranians would kill him. At first, we heeded their requests, but after more than three years of deliberating, the AP decided to go public because there was no evidence that Levinson was still alive and because the Iranians probably knew about his CIA ties. There was also a strong public accountability reason to cover his case, because he had been part of a rogue operation inside the CIA — clearly an important subject for journalists. Eventually, after private efforts failed to liberate Levinson, some of his family and close friends came around, too. “It is scary as hell when the government tells you it could get him killed,” says David McGee, a family lawyer and a friend. Levinson’s fate remains unknown. But “keeping everything secret proved to be an impediment over the long run.” If they had gone public sooner with the information about the CIA, one of Levinson’s children told me, they might have forced the U.S. government to move with more urgency. Last month, freelance journalist Casey L. Coombs was detained in Yemen after Houthi militiamen seized him in Sanaa, the nation’s capital. While reporting, I contacted his sister, who declined to comment. The FBI, she said, had advised relatives to be quiet. A family representative also called and said my paper would never publish this information if one of our own reporters had been kidnapped. And news organizations do sometimes ask competing reporters not to disclose information about their captive employees. That was the case with David Rohde, a New York Times correspondent captured by a militant group in Afghanistan; his ordeal remained a secret until his escape in 2009 after months of captivity. The Washington Post took a different approach. Almost immediately after its Iran correspondent, Jason Rezaian, was arrested in July 2014, the newspaper went public about his detention. This was a government detention, not a hostage-taking; it would have been much harder to keep the secret. Nevertheless, the paper has aggressively covered Rezaian’s case instead of treading gently. “Each of these cases is different, and there’s probably no one right course,” says Martin Baron, The Post’s executive editor. “Families, news organizations and governments can only try to make a reasoned judgment based on what they know, which is often very little. Neither silence nor speaking out guarantees that a prisoner or hostage will be freed. Speaking out, however, lets the world know of these outrageous acts.” The Post covered Coombs and the three other Americans in Houthi custody. It did not name them, but the report would have made clear to the captors that Coombs was one of the story subjects. Days later, he was freed. Personally, I regret not naming Kayla Mueller, 26, who died in February in Syria after the Islamic State imprisoned her for more than a year, demanded a ransom of millions of dollars and threatened to kill her if any of this leaked to the media. Some news outlets had reported that the Islamic State was holding a female American aid worker, but until her death the public never knew her name. What, then, would have been the harm in telling her story? The Islamic State said she died after Jordan dropped a bomb on the building where she was being held. It’s not certain that worldwide attention would have saved her. But we know that silence didn’t work. **_ adam.goldman@washpost.com  _ ** Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Charged Malaysian cartoonist Zunar receives 2015 CPJ Press Freedom Award

**LAST YEAR,** as we sat in a Washington home, Zunar raised his hands to jab and stab and punctuate his every impassioned point. When a cartoonist faces a moral crisis, he told Comic Riffs, “you need to stand and fight. You need to carry the people’s voice through your cartoon.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Today, Zunar — the nom-de-toon of Malaysian political cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque — is being recognized for raising a moral and unsilenced voice through his cartoons. The Committee to Protect Journalists announces today that Zunar is among the recipients of its 2015 International Press Freedom Awards, which recognize journalists who “have endured death threats, physical attacks, legal action, imprisonment or exile in the course of their work.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Whether through blogs or traditional media outlets, or by drawing cartoons, they risk their personal safety and freedom to bring us the news,” Joel Simon, executive director of the New York-based CPJ, said in announcing the honorees. The other 2015 recipients are Paraguayan journalist Cándido Figueredo Ruíz, the Zone 9 bloggers of Ethiopia and the Syrian citizen-journalist collective Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. The Burton Benjamin Memorial Award, for lifetime achievement in the cause of press freedom, goes to Kathy Gannon, the veteran Associated Press special regional correspondent for Pakistan and Afghanistan. (Gannon’s “commitment to journalism has transcended personal risk and tragedy, including the loss of her colleague Anja Niedringhaus,” CPJ board chairman Sandra Mims Rowe said.)  The Malaysian government has cracked down often on Zunar, detaining him, confiscating his books and raiding his printer’s Kuala Lumpur offices. His cartoons, published on the independent Malaysiakini news site as well as through his own books and social media, regularly satirize the legitimacy of the ruling United Malays National Organization.  Zunar faces as long as 43 years in prison for tweets critical of the government, including one tweet featuring a cartoon questioning the political motives of Prime Minister Najib Razak. Zunar’s sedition trial has been moved to late this year.  Zunar has previously received the Human Rights Watch’s Hellman/Hammett Award, and the Courage in Editorial Cartooning Award from the Northern Virginia-based Cartoonist Rights Network International. The 2015 recipients will be feted Nov. 24 at the CPJ awards/benefit dinner in New York. _ **RELATED:**_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Cartoon of the Day** : Malaysian artist on the lost jet — and his government’s ‘weak’ response to it    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **‘World Cartoonists Day’:** Zunar calls for annual remembrance to salute slain Charlie Hebdo artists    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

A dangerous year for courageous journalists

IF 2014 has seemed like a particularly dangerous year for journalists, well, appearances are not deceiving. Not only were Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff beheaded by Islamic State terrorists after months of torturous captivity, but also their lesser-known colleagues from lesser-known nations have been murdered, kidnapped, assaulted and imprisoned at an alarming rate, by violent non-state actors and repressive governments alike. That’s the inescapable conclusion of two annual reports by the global watchdog groups Reporters Without Borders (RWB) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The former counted 119 journalists kidnapped, 66 killed and 178 imprisoned. Another 853 were arrested and 139 forced into exile. To be sure, these numbers are not unprecedented, and most of the worst violence occurred in war zones, where journalists knew ahead of time they were risking their lives. Still, the RWB report notes the new “barbaric sense of propaganda” with which reporters such as Foley, Sotloff and Iraqi cameraman Raad al-Azzawi were murdered by the Islamic State — and which is so clearly intended to deter anyone else from taking a chance on covering that terrorist group’s drive through Iraq and Syria. As for state repression, China again leads the list of media jailers, according to the CPJ, with 44 journalists imprisoned, up from 32 in 2013. This reflects “the pressure that President Xi Jinping has exerted on media, lawyers, dissidents, and academics to toe the government line,” the CPJ reported. China has also tightened its restrictions on what reporters can cover, especially among its minority Tibetan and Uighur populations. Iran still holds our Post colleague Jason Rezaian without justification, yet it reduced the ranks of jailed journalists from 35 to 30 since 2013. Egypt’s new military government, meanwhile, has at least 12 reporters behind bars, among them three respected journalists, two of whom hold Western citizenship, working for Al Jazeera’s English-language channel. We draw attention to these grim facts not to make a special plea on behalf of our profession — in principle, all other human rights are no less precious than freedom of the press. We intend to note, with alarm and astonishment, the lengths to which the world’s dictators and terrorists will still go, in this information-saturated age, to stop the dissemination of facts they find inconvenient. And we intend to salute the courageous people who nevertheless devote their lives to reporting the truth. They may, by force, be temporarily silenced. They should never be taken for granted or forgotten. **Read more about this topic:** The Post’s View: The United States won’t say a word about Egypt’s repressed The Post’s View: Iran should free Post correspondent Jason Rezaian now The Post’s View: Paying ransom for journalists encourages more kidnapping Sherif Mansour: Egypt muzzles the media as the military vilifies journalists Joel Simon: How to cover the Islamic State — and survive

Jorge Ramos: Part journalist, part activist, and now full-on Trump combatant

Jorge Ramos would be the first to say it. In fact, he has. Here, here and here.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In his role as the lead anchor of Univision's nightly Spanish-language newscast and a series of English-and Spanish-language news and public affairs programs for nearly three decades, he regards his role as one part traditional journalist. He's there to tell people what has happened, when it happened and what it means. But he would also say that, with the nation's Latino population growing rapidly, the number of Latino elected officials nowhere near keeping pace and the fate of some 11.3 million undocumented immigrants -- many of whom are Latino -- now the primary issue in the 2016 election, he and the rest of the news staff at Univision must also play another role: They must embrace the work of social justice. They must report accurately and fairly but never pretend that all information or points of view are equally valid. The work of Ramos and Univision, as he has told it, is to provide Latinos with the information they need to attend to their political and social interests. Ramos is a crusading journalist, and he does not deny it. For the nation's English-only news audience, Ramos's tangle with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump at a Tuesday-evening press conference in Iowa might have been their first encounter with the silver-haired Ramos. And it might have been that same English-only audience's first brush with Ramos's in-your- face, 'I will not back down' approach to reporting.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Essentially Ramos, who has a reputation among those who watch and follow his work as a relentless pitbull of a questioner, came face to face with a candidate that's known for pretty much the same. His unique approach aside, Ramos is clearly respected and influential as a journalist. Time magazine included him on its list of the nations's 100 most influential people for several reasons. First, there's Ramos and his newscast's reach. Ramos began his career in his native Mexico on the radio, then moved to the United States when Mexican government censorship made it impossible for Ramos to do the kind of work that he wanted. Since 1986 -- yes that's 29 year years -- he's served at Univision's primary newsman and anchor. To put Ramos in perspective, consider the famed and respected American newsman, Walter Cronkite. Ramos has Cronkite's time in the anchor chair beat by a decade. There are millions of Spanish-speaking news watchers who have grown up watching Ramos and getting their news from Ramos. In 2010, Ramos, ranked among the Latino leaders identified by Hispanic Americans in a Pew Research Center poll (a more recent 2013 Pew poll found that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Sen. Marco Rubio, a GOP presidential contender, rank first among those leaders). But if there is a big story, a major breaking story, a story of national or international import, Ramos is likely going to cover some aspect of it for Univision, the nation's leading Spanish-language network.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico And here's the kicker: During more than a few critical ratings periods (known as "sweeps") in recent years, Ramos's nightly newscast has drawn bigger audiences than ABC, NBC, CBS and at points, even FOX's nightly newscasts with the critical 18-to-49-year-old slice of the news-watching audience. (Those are the people that advertisers most want to reach.) And Univision stands its own with viewers overall in news and entertainment programming.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Ramos's advocacy has targeted both parties. In 2012, he was openly and overtly critical of the fact that during his first term, the Obama administration set new records for deportations and insisted that Obama could use his executive authority to help so-called Dreamers — or young adults brought to the country illegally as children. That's something Obama eventually did, creating the program known as DACA. And Ramos criticized him publicly for failing to act sooner too.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico When it came to Mitt Romney, Ramos's  disdain for Romney's immigration ideas —most notably "self-deportation," a conscious government effort to make life in the United States untenable — was pretty clear too. But both 2012 candidates agreed to sit down for extended and wide-ranging individual interviews with Ramos and his co-anchor, María Elena Salinas, before the general election. To snub Ramos would have been regarded as an overtly political act. The interviews were largely unflinching, they were conducted in both Spanish and English with the aid of a supremely talented interpreter who kept the audience abreast of all that was said. And, when both interviews were over, nobody described either Romney or Obama as having somehow gotten off easy. That's the way that Ramos does his work. That's what his audience expects. And these days, he's not alone in the English- or Spanish-language press. Certainly, both men had to have gone into that interview aware that Ramos had reported on and critiqued their immigration policies extensively and written a book — in English — calling for nothing short of a path to citizenship for the estimate 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the United Sates. And this, of course, brings us to 2016 — or more specifically, the summer of 2015 leading up to the 2016 presidential election. This summer, Donald Trump has combined his brand of unbridled self-confidence, political inexperience, hardline immigration policies (his policy calls for a temporary halt to all immigration and the deportation of all 11.3 million illegal migrants and their children) and lots of big, bad, bold, in-your-face talk about any number of issues to create what is apparently an appealing political campaign. And, in all deference to Trump's political skills, it seems that a significant and growing chunk of America loves what he is doing. In contrast to Romney and Obama, Trump has refused multiple interview requests from Ramos, including one extended by Univision on Tuesday night. So, Ramos showed up at that Tuesday news conference determined to do what he thought necessary to get Trump to answer key questions about immigration for Univision's audience.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In practical terms: Ramos stood up and began asking questions at the start. He didn't wait to be called on by Trump. And, in the now-well-documented moments that followed, Trump told Ramos to "sit down" and "go back to Univision." Trump told the reporters who remained in the room after Ramos' short-lived ejection that he didn't know Ramos. He went on to describe Ramos as "quite emotional." But he did somehow seem to know precisely for whom Ramos reports. It's worth noting quickly here that Trump is in the middle of suing Ramos's employer — the Univision network. In June, The Miami-based organization unceremoniously canceled plans to air the Miss Universe pageant and a five-year deal to do the same. The entertainment division of the network decided that it no longer wanted to do business with Trump, the pageant's partial owner, after Trump described the people coming across the U.S., Mexico border as rapist and criminals during a speech in which Trump announced his plans to run for president. So, to say that Ramos — one  part journalist, one part activist — understands a critical part of his job to include questioning Donald Trump and challenging Trump's ideas on immigration — well, that would be an understatement.

Mario Vázquez Raña, Mexican media baron and IOC member, dies at 82

Mario Vázquez Raña, a Mexican businessman and media baron who owned the Washington-based news agency United Press International in the late 1980s and was a prominent former member of the International Olympic Committee, died Feb. 8 in Mexico City. He was 82. The Mexican Olympic Committee announced the death. The cause was cancer, according to Mexican media reports. Mr. Vázquez Raña headed the Organización Editorial Mexicana, the country’s largest newspaper company. In 1986, he led a group of investors who paid $41 to rescue the financially struggling wire service UPI. UPI underwent tremendous turmoil among its editorial ranks. Top-ranked editors left, saying they could not assure quality. Ranking executives and editors were fired. Morale plummeted, leading to byline strikes. The company, never flush with cash, could not stabilize its finances. In 1988, Mr. Vázquez Raña sold UPI to Infotechnology Inc., a conglomerate. It later came under the control of an affiliate of the Unification Church, founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Mr. Vázquez Raña was the long-time head of the Association of National Olympic Committees, which made him one of the most powerful players for years inside the IOC. He also was a former executive board member of the IOC and was the president of the Pan American Sports Organization. In 2012, he resigned all his IOC positions and gave up control of ANOC. The action came after it was clear he faced a possible revolt from ANOC delegates who wanted to remove him from his powerful post. He had two years remaining in the ANOC position when he stepped down. Mr. Vázquez Raña had headed ANOC since 1979 and used the office as his power base. He was a close ally of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, who died in 2010. Survivors include his wife, Francisca Ramos, and five children. ** — From staff and wire reports  **

RIP, BOB SIMON: A sketchbook tribute to the fearless and true newsman

**THERE** oughta be an Emmy named for Bob Simon.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The ever-hungry hot-spot newsman won 27 of them himself, perhaps a record for a foreign correspondent, before his own life ended Wednesday not in Iraq or Afghanistan or another of his scores of war zones, but on New York’s West Side Highway, so close to the Bronx of his birth.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico He was 73, but how incredibly much he had seen, and parachuted toward and reported on, as fearless as he was near-peerless. The most “searing” experience of his long CBS News career, he said, was his 40 hellish days of captivity in Iraq, at the start of the Gulf War. When he emerged, steely and gaunt, there were his longtime wife, Francoise, and daughter, Tanya, to embrace him. The news business ran through the family so deeply, like both profession and passion, that Tanya would become his producer. We will read the tributes through the tears in the days ahead, but what it will most all come back to, like a magnetic North, is that he was a true newsman. He was about not self-puffery but rather the pursuit. He flew toward trouble and the truth. And when he was on the ground, he was a storyteller supreme. The names Murrow and Cronkite and Brokaw have come up often in recent days. But there oughta be a correspondents’ Emmy, or other honor, that causes us to pause and routinely reflect on the journalistic legacy of Bob Simon. He covered life’s wars. Now may he rest in peace.

In India’s anti-corruption fight, news networks begin to pay a price

NEW DELHI — India’s headline-grabbing fight against corruption has galvanized the nation but is now beginning to prove costly for its media. Almost every week brings a fresh accusation of corruption against some high-level figure. But reporting the charges has suddenly become fraught with risk for India’s young private broadcasting industry. Politicians have begun to hit back with threats of legal action and lawsuits against the media and the activists making the accusations, invoking a rarely used defamation law. That has forced newsrooms to consider whether they should stop airing news conferences in which activists deliver tirades against politicians and business leaders, or accept the risk in defense of the public’s right to be informed. With more than 300 channels, India’s vibrant but shrill television news has by and large been a cheerleader for the anti-corruption movement. Stations have aired many accusations lobbed by activist-turned-politician Arvind Kejriwal, who has called lawmakers thieves, murderers and rapists. Those targeted routinely deny the allegations, and Kejriwal’s critics call his efforts self- serving. In the past, few Indians bothered to initiate defamation suits, because trials can take decades in the country’s overburdened courts. A handful of plaintiffs have been awarded paltry sums after waiting years for their cases to be resolved. But in a rare case last year, a lower court in the city of Pune ordered a private news television channel to pay a retired judge damages amounting to about $18 million for mistakenly showing his photograph during a story about a judge with a similar name who had been accused of fraud. The channel, which apologized and corrected the mistake on air, has appealed. But allegations of corruption are harder for the news media to ignore now, because of a huge groundswell of public anger. “In the current turbulent phase, stories about corruption no longer begin and end in TV studios and newspapers but they are picked [up] by activists and quickly snowball into street agitations,” said Deepak Sharma, head of investigative stories at the Hindi-language news channel Aaj Tak, which is being sued for a story that accused Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid of stealing money meant for the disabled through a charity run by his wife. “The story was malicious and untrue, not just unreasonable,” said Louise Khurshid, who filed the defamation suit in a New Delhi court seeking $185,000 in damages. “We are not against free press, but press shouldn’t be irresponsible. Why am I suing? They will be responsible if they have to pay money. That’s what we are doing — making them pay.” She said she will also sue in Mumbai as well as London, because the story was also aired in Britain. Sharma said that the story was in the public interest and involved taxpayers’ money and that he had given Louise Khurshid one month to respond before airing it. India’s 24-hour news networks have become more powerful in recent years, turning into a nightmare for many. They have exposed high-level corruption in preparations for the 2010 Commonwealth Games and irregularities in how telecommunications licenses were awarded. They relentlessly show images of politicians abusing power, making crude remarks or otherwise behaving badly. But the defamation suits have energized many of the networks’ critics. Nitin Gadkari, the chief of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, has threatened to take two TV channels to court for accusing him of financial irregularities in his business. Some Hindi news channels now add a disclaimer saying that Kejriwal’s allegations have not been independently verified, but legal experts say that might not be enough to protect the media companies. “The channels get the ratings, Kejriwal gets his politics, somebody’s reputation gets sullied, and India pays the price because nobody wants to invest here,” said former solicitor general Harish Salve. “We will see more and more channels getting sued in the coming weeks.” That could hurt Kejriwal’s nascent movement, which relies heavily on broadcast media to appeal to middle-class Indians. “All this could prove to be a decisive moment for both the news media and protest politics in India because it may redefine defamation, which, in turn, would further redefine the boundaries of free speech,” said Vibodh Parthasarathi, an associate professor who teaches media policy and law at Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi. Last month, Kejriwal was served legal notice that he would be sued for calling Delhi’s chief minister, Sheila Dixit, an agent of private utility companies. “When non-political players, including activists and journalists, make these shoot-and-scoot allegations, the traditional politician does not have the time to go from one TV studio to another or sit on the street and respond,” said Pawan Khera, political secretary to Dixit. “Taking the legal course is the best option.”

In Mexico 12,000 killed in drug violence in 2011

MEXICO CITY — About 12,000 people were slain last year in Mexico’s surging drug violence, according to grim tallies reported Monday by the country’s leading media outlets. Annual indexes of torture, beheadings and the killing of women all showed increases. More than 50,000 people have been killed during President Felipe Calderon’s U.S.-backed military confrontation with organized crime and drug trafficking, which began in 2006. The Calderon government, after promising to update figures regularly, has not reported its own death count, perhaps because the trend line does not look good. A government spokesman said new figures would be released later this month. The ruling party is facing national elections this summer, in which the main opposition party threatens to retake the presidency. The daily newspaper Reforma, one of the nation’s most respected independent news outlets, reported 12,359 drug-related killings in 2011, a 6.3 percent increase compared with the previous year. There were 2,275 drug killings in 2007, Reforma said. Other media reported similar numbers. Daily Milenio recorded 12,284 drug-related deaths last year. La Jornada counted 11,890 deaths in 2011, which it says is an 11 percent decrease from the previous year. Regardless, in its annual tally La Jornada featured a cartoon that showed Father Time 2011 lying in the desert with his head chopped off. In the Reforma count, the number of bodies that showed signs of torture grew to 1,079. Beheadings reached almost 600, up from 389 the year before. Reforma also found that women increasingly were victims of drug violence, with more than 900 slain last year. The newspaper did not offer a count of juveniles or children killed, but children increasingly have been caught in the crossfire or intentionally targeted to send a chilling message that the drug gangs will stop at nothing. One of the few bright spots is that the homicide rate appears to be down by about a third in the border manufacturing hub Ciudad Juarez, once dubbed Murder City. Baja California and Tijuana also saw decreases in homicides. Yet the violence has steadily spread across Mexico. The states that abut Texas — Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas — remain the most deadly. But new zones of conflict, such as the once-mellow gulf coast state of Veracruz, are now gripped by a wave of killing. **More world news coverage:** \- Iran seeks more influence in Latin America \- S. Korean president sees ‘window of opportunity’ to deal with North \- In Iraq, leading Sunni official’s convoy hit by roadside bomb \- Read more headlines from around the world

Notable deaths: Russian journalist, Spanish film star

Mikhail Beketov, a Russian journalist who suffered brain damage and lost a leg after a brutal assault that followed his campaigns against a highway project outside Moscow, died Monday at a hospital, it was reported from Moscow. He was 55. His attorney, Stalina Gurevitch, said Mr. Beketov died after choking on food. Mr. Beketov was part of a group fighting against the construction of a highway through the Khimki forest near Moscow. Several people with high-profile political connections reportedly stood to profit from the highway’s construction, including Arkady Rotenberg, a billionaire who once taught President Vladimir Putin judo. After the 2008 attack, Mr. Beketov was in a coma and spent more than two years in hospitals. The attackers were never identified. The 2004 murder of Paul Klebnikov, the U.S. editor of Forbes’s Russian edition, and the 2006 killing of opposition journalist Anna Politkovskaya are among attacks on journalists in Russia that remain unsolved. Sara Montiel, a voluptuous, Spanish-born actress and singer who enjoyed an international film career and appeared in such American movies as “Vera Cruz” (1954) and “Run of the Arrow” (1957), died Monday at her home in Madrid. She was 85. Spanish news agencies reported the death but did not provide a cause. Ms. Montiel was born Maria Antonia Abad in Campo de Criptana in the central region of La Mancha. As a teenager, she won beauty contests that brought her to the attention of Spanish and then Mexican movie studios in the 1940s. She was a full-fledged star in Mexico before making her biggest American splash as Gary Cooper’s love interest in “Vera Cruz.” Her other work included the Mario Lanza musical “Serenade” (1956), directed by Anthony Mann, who became her first husband. She soon returned to her native Spain, where she had a massive Spanish-language success with the musical drama “El ultimo cuple” (“The Last Torch Song”) in 1957 and the drama “La violetera” (“The Violet Peddler”) the next year. The theme of the latter became one of Ms. Montiel’s trademark songs, and she soon became as known for her recordings as her films. Ms. Montiel remained a leading star of Spanish films well into the 1970s, but she increasingly became known for her stage and television work. Off-stage, she was known for a boisterous personal life that filled two memoirs, “Life Is a Pleasure” and “Sara and Sex.” Les Blank, an acclaimed documentary maker who focused his camera on cultural corners ranging from blues music to garlic lovers to shoe-eating artists, died Sunday at his home in Berkeley, Calif. He was 77. A son, Harrod Blank, confirmed the death and said the cause was bladder cancer. Mr. Blank’s 42 films earned him a lifetime achievement award from the American Film Institute. The Florida-born Mr. Blank’s early documentaries focused on musicians, including 1965’s “Dizzy Gillespie” and “The Blues Accordin’ to Lightnin’ Hopkins,” a portrait of the Texas bluesman that won Mr. Blank his first wide renown. He shifted to food with such documentaries as 1980’s “Garlic Is as Good as 10 Mothers,” and 2007’s “All in This Tea.” Mr. Blank was known for following his curiosity anywhere. No topic was too strange — or too ordinary. His 1987 film “Gap-Toothed Women” was a series of interviews on the subject spurred by an old high school crush. “If he was interested in gap-toothed women, he’s going to make a film about it. If he wants to make a film about garlic because he loves to eat garlic, he’s going to do it,” said Harrod Blank, who is also a filmmaker. But the subject that led to Mr. Blank’s most memorable work was fellow filmmaker Werner Herzog. In 1979’s “Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe,” Mr. Blank chronicled Herzog’s attempt to dine on his boot, the result of a lost bet. And “Burden of Dreams,” Mr. Blank’s 1982 behind-the-scenes view of Herzog’s disastrous filming of “Fitzcarraldo” in the Peruvian jungle, became a classic chronicle of artistic obsession. “If I abandon this project, I would be a man without dreams,” Mr. Blank filmed Herzog saying. “I don’t want to live like that.” **— from staff and wire services**

Argentina’s free press is in grave danger. Book review of “Tiempos turbulentos”

Argentina is in the midst of a political crisis, following the January 18 murder of prosecutor Alberto Nisman; he had been scheduled to testify to Argentina’s Congress about President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s alleged role in covering up Iran’s role in the 1994 terrorist bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Indeed, Nisman had drafted an arrest warrant for President Kirchner. The journalist who broke the story of Nisman’s murder was Damian Pachter, of the English-language _Buenos Aires Herald_. Shortly afterward, he began to be followed. Fearing for his safety, he fled the country, and is now residing in Israel.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Mr. Pachter’s experience is not surprising, for the Kirchner regime has been engaged in an increasingly aggressive war against what remains of a free press. The war is described in _Tiempos turbulentos_ , a collection of 21 short essays by Argentinian journalists and professors. Published in October by Argentine newspaper industry trade association, ADEPA, the book details the methods and ideology of the government’s anti-press campaign. As the authors note, similar press suppression is being carried out in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador. The authors provide compelling analysis of what is becoming the 21st century model for getting rid of an independent press; some of the problems the authors describe exist in the United States as well.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The essays in the 146-page _Tiempos turbulentos_ are written for the lay audience. In length and breadth, a typical chapter is similar to a long article in a British Sunday newspaper, or an American political weekly magazine. You don’t need to be fluent in Spanish to read the book. Armed with a dictionary, a moderately proficient Spanish reader will be just fine.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Before I describe the book’s analysis, some brief history might be helpful. Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1810, and the revolution against Spanish colonialism was won under the leadership of General José de San Martin. After liberating Argentina, and well as Chile and Peru, he retired from public life, rejecting entreaties to become President of Argentina. Since independence in 1810, Argentina’s democracy has been interrupted four times by military coups. The most recent military government took power in 1976; it perpetrated many human rights violations, including killing about 30,000 people. The dictatorship fell in 1983. In 2003, Néstor Kirchner won the presidency. Previously he had been Governor of Santa Cruz, a province in the far south. His wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner won the next presidential election, in 2007. He died in 2010, and she won re-election in 2011 with 54% of the vote. This power couple is often called _los K_ (the K), by friends and foes alike. According to _Tiempos turbulentos_ , the K assault on the freedom of the press began early, intensified greatly in 2009, and has become all the worse during the current third term.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The first essay of _Tiempos turbulentos_ says that liberty of expression is being asphyxiated, restricted, and inhibited— _asfixiada, restringida, inhibida_. The government is attempting to make it economically impossible for a critical press to exist. Media which are not economically strong enough to sustain a prolonged confrontation with the government have already been compelled to support the government, or at least not to criticize it, in order to be able to stay in business.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico To the authors, what it at stake is the survival of constitutional order, which cannot exist without a free press. The authors fear that Argentina is well on its way towards illiberal democracy—like the nominally democratic dictatorships of Russia or Venezuela. There, the regimes garner legitimacy by holding elections; but without an independent and strong press, a regime can maintain its power indefinitely. After all, if there isn’t a free press, who is going to report on whether the votes were counted honestly? **State media**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico During the first K term, the government began to manage state media as if it were a party organ. The K was not the first regime to use state media for propaganda. But in 2009 they found a way to attract a much larger audience: by taking over the broadcast of all soccer games. This means free broadcasts of every game of all 40 teams in Argentina’s primary and secondary leagues. ( _Liga A_ and _Liga B_.) The government’s huge spending on _Fútbol para todos_ (football for everyone) captures 30 points (about 6 million viewers) on some games. During halftime, and between games, there’s lots of government propaganda. Some of it is soft, such as how well the government is running the train system; especially in-between the two games of the night, the propaganda includes harsh and extended attacks on the regime’s enemies, particularly the press. Anybody who wants to rebroadcast a _Fútbol para todos_ game has to include the propaganda.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Paid government advertising**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Governments legitimately advertise to inform the public about government services, such as the schedule for free vaccinations. Under the K, Argentine federal and provincial government advertising has changed into advertising about the accomplishments (or alleged accomplishments) of the K government. The advertising often features a picture of a politician who is taking the credit. This violates the statute which forbids government advertising to use names or images to promote public officials. (Ley de Ética en el Ejercicio de Función Pública, law 25.188, chapter 10, article 42. “Publicidad y divulgación”).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The amount of such spending was once minor, and is now enormous. In 2000, it was $16 million, rising to $28 million in 2002. By 2007, the K had raised it to $326 million, then to $919 million in 2013. This figure does not include spending on _Fútbol para todos_ (reported to be $1.28 billion in 2012, although the government does not disclose the amount).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The advertising, which of course is paid by taxpayers, is calibrated to the election cycle. For example, the 2009 provincial and local elections were in June. Advertising spending was far larger in the first half of the year than in the second, reaching a peak in June of over 180 million. The next month it fell to 40 million. Money is spent not based on the size of the audience that a particular media organ reaches, but is very heavily slanted towards media groups that editorially support the K. When media feature government-favored programs, the funding goes up. Most of the financially weaker media cannot afford to resist, and so have fallen in line. The advertising discrimination is plainly illegal, as the Supreme Court (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación) ruled in the 2009 case _Editorial Perfil c. Jefatura Gabinete de Ministros_. That case followed a similar 2007 decision in _Editorial Rio Negro c. Provinicia de Neuqén_ (2007). It was reaffirmed in the 2013 _Grupo Clarín_ case. Most recently, in February 2014, the Supreme Court in _Arte Radiotelevisivo Argentino_ ordered the K government to stop arbitrarily and abusively discriminating against Channel 13 and several other channels. The government was given 30 days to produce a system of public advertising spending which treats similar stations similarly.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico None of the above cases have resulted in compliance by the Kirchner government. For more on this issue, see the report by Transparency International’s Argentine branch, _Poder Ciudadano_ (citizen power).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **The remaining free press**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The major print media which have not yet succumbed to K control are: _La Nacíon_. It was founded in 1870 by former President Bartolomé Mitre and is still in the family, led by Mitre’s great-great-grandson, who has the same name. It owns various Spanish language newspapers published in the United States. Along with Grupo Clarín and the Argentine government, it shares ownership in the newsprint manufacturer Papel Prensa, which has a 58% market share.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Grupo Clarín_. The largest Spanish language media entity in the world. Its flagship is the _Clarín_ daily newspaper, the best-selling paper in the nation, and among Spanish-speakers worldwide.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Editorial Perfil_. This organization publishes weekly magazines, and a biweekly newspaper, _Perfil_.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _El Cronista Comercial_. A daily business newspaper, founded in 1908, and now owned by the Spanish publisher Unidad Editorial, which in turn is mostly owned by the Italian conglomerate RCS MediaGroup. Its best-known property is Spain’s _El Mundo_ daily newspaper.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Against the free press, the regime uses many weapons. Public dissent attracts the heavy hand of the tax office (Administración Federal de Ingresos Públicos, AFIP). The AFIP’s rules are vigorously applied to K’s enemies (as in a May 2013 raid on Grupo Clarín), and ignored for K’s friends. As reported by the Spanish newspaper _El Mundo_ , the national intelligence agency (Secretaría de Inteligencia) spies on K’s political opponents, including by e-mail and telephone surveillance.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Italo Pisani, editor of the Patagonian newspaper _Rio Negro_, writes that “The reprisals against the press have been directly proportional to the advance in investigations of cases of corruption linked to the government.” (page 130). Among the cases he lists are those involving the Swedish gas line company Skanska, alleged money-laundering from the Chavez regime in Venezuela to support Cristina Kirchner’s 2007 presidential campaign, and the “K money trail” ( _La ruta del dinero K_ ). The latter began with an April 2013 report by Channel 13 on the alleged theft of large sums of money for public works by K-friendly business, with some of the wealth going to the Kirchner family—whose personal wealth increased from US$1.4 million in 2003 to US$14 million in 2010. One aspect which is very much in (some) newspapers in Argentina right now is further findings about alleged money-laundering via southern resort properties which the Kirchner family partially own.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The asphyxiation strategy was apparently the reason why in 2013 Secretary of Interior Commerce Guillermo Moreno ordered supermarkets and household electronics stores not to purchase advertising in nationally circulated media. Such ads are a very crucial source of newspaper revenue. For example _Clarín_ had about 8 pages per day of such ads. Protests in Congress resulted in the government backing away from attempting to enforce such a dubiously lawful decree. At least some of the newspaper advertising has returned.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Moreno resigned in November 2013, and was later found guilty of abuse of authority, for having ordered the national statistics agency (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, INDEC) to falsify inflation data. Indeed, he also heavily fined independent researchers and consumer groups who conducted their own studies of prices, and who reported inflation rates much worse than the official rates. Eventually, the fines were rejected by the courts. According to genuine data, Argentina suffers from the second-highest inflation rate in South America, with only Venezuela (which is in economic collapse) being worse. The biggest anti-press weapon is a 2010 law on media concentration. Ostensibly for the purpose of nurturing media diversity, the law is aggressively enforced, or ignored, depending on whether or not a media business is considered a friend of the government. Various K allies have acquired their own large media empires, including by purchasing, at generous prices, long-established and formerly independent newspapers and radio/TV channels. Under this system of the capitalism of friends, big media concentration is fine as long as it is allied with the government. This “hyperconcentration of much media in few hands” (113) was how almost all of the free press in Venezuela was eliminated by the Chavez-Maduro regime. The rhetoric of the media law is about expanding voices—“voces de la sociedad.” But in practice, the law is used to constrict viewpoint diversity. What the statute lauds as “voices of the society” really means only “the voice of the ruling party.” A new law on audiovisual communication services ( _Ley de Servicios de Comunición Audiovisual_ , LCSA) further tightens the regime’s control. TV and radio licenses for commercial media were cut, with the licenses transferred to government entities and to government-favored “non-government organizations.” The length of licenses was shortened, thus keeping the remaining commercial licensees on a shorter rope.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico New private channels with national reach were prohibited. Without being able to reach nationally, a channel can have a much harder time attracting a large enough audience to be economically viable by selling ordinary advertising. So the station must then depend on government support, through the government’s massive advertising expenditures. As noted above, getting this money depends on having news and editorial slants which please the government. These limits on new cable television channels make no sense, other than as censorship, since cable TV is not broadcast on the radioelectric spectrum, and thus there is no shortage of bandwidth. Under the “Digital Argentina” statute enacted in December 2014, the government now has the power to fix the prices for all telecommunications services. As explained by _El Diario Exterior_ , the new law gives the government the power to conduct warrantless searches of homes, to monitor compliance with the law. Any telecommunication service can be shut down when the regulatory agency (Autoridad Federal de las Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación, AFTIC) says that “national security” is involved (Article 65). Even a business intra- net now needs a government license, and so do services such as Skype or Google Hangout.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In Venezuela, newspapers are being forced out of existence by a shortage of newsprint, as the dictatorship delays and denies their access to foreign currency, which is necessary to pay for the imports. Argentina’s leading newsprint manufacturer, Papel Prensa, is owned 27% by the government, with the rest owned either by _La Nación_ or Grupo Clarín, both of which are anti-K. In 2012, the K government proposed legislation to expropriate Papel Prensa. All of the non-K parties unanimously opposed it, and it did not become law.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Constitutional rights**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The multifront war on the independent press is contrary to Argentina’s Constitution. Chapter One, section 14 guarantees: “All the inhabitants of the Nation are entitled to the following rights, in accordance with the laws that regulate their exercise, namely: …to publish their ideas through the press without previous censorship….”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Section 32 outlaws national control of the press: “The Federal Congress shall not enact laws restricting the freedom of the press or establishing federal jurisdiction over it.” Further, Argentina has adopted the American Convention on Human Rights, and international treaties on human rights are considered a core of Argentina’s constitutional system. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (which sits in San Jose, Costa Rica) is the authoritative interpreter of the Convention, and has made it clear that K-style press control is illegal. _See_ _Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú_ (Feb. 2, 2001) (To remove a person’s control of a television channel, or to ban the journalists on a television program, is a violation of their free speech, and of the right of the audience to receive information).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Peronists vs. the Press**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico During World War II, Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship which was formally neutral, but sympathized with the Axis. Later Juan Domingo Perón took power. The military dictatorship and the Perón regime both controlled the import and distribution of newspaper printing paper. Accordingly, self-censorship was necessary for most newspapers to be able to publish. President Perón expropriated _La Prensa_ in 1951, and gave it to the national labor federation. He closed the Catholic newspaper _El Pueblo_. He put all of the press either under the control of himself and his allies, or in a position of fear about criticizing the regime.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In 1995, President Carlos Menem (a Peronist) dedicated his re-election “to journalism, which was the only opposition.” In the 2009 election, Néstor Kirchner urged voters to “defeat journalism in the polls.” Since then the rhetoric has become much more intense. Millions have been spent to promote the slogan _Patria o medios_. (“Homeland or media”). As several authors of _Tiempos turbulentos_ note, the K regime, which is a Peronist party, has many parallels with the original Perón.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico One author, though, draws another parallel. The concluding chapter, by _La Nación_ columnist Fernando Laborida, observes K’s similarities to the military dictatorship of 1976-83. The generals believed that Argentina was a “sick society.” To the K regime, whatever does not conform to their will (e.g., prices, journalists) is just a manifestation of a sickness which will be eliminated.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The authors argue that the K use the press as a scapegoat for their own failures. They denounce the free press as the “Corpo.” Yet as the news director of the newspaper _Perfil_ points out, the K regime has built “a real Korpo of state and para-state media.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Subjugation to the hyper-president**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Several authors put the press problem in the context of the government’s parallel attacks on judicial independence, and on businesses outside the government orbit. Given the extent of government power already, the only major businesses not presently at the mercy of arbitrary government decisions are rural primary producers. According to many of the authors, the K government’s campaign for what it calls “democratization of the judiciary” parallels its campaign for “democratizing the media.” In other words, eliminating the judiciary as an independent check on the executive. In Venezuela, for example, since the Chavez-Maduro regime took over the Supreme Court (which then issued an opinion declaring itself to be in the service of the Chavez revolution), the regime has a 55-0 record of wins.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico President Kirchner argues that no judicial decision should contradict the popular will, which is to say that since she won 54% of the popular vote, judges should never rule her actions unconstitutional. She criticizes the judiciary because it “ties the hands of the State” ( _le ata las manos al Estado_ ). _La Nación_ ‘s __ Laborida retorts that she “pretends to ignore that the Judiciary is as much the State as herself.” Moreover, the Constitution itself is the highest expression of the State. The executive and judiciary are mere creations of the Constitution; they have no lawful authority except what the People have given them through the Constitution. To assert that the executive should enjoy impunity from the Constitution is to assault the Rule of Law.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Judge Ricardo Recondo is the official representative of the association of national judges ( _Asociación de Magistrados y Funcionarios de la Justice Nacional_ ), a position to which he was elected by the national judges. He views his election as a strong statement by the majority of the judiciary in support of judicial independence. He recently stated that “The nation and democracy are in grave danger” because of the “many anti-democratic activities of this government, which could not be more ingenious. Using democracy wanting to destroy democracy. If we do not react, one day we are going to wake up and going to be subjugated.” ( _Clarín_ , Nov. 30, 2014).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Latin America has long been plagued by hyper-presidentialism ( _hiperpresidencialismo_ ). Argentina has had presidents, such as the late Raúl Alfonsin, who respected the separation of powers and the rule of law. But that is not the case today. The K regime aims for perpetuity and impunity (132).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The regime says that it is leading Argentina to a better and fairer future, especially for the poor. The editors of _Tiempos turbulentos_ ask, “If there is no more free press, if we accept silencing the dissidents, will there be more indigence, poverty, corruption, insecurity, inflation? Will there be more and better education, justice, health?”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Supposedly, the war against the free press is part of a progressive political agenda. Yet necessarily, the suppression of truth is regressive. _Caudillismo_ is the worst part of the past, not part of a genuinely progressive future. A country with a press under pervasive restraint is a regression to the Spanish colonial period, when prior restraint was the norm.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

President Peña Nieto must confront lawlessness in Mexico

FOR DECADES, Mexico has been characterized as mired in corruption, and the stain of lawlessness has indeed run deep. But recent events have underscored anew how Mexico — despite genuine signs of economic and political progress — remains a state lacking the rule of law. A new low point is the disappearance of dozens of students from a teachers college, and much will depend on whether the government responds effectively. Conflict among drug cartels dominated the six-year term of President Felipe Calderón, who threw the military into the battle at great cost but did not uproot the cartels. His successor, Enrique Peña Nieto, came to office in December 2012 with a different emphasis, seeking to kick-start a series of bold economic reforms. Mr. Peña Nieto rightly won admiration for his determination to open Mexico’s energy sector to competition, to tackle the troubled education system and to limit monopolization in telecommunications and other sectors. His first two years in power have been promising. But the scourge of violence has risen again in a way that cannot be ignored and that imperils the reform agenda. Late one September night, in the town of Iguala in the poor, rural state of Guerrero, buses carrying the students were attacked by police. One student and six other people were killed. Forty-three students were captured and turned over to an organized-crime gang, Guerreros Unidos. They are feared dead. According to the Mexican authorities, the mayor of the town ordered the violent onslaught. The mayor, now detained, reportedly ordered the attack out of fear the students were going to interrupt a speech by his wife. Protests have erupted across the country. Mr. Peña Nieto’s government did not respond with alacrity. The president was silent for days, and then his attorney general, exhausted, carelessly dismissed repetitive questions about the case at a news conference, saying he was “tired” or “fed up.” Those words have now become the signature slogan of the demonstrators; people are fed up with business as usual. Mr. Peña Nieto went ahead with plans to travel to Asia while the country was in an uproar, which did not help matters. Mr. Peña Nieto cannot dodge this crisis. He must respond to public revulsion over the missing 43 students by making sure that a complete and transparent investigation is carried out, not only into the perpetrators but also into structural and institutional ills that have brought Mexico to this point. He can speed up implementation of important changes in criminal justice procedures, which has been slow. He must find a way to harness the public fury and use it to begin what will surely be a difficult struggle to firmly establish rule of law. The future of Mr. Peña Nieto’s economic reforms — and his own career — are at stake. **Read more about this topic:** Lally Weymouth: An interview with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto Enrique Peña Nieto: U.S., Mexico should develop their economic bond The Post’s View: Mexico’s grand bargaining José Vivanco: Mexico’s human rights failures Viridiana Rios: How to win the Mexican drug war

Austin Tice should be freed by his captors in Syria

_Marcus Brauchli is executive editor of The Washington Post, and Anders Gyllenhaal is vice president for news at McClatchy. They can be reached atbrauchlim@washpost.com and agyllenhaal@mcclatchy.com._ Austin Tice was well on his way to a law degree when the pull of journalism got to be too much for him. Fascinated with the Middle East and frustrated with news coverage he saw as often too shallow, he decided to see if he could do better. “It always drove Austin crazy when they’d say on the news, this couldn’t be confirmed because it’s too difficult to report,’’ Marc Tice, Austin’s father, told us. “He thought, ‘I’ve got the ability to do this. I can get in there and get these stories.’ ’’ Four months ago, Tice was captured in Syria, where he had been delivering on that commitment with fresh and compelling freelance reports that were regularly published in The Post and McClatchy newspapers. While the wait for news on his whereabouts drags on, we want to make the case for why this work is so vital and why he should be released. We also want to draw attention to the delicate role of foreign reporters in places such as Syria. Understanding the savage tableau of war helps citizens, societies and governments make judgments and set policies that affect millions of people. At its best, journalism may save lives by making the costs and consequences of war more vivid. Inevitably, journalists take risks when they cover wars. We have both lost friends and colleagues in battle; one of us has a brother, a photographer, who was wounded seriously 20 years ago in Sarajevo. But the risks should not include kidnapping, torture or murder. And yet, so far this year, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, 67 journalists have been killed in direct relation to their work. In Syria, the number killed in combat or murdered this year is 28, a rate that the committee says approaches the worst annual tally of the Iraq war. Foreign and Syrian reporters alike have been killed. Even the head of Libya’s state- run news agency, SANA, was assassinated. This week, five days after they were kidnapped, NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, and his crew escaped following a gunfight between their captors and rebels. Many of the journalists at risk in conflict zones today aren’t on staff at big, traditional news organizations. The uprisings and revolutions in the Middle East have attracted freelance journalists who don’t need mainstream news outlets to reach an audience. New technologies enable them to upload video directly to YouTube or report battles in real time to followers on Twitter or Facebook. Like many freelancers, Tice followed an unusual path to foreign reporting, an assignment that can take decades to earn on a big newspaper’s staff. A captain in the Marines who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tice left the service and enrolled in Georgetown University’s law school. It was just after his second year when he decided to give in to the tug of journalism that dated to high school. Equipped with cameras, an exquisite writing talent and an instinct for finding his way to the center of things, Tice slipped over the Turkish border into Syria in May. At one point, he managed to get by checkpoints in Damascus by dressing as a woman despite his 6-foot-3, 200-pound frame. His work has been courageous and professional, contributing to the montage of truth that has shaped the world’s understanding of the Syrian conflict. Although he traveled mostly with the rebels, Tice was as interested in one side as the other, in capturing opposing viewpoints and casualties. He focused on how the rebels were gaining momentum over the summer. He also helped to break the news in August that rebels were carrying out executions and torture. He was often on the front lines of the conflict. He celebrated his 31st birthday, he noted in his last Twitter post before his capture in mid-August, to the sounds of bombs landing nearby. Information on his captivity, and even on who is holding him, has been hard to confirm despite the constant efforts of his family, our news organizations and other contacts in the United States and other governments. Tice entered Syria without a visa, as have the majority of those covering this story. As he enters his fifth month of captivity, he has long since paid the price if this is seen as a violation of the country’s borders. We believe his own story makes the best argument for his release. He surely has met the high standards of quality and fairness he first thought about back in Afghanistan. Austin Tice has served both Syria and the wider world with reporting that cannot exist without such dedicated journalists. Those responsible for his capture and detention have a moral obligation to return him to his family, his friends and his work. **Read more from Tice and Syria:** Austin Tice and Liz Sly: Syrian rebels still hopeful as government regains initiative in Damascus Austin Tice: In Syria, an oasis from war David Ignatius: 48 hours in Syria

Mexicans are angry at their own president for meeting with Trump

MEXICO CITY — Side by side, a lone Mexican flag behind them, the men stood, one of the most unlikely political pairs imaginable. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee who has built his campaign around blaming Mexicans for the loss of American jobs and safety; and President Enrique Peña Nieto, the unpopular Mexican leader who stunned his country, and even members of his government, by extending an invitation to Trump for a visit. In the end, neither man chose to fuel the cross-border shouting match that Trump’s campaign launched a year ago — a result that probably favored Trump. Many Mexicans had hoped their president would demand an apology or forcefully reject Trump’s plans to build a border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), deport millions and weaken trade ties between the neighbors. Instead, Peña Nieto played the role of professor-in-chief, listing economic statistics about the mutually beneficial U.S.-Mexico relationship, while a reserved, almost somber Trump announced that he had made a new “friend.” The Republican candidate still, however, got in some jabs about how they did not have a chance to discuss “who pays for the wall.” Mexicans were outraged to learn that Trump had been invited to visit Mexico, and the news conference Wednesday struck many here as disappointing. After months of bearing the brunt of Trump’s attacks, Mexicans found Peña Nieto’s performance a letdown. “He’s not going to convince anyone with his talk about building dialogue and bridges,” said Jose Antonio Crespo, a Mexico City political science professor. “If Trump wins, they’ll have to meet and work together, but for now, the annoyance and anger of the people about his speech prevails.” “Trump benefited from this encounter,” he added. “The president failed, he lacked strength.” Mexicans learned only the day before that Trump would be visiting. Even at the highest levels of government, Mexicans were baffled at what Peña Nieto had to gain by welcoming a man so widely reviled in this country. In the best of times, Mexicans feel conflicted about their neighbors to the north. In Trump, many Mexicans see the embodiment of their worst fears: an overbearing and insulting American politician happy to tread all over his country’s poorer neighbor. The Mexican leader, struggling through the second half of a difficult six-year term, has himself compared Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler. “It’s kind of a big question mark,” said one senior Mexican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid. “This is not a winning proposition having him here.” After an hour behind closed doors at Los Pinos, the presidential palace, Trump and Peña Nieto emerged and took their places at adjacent podiums. Peña Nieto apparently sought to take the high road, discussing the importance of the relationship, while pledging to respect the electoral process of the United States. He rattled off trade and job statistics: $500 billion in annual trade between the neighbors, some 6 million jobs in America that depend on Mexican exports. He said his job was to defend Mexicans — those at home and the millions in the United States — who are “honest and hardworking people.” “They are good people. They respect family. They respect community life, and they respect the law,” Peña Nieto said. “Mexicans deserve the respect of everyone.” Trump responded that it was a “great, great honor to be invited to Mexico.” He said he had “tremendous feelings” for Mexican Americans, not only friends, but his employees. While he listed familiar goals for the region — like ending illegal immigration and raising pay for workers — he did not blame Mexico as directly as he had in the past for problems in the United States. When reporters shouted out questions about Trump’s proposed border wall, the Republican candidate said he had mentioned it to the Mexican leader. “We didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That will be for a later date.” But Peña Nieto’s spokesman said that during the talks, the Mexican leader rejected the wall. The firmest Peña Nieto got in his public comments was when he mentioned that some of Trump’s comments hurt Mexicans — but then he quickly defended Trump. “I was sure that his genuine interest is to build a relationship that lets us bring to our societies better conditions,” he said. Eduardo Sanchez, the president’s spokesman, said that Peña Nieto had long intended to invite both American presidential nominees here, to get to know them and share “the importance that Mexico has for the U.S.” The easy move, he said, would be for Mexico to refuse to speak to Trump. “The calculus of Peña Nieto is not his popularity, it’s his responsibility,” Sanchez said. But the decision to invite Trump was assailed by a wide range of Mexicans. Sergio Sarmiento, a political commentator and radio host, said none of the callers to his show have supported the visit. “There have been hundreds of calls from people, [all] negative,” he said. “This will not help Peña Nieto at all.” Former president Vicente Fox, an outspoken Trump critic, told Milenio TV that Trump was not welcome and that “he has offended us, he has deceived us, he has discriminated against us.” Peña Nieto, once seen as a reformer who opened up Mexico’s oil sector to foreign investment, took on long-standing monopolies and proposed ambitious changes to the education system, has lost much of the momentum he had on taking office in late 2012. A recent poll in Mexico’s Reforma newspaper put his approval rating at 23 percent, the lowest in the two decades that the newspaper has been tracking presidential popularity. The oil reform has yet to take off amid low global prices for petroleum. Mexico’s homicide rate declined early in his term but has risen again, jumping 16 percent in the first five months of this year over the same period last year. And the president has been beset by scandals. One involved a favored government contractor who bought houses on behalf of Peña Nieto’s wife, who is a former TV star, and finance minister. Forty-three students from the state of Guerrero disappeared in 2014, and huge protests erupted when information emerged suggesting that they were captured and killed with the help of police. Recently, Mexico’s human rights commission reported that 22 of 42 suspected drug cartel members killed at a ranch in Michoacan last year were allegedly executed by police and not killed in a gunfight as police had claimed. That contributed to the ousting of the head of the federal police this week. Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party struggled in the midterm elections in June, losing governorships it had long held.

Censor or die: The death of Mexican news in the age of drug cartels

**CONTROLLING THE STORY:** _This is the fifth installment in an ongoing series examining the human cost of reporting the news around the world._ REYNOSA, Mexico — As deadline descended on El Mañana’s newsroom and reporters rushed to file their stories, someone in the employ of a local drug cartel called with a demand from his crime boss. The caller was a journalist for another newspaper, known here as an enlace, or “link” to the cartel. The compromised journalist barked out the order: Publish an article saying the mayor in Matamoros had not paid the cartel $2 million a month in protection fees, as an El Mañana front-page story had alleged the day before. “They want us to say he’s not guilty,” the editor who took the call told his colleagues during the episode in late October. Knowing glances passed between them as a visiting Washington Post reporter looked on. They all knew that defiance carried a high price. The enlaces are part of the deeply institutionalized system of cartel censorship imposed on media outlets in northeastern Mexico abutting the border of Texas. How it works is an open secret in newsrooms here but not among readers. They are unaware of the life-and-death decisions editors make every day not to anger different local cartel commanders, each of whom has his own media philosophy. Submitting to cartel demands is the only way to survive, said Hildebrando “Brando” Deandar Ayala, 39, editor in chief of El Mañana, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the region with a print circulation of 30,000. “You do it or you die, and nobody wants to die,” he said. “ _Auto censura_ — self- censorship — that’s our shield.” Readers get angry when they don’t get the news they need, he said. Resentment against El Mañana grew so strong two years ago that reporters took the logos off their cars and stopped carrying their identification on assignments. “The readers hate us sometimes,” Deandar said. “But they don’t know the real risks we go through.” Mexico has long been a deadly place for reporters. Some 88 journalists have been slain in the last two decades, according to Article 19, a worldwide advocacy group that promotes press freedom. With its endless drug wars, Mexico is one of the most dangerous places in a world that has seen a recent upswing in violence against journalists, with scores of reporters killed or jailed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arab Spring countries, Central America and the former Soviet bloc. The risks have been especially high for El Mañana because its circulation area is bounded to the west by the birthplace of the Zetas criminal network in Nuevo Laredo and to the east by the Gulf crime syndicate’s home base in Matamoros. In February, the last time El Mañana defied a cartel’s censorship rules, an editor in its Matamoros bureau was dragged outside, stuffed in a van and beaten as his abductors drove around threatening him with death. “Next time, we’ll kill you!” one yelled before pushing him out of the vehicle. Four El Mañana journalists have been killed in the past 10 years. Others survived assassination attempts, kidnappings, and grenade and machine-gun attacks on their offices. Deandar has been shot, kidnapped and had his home set on fire, he said. The worst assaults began in 2004, when an editor in Nuevo Laredo was stabbed to death. Two years later, gunmen broke into the bureau there, detonated a grenade and sprayed machine gunfire, leaving one employee paralyzed. Afterward, bulletproof glass and electronic security keys were installed at its three offices, where the blinds are always drawn. In March 2010, when the Gulf cartel defeated the Zetas for control of Reynosa, it took revenge on three El Mañana reporters whom the Zetas had forced to watch one of its mass executions. The cartel called the three Reynosa reporters and told them, “ ‘either you come in or we’ll pick you up,’ ” an editor there at the time recalled. They surrendered to the cartel and were never heard from again. Their presumed slayings were never reported by El Mañana, editors said, because that’s what the Gulf commander demanded. The enlace passed word that the killings were a one-time message to the Zetas, not a tactic the cartel intended to repeat against the newspaper. Twice in 2012, gunmen from the Zetas shot up the offices of the Nuevo Laredo bureau. Not long after, El Mañana announced it would no longer print cartel news in its Nuevo Laredo edition. Articles about Nuevo Laredo crime sometimes appear in other editions, but without a byline or names in the story. The cartels’ tactics resemble those most Americans would associate with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The display of multiple beheaded corpses and bodies hanging from bridges are a regular occurrence. Hundreds of young people have disappeared. Mass graves are commonplace. The comparison with terrorist groups 7,300 miles away frustrates journalists here. They watch the endless international coverage of Middle East violence yet know that the terrorism just across the U.S. border is largely ignored by the American media. Mexico’s 2014 murder rate of 13 per 100,000 is twice as high as Afghanistan’s. “We have a war here, and we’re doing war reporting,” said Ildefonso “Poncho” Ortiz, a deeply sourced reporter for Breitbart News Network’s Cartel Chronicles, one of the only American outlets to track cartel maneuvers. “Sometimes AP [the Associated Press wire service] will pick up a story, but other than that, it never leaves the valley.” The three largest U.S. newspapers nearby — the Brownsville Herald, the Monitor in McAllen, Tex., and the Laredo Morning Times — forbid their reporters from crossing to report because it’s too dangerous, according to the editors at the newspapers. Pervasive corruption abets the violence. The local police forces have been disbanded and replaced by the army and federal police in the northern Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which includes Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa. A car bomb killed the Nuevo Laredo mayor one week after he was sworn in. The new Matamoros mayor survived an ambush in March. Cartels install surveillance cameras throughout their cities and employ lookouts with cellphones to keep watch. U.S. Border Patrol officers are regularly indicted for cooperating with organized crime. “Tamaulipas is a black hole when it comes to information,” said Aaron Nelsen, a reporter based in McAllen for the San Antonio Express-News. “It’s so hard to get anyone to talk about it,” even elected U.S. officials. El Mañana’s circulation area includes major U.S. border cities; its online editions are read as far north as San Antonio and Houston. It is a third-generation family enterprise, founded in 1924 as an anti-establishment voice. Over most of its 91 years, its formidable enemies were corrupt politicians and their hand-picked prosecutors. The newspaper now maintains a working relationship with the local governments, as evidenced by the government advertising it receives. Withholding state advertising dollars is a common and effective economic hammer used against media outlets whose investigations upset the status quo. “When it’s not the politicians against us, it’s the drug dealers,” said Heriberto Deandar, 78, who co-owns El Mañana with his brother, Brando’s father. “He who is not afraid has no courage.” Brando was raised in Reynosa but moved to McAllen in 2007 for safety reasons. He commutes to work. Asked why he doesn’t find a safer job, he said simply, “It’s in my blood. I cannot leave.” During a recent visit to the town, the eerie atmosphere was inescapable. Reynosa’s wide boulevards were nearly empty. Heavily armed soldiers patrolled in black masks to protect their identities from cartels resentful of the army’s two-year occupation. Military helicopters whooped periodically overhead, racing to shootouts or hunting suspects. At dusk, hundreds of cars streamed slowly across the international bridge to McAllen, where an increasing number of well-to-do Mexicans have moved their families to safety. The Metros faction of the Gulf cartel controls much of civic life and all contraband — drugs, sex slaves, immigrant smuggling, fuel, stolen vehicles — in or moving through Reynosa, said journalists and media experts here. Its commander, whose parents are from Reynosa, has a more liberal view of the media than his counterparts in the other two cities. He seems to care about his image, too, they said, as evidenced by the “narcobanners” that appeared on city bridges in November. “This is to make it clear that I am a narcotrafficker, not a terrorist like you’ve been saying in the media,” the cartel boss declared in one handwritten sheet-sized banner. “Investigate and check your facts. Crime has lessened since I took charge.” In Matamoros, though, the commander of the cartel’s Ciclones faction tolerates no coverage. In Nuevo Laredo, the Zetas have a commander of finance, assassinations, logistics, stolen vehicles and fuel, weapons, prostitution, immigrant smuggling — and media. The Zetas media director, a clean-cut, 30-something man described by one person who knows him as “a pretty friendly guy,” calls enlaces and beat reporters at El Mañana and other media outlets every day to tell them what stories the cartel wants published or censored. One day it’s a story critical of new government limits on imported cars; the next it’s a birthday party in the social pages featuring a cartel boss’s daughter. Sometimes the media director provides photos and video for an article. “It’s a common conversation every day,” one reporter said. Reporters have learned to consult him on nearly everything, one media expert said. Even a car crash isn’t a simple car crash. “You have to call somebody to make sure you can write about it,” one journalist said, because it might actually not be an accident but a purposeful vehicular homicide organized by the cartel. Critical coverage of local politicians is also forbidden. For his own security, the media director changes cellphones often, but his online avatar always stays the same: a rabbit. The three cartel commanders’ differing media philosophies force El Mañana to produce three distinctly different editions. “If you want to find out what’s happening in Nuevo Laredo or Matamoros, you read El Mañana de Reynosa,” Deandar said. For example, when Mexican troops captured the leader of the Matamoros faction in October, known as “Ciclón 7,” El Mañana did not print a word about it in its Matamoros edition. But in Reynosa and Nuevo Laredo, it was banner news. With Ciclón 7 gone, Deandar said, “we are waiting to see who is the next chief, so we’ll know the rules.” After hearing the enlace’s demand to exonerate the allegedly corrupt mayor in Matamoros, the editor on duty rubbed his head trying to contain himself. “First they tell us what not to publish, now they are telling us what to publish!” he yelled before heading upstairs to his office. He dialed the editor in Matamoros who had passed the enlace’s message to Reynosa, put the phone on speaker mode and upped the volume so the whole room could hear. Enlaces pass instructions via phone calls, text messages, apps and in personal meetings. They often communicate cartel demands to crime reporters who show up at the scene of shootouts, blockades, car bombs and executions. Sometimes a cartel member will run into crime reporters at the scene. “They’ll say, ‘Get the hell out of here! We’ll kill you!’ And we have to go,” one reporter said. Three minutes into the conversation with the Matamoros editor, the senior editor began raising his voice about the enlace. “Give me his name and number!” he shouted. “And tell him you’re not going to take any more messages! No more! Tell him if you take any more messages, I’m going to fire you!” He hung up, waved around the piece of paper with the enlace’s name and phone number on it and then stood up. It was getting dark. Time to leave for a safer city. The front-page story that upset the cartel was a reprinted interview with the new mayor of Matamoros, Leticia Salazar, an anti-corruption crusader. The interview was conducted by the national Excelsior newspaper. In it, she accused her predecessor of paying the Gulf cartel more than $2 million a month in protection fees from public works funds and towing fees. El Mañana’s editors felt safe publishing the interview in all editions because it seemed like a political corruption story, not one about the cartel. The cartel demand that followed was to run an interview with the former mayor quoting him as saying he was innocent of the allegations. But the former mayor had not requested an interview. As he left the building, the duty editor said he planned to call the former mayor on the way home. Speeding through Reynosa’s back roads in the dark, he called the former mayor, who said he had not requested an interview and did not know the cartel had demanded one on his behalf. It was time for a decision. “If you want an interview, we can do it in our office or over the phone,” the editor said. If it’s in the office, “we will need a photo of the interview; if it’s over the phone, we’ll have to record it. Either way, we need to show it was real,” not something made up by the cartel. We won’t publish it right away, the editor added, so the cartel won’t think it can tell the newspaper what to print. The interview ran three days later, in all editions, including Matamoros, where it mattered most to the cartel. But there was no byline, not even in the Reynosa edition. Instead, it read simply, El Mañana/Staff. Several years ago, shopkeepers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, local government workers and students began to fill the void in local news with social-media coverage. It took the cartels a while to understand what was happening on anonymous Twitter accounts and Facebook pages. Once they did, retribution followed. On Sept. 26, 2011, the decapitated body of a female blogger was left at the Christopher Columbus monument in Nuevo Laredo. Next to her corpse were two keyboards and a handwritten warning, signed “ZZZZ.” But social-media crime reporting has only grown in the four years since. It includes real-time maps of shootout locations, slayings and kidnappings as well as endless cellphone videos of crimes in progress. During the Post reporter’s visit in October, alerts and bulletins about news that went unreported by El Mañana were rife on social media: _Oct 17, 2:39 p.m. @MichaelNike8: Near the exit to San Fernando, tires burning to distract the authorities_ _Oct 21, 1:50 p.m. @SSPTAM: Avoid the area between Reynosa and Monterrey. Authorities are responding (to a situation)_ _Nov. 3: @Codigo Rojo [Code Red]: Yesterday, federal agents captured 3 men and a female commander of Toro [the local cartel_ _commander in Reynosa] and seized 3 new trucks and around 20 guns, including 5 or 6 guns covered in gold and diamonds; This photo shows what was taken out of just one of the trucks._ Also trending on Twitter the same week was the one-year anniversary of the killing of @Miut3. @Miut3 was a prolific citizen crime reporter. She tweeted the location of shootouts, explosions, carjackings and the identities of disappeared people. On Oct. 15, 2014, her anonymous account was hacked. Soon afterward, she became unreachable. Her followers frantically refreshed their Twitter feeds trying to find her. The next morning, at 5:04 a.m., a tweet from her account appeared: “Friends and family, my real name is Maria Del Rosario Fuentes Rubio, I’m a doctor and today, my life has come to an end.” Minutes later, two photos appeared on her account. One showed Fuentes Rubio in distress. “Close your accounts, don’t risk your families the way I did,” her account read. “I ask you all for forgiveness.” The second photo showed what appeared to be her bloodied face and corpse on the ground. No one has been arrested. In February, a few months after Fuentes Rubio was killed, the two factions of the Gulf cartel in northeastern Mexico went to war again. The chaos provided El Mañana with the kind of journalistic opening it hadn’t had in 15 years. With the cartel preoccupied, El Mañana became the newspaper it might otherwise be had circumstances been different. The entire newsroom deployed to cover the battles. Dramatic photos, detailed articles and screaming headlines won Mexico’s attention. Readers in Reynosa finally got the full story of what was happening around them: _Day One: “Border in Shock,” “Shoot-Outs and Roadblocks . . . ”_ _Day Two: “Border Under Siege: Marines Attacked, Three Armed Men Killed, Soldiers Wounded”_ “We were all excited in the newsroom,” said a longtime senior editor who shepherded the coverage. “It was an adrenaline rush.” “No other newspaper in the state” provided such detailed coverage. “They were all afraid,” he said, nodding toward Deandar. “We have a courageous boss.” This was such big news, Deandar said he thought at the time, that he wanted to share it even with readers in Matamoros despite the standing cartel news blackout there. To be cautious, there would be no bylines and no names of cartel members. The cartels would not approve, cautioned Enrique Juarez, his Matamoros editor. Just after midnight, the red printing press in Reynosa rolled out Day Three’s edition. _“Nine Dead in Fighting: Third Day Siege in Urban Areas and Roads.”_ Delivery trucks dashed to their distribution hubs. By 3 a.m., El Mañana employees discovered that the truck carrying the newspapers for Matamoros had vanished. Deandar rallied a posse; they found the vehicle at noon in an abandoned field, still full of newspapers. He ordered the papers be delivered to Matamoros, where they hit the streets an hour later. Juarez, up in his second-floor office, got threatening phone calls right away. At 4 p.m., as deadline loomed, someone called from the lobby asking him to come down. He found a knife and braced himself. Armed men burst in. One picked up a big jug of water and threw it at him, causing him to drop the knife. “We’re going to break you!” one yelled, as they dragged him away. They stuffed him into a van, beat him about the head and back, and shoved him onto the pavement an hour or so later. Four frightened El Mañana employees in the Matamoros bureau resigned the next day. A story about Juarez’s abduction and a photo of him at his desk, with the assaulting water jug, ran on Day Four next to the headline, _“30 Dead Already, Mayor Suffers Grenade Attack, US Consul Suspends Operations”_ It did not appear in the Matamoros edition. Juarez and his family left the city. He no longer works in Matamoros. He is still not right, he said in an interview. “I don’t feel safe. I look around when I go out.” He worries that the fighting cartel factions will team up again and come after him. “If I had the opportunity to leave . . . ” His voice trails off. Rosario Carmona, a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow at the University of Maryland’s Phillip Merrill School of Journalism, where Priest holds the Knight Chair in Public Affairs Journalism; Alexander Quiñones, a graduate student there; and Post researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. **More from this series:** Pakistan’s most famous TV journalist, Hamid Mir, is undeterred from reporting despite ongoing threats and an ambush by gunmen Dogged reporting in Azerbaijan landed a U.S.-trained journalist in prison After Arab Spring, journalism briefly flowered and then withered With U.S. withdrawal looming, a nascent Afghan press is in peril

Lee Kuan Yew, the fearful visionary

BRUSSELS–Lee Kuan Yew, the man who created the modern miracle of Singapore, was one of the visionary leaders of the 20th century. But as I discovered in several conversations with him, he was also a paradoxical figure who never lost his sense of vulnerability and combativeness toward those he feared might undermine his authority.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Lee, who died March 23, impressed me when I first met him in 2001 as “probably the smartest politician I have met in more than 25 years as a journalist,” as I wrote in a 2002 column. But as respected and powerful as he was, Lee remained suspicious of critics and ready to take them to court if they challenged him or his country. The Singapore that Lee created in his 31 years as prime minister, from 1959 to 1990, was the embodiment of the globalized economy that brought immense wealth to Asia. But Lee feared that the free-trading world he had helped build might bring instability and dissent to his ordered, prosperous Singapore. He feared the mob, in the streets or online. He was a Confucian leader, not a democrat. I first met Lee in 2001, soon after I had become editor of the International Herald Tribune. The paper had fought a costly libel case some years before because of a story about the political rise of his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister. I wanted to meet Lee and make the case for free and independent journalism in the borderless world of information that was dawning in 2001. Lee seemed to accept that the open exchange of ideas was unstoppable in the Internet world, even if he didn’t like what we wrote. “I don’t think we can stop it now,” he told me. “I don’t see any alternative. You either use the Internet or you are backward.” I went back to see Lee the next year and pressed him on the issue of press freedom. Lee’s lawyers had just threatened to sue Bloomberg News over another article about his family. I asked Lee why he didn’t just brush off such criticism, much as George H.W. Bush might do if someone alleged that nepotism had benefited his son, George W. Bush, who was then president. “That’s different!” Lee insisted, rejecting the comparison to the Bush family. In Singapore, allegations of favoritism or corruption were no laughing matter. “Everybody knows that if you impugn our integrity, we must clear our name. How can it be otherwise?” I pressed him why, given the wild success of Singapore, he was threatening to sue a columnist who wrote something he didn’t like. “If he gets away, everybody gets away,” Lee replied. “More calumny is showered on us, and where do we end up?” He said that Singapore was changing, and that articles were appearing in the local press that would never have been published a few years before. But he wasn’t fully ready to relax the grip on power that had built Singapore and made it a dynamo. Lee’s story is a reminder of the brilliance that built modern Asia — in Singapore and in China, whose leaders saw Lee as a mentor and counselor. But it also illustrates the authoritarian impulse of leaders who have seen their nations rise from ruin to prosperity and are frightened that free debate will undermine a political stability that, even to the end, they fear is fragile.

Review: ‘The Interior Circuit’ by Francisco Goldman

Mexico City is home to some 20 million people, spread out in 6,400 neighborhoods. Although it is plagued by numerous problems — pollution, traffic, overcrowding and the fact that much of the city is sinking — it has been somewhat insulated from the narco-violence that has plagued much of Mexico in recent years. The megalopolis, commonly known as the Distrito Federal, or the DF, is often called a bubble. In his new book, “The Interior Circuit,” Francisco Goldman dispels this characterization as myth. Part memoir, part reportage, the book offers an insider’s account of a city of contrasts. In this kaleidoscopic telling, Goldman takes readers through Mexico City’s tree-lined plazas and maze-like streets. He shows us the fire-eaters soliciting donations at traffic lights, the people hawking pirated movies and counterfeit goods, the double-decker party buses packed with children of the elite. We feel the summer’s torrential downpours and the dread of frequent earthquakes. He writes about drugs in Tepito, a notoriously dangerous neighborhood, rampant government corruption and a culture of impunity. The book is both an homage to the (albeit flawed) city he calls home and a meditation on the many residents — himself included — who have experienced loss there. Goldman is a keen observer and an apt guide to Mexican politics and society. He has lived in Mexico City part time since 1995, and his connection deepened when he met Aura Estrada, his future wife, in 2002. The DF was Aura’s city — not only the city she was from, but also where she died after breaking her neck in a body-surfing accident in July 2007. But rather than fleeing Mexico City, Goldman decided to embrace it. In turn, the city “has nourished and invigorated” him, he writes, and “brought him ‘back to life.’ ” Goldman deftly weaves the portrait of the city with his personal story. Even in the second half of the book, which could stand alone as an investigation into the kidnapping of 13 young people from an after-hours club in May 2013, Goldman manages to tie the story back to his own. Although the causes of their losses are different, he feels a connection to those grieving families. They, like the loved ones of some 100,000 others who have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico during the past eight years, go about their daily lives, he writes, enduring “the often silently riotous inner atmosphere of traumatic grief,” forming part of “an army of exhausted, lonely ghosts.” While Goldman “felt a compulsion to draw closer to, to get to know a little better, this Mexico of violent death and trauma,” “The Interior Circuit” is fundamentally about his own loss. His story picks up where his acclaimed 2011 novel “Say Her Name” ended. Whereas “Say Her Name” movingly captures the pain Goldman felt immediately after Aura’s death, “The Interior Circuit” explores grief’s “listlessness, loneliness and withdrawal, its grueling duration,” and Goldman’s attempt to navigate his way through it and find a way forward. In the summer of 2012, with the fifth anniversary of Aura’s death approaching, Goldman decided to take up driving in Mexico City, in hopes that learning to navigate the city’s chaotic streets — including the Circuito Interior, one of its main freeways — would help him navigate his own “interior circuit” and, according to his therapist, reassert control over his life. Finding his way turned out to be as tortuous as the roads he negotiated behind the wheel. When Goldman finally did turn things around, it was in part thanks to a new relationship and the wise words of a friend who convinced him of the futility of searching for “a rock bottom that is more bottom than the one [he] lived a few years ago.” The process of writing “The Interior Circuit” also proved therapeutic: It helped him come to terms with Aura’s death and the time since. Kneeling in a church on the sixth anniversary of her death, Goldman reflects, “It happened. Six years ago today, death altered my life in a way I had never imagined anything could alter it. . . . There’s no shaking you, Death. I’m not who I was before I met you, and now we go everywhere together.” Goldman still thinks of Aura every day. “She’s a permanent part of me,” he writes. But he has also managed to forge ahead. “Though I will never be able to comprehend Aura’s death, I do think I live with it now with less resistance, less corrosively, with less panic than before.” A Mexico City Chronicle By Francisco Goldman Grove. 337 pp. $26

Remembering Steven Sotloff through his journalism

As a former editor at Time magazine, I had the privilege of briefly working with Steven Sotloff, the second American journalist believed to have been beheaded in Syria by Islamic State jihadists. Sotloff, a freelancer, disappeared in August 2013 while on a reporting trip in the environs of the Syrian city of Aleppo.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I can't pretend to know him particularly well. Nor can I fathom the depth of anguish felt by his family, who have tirelessly worked to win his freedom over the past year. And I don't have any great personal insight into what motivated him as a journalist and spurred him to venture, repeatedly, to such a dangerous part of the world. What I can point to is the breadth and commitment of his work. Sotloff, when I knew him, was based in the Libyan city of Benghazi, from where he covered the country's own tragic spiral into chaos after the fall of the dictatorship of Moammar Gaddafi. He wrote important pieces about the proliferation of weapons there and the failures of its hapless central government in the face of rising Islamist militias and other factions.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico They're worth revisiting, given that Libya is now in the grips of a low-level civil war. A range of Islamist, city and tribal militias are battling one another while two separate governments claim to be the country's true rulers. Both are laughably weak.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico At a more hopeful moment in September 2012, Sotloff observed attempts by the then fledgling government in Tripoli to rein in the spread of guns in the country. Libya was awash with all sorts of arms, a flow unleashed by the emptying of Gaddafi's arsenals as well as contributions from outside powers aiding the Libyan rebellion. The new plan was to reclaim the guns with various incentives, including raffle tickets and electronics, as Sotloff reported from Benghazi:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico But the efforts were failing and Libya's authorities had no power over the many militias who led the fight against Gaddafi but now refused to surrender their arms: "We don’t have to turn in our weapons," one Benghazi militia leader told Sotloff. The reporter concluded: "And as long as they don’t, the drive to collect the country’s weapons will be a stalled one." In the post-Gaddafi vacuum, Sotloff reported at length for Time about the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. What American readers likely paid less attention to was Sotloff's diligent chronicling of the surge in assassinations and targeted attacks on the country's top security officials, all part of the larger unraveling of the Libyan state.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "Eight months of a revolutionary war in 2011 decimated Libya’s already deeply flawed civic institutions," Sotloff wrote in November 2012. "With no security organizations to ensure order and an ineffective justice system unable to prosecute suspects, Libyans fear their country is slowly crumbling around them." Libya's feuding militias were also getting in the way of the creation of a functional national army -- the absence of which has been felt in the country's current crisis. "There are unsatisfied militias that don’t want things to succeed," a leading Libyan politician told Sotloff in 2012. "If an army is created, they will be the biggest losers." Sotloff reported in many other countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Israel and Yemen. He spent his last years focused on the war in Syria and he covered the conflict from within the country and refugee camps along its borders. He wrote memorably in Foreign Policy about his experience in the bread lines of Aleppo, among people who "fear they are stage players in a war with no end in sight."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The piece was the product of a ten-day trip to Syria's war-ravaged commercial capital at a time when Syria's "moderate" rebels still appeared to lead the fight against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. It was published on Christmas Eve. In an e-mail sent to a Time editor alongside a link to the Foreign Policy article, Sotloff wrote that the "situation is nothing like the media dispatches from the West depict it," alluding to the darker forces shaping the rebellion as well as the revolutionary fatigue of Aleppo's beleaguered populace.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "We are people not cattle," an Aleppo resident told Sotloff, as the pair watched fights break out in a long line for rations of pita bread. "But this war is slowly killing our humanity without a shot ever being fired at us."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Sotloff would return repeatedly to bear witness, a mission that led to tragedy. He was never short of courage, though. In a dispatch he wrote for the World Affairs Journal, Sotloff described what preceded his own cordial meetings with members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader, President Mohamed Morsi, was ousted by the Egyptian military in July 2013.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

2 tweets that sum up Turkey’s hypocrisy toward journalists

On Tuesday, Frederike Geerdink, a Dutch journalist who frequently covers the Kurdish minority in Turkey, announced on Twitter that she had been detained by police in the southeastern province of Diyarbakır and accused of "propaganda for terrorist organization." The detention and arrest of journalists in Turkey is sadly far from rare, but the arrest of a foreign journalist such as Geerdink is unusual. To complicate matters further, Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders is currently visiting Ankara (in a tweet, Koenders said he was "shocked" by Geerdink's arrest).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The news seemed especially odd given President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's doubling down around the same time Tuesday on comments about the freedom enjoyed by the Turkish press. As a number of people noted on Twitter (including Erik Meyersson, an academic with the Stockholm School of Economics, and Noah Blaser, an Istanbul-based journalist), the distance between these two tweets is glaring.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Geerdink has since been released, though the exact nature of the accusations against her aren't clear. Her reporting would probably have brought her into contact with groups the Turkish government considers terrorists, and her book on the 2011 Roboski airstrike (in which Turkish jets killed 34 Kurdish men and boys) also may have been a factor.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Geerdink's detention came after a a number of Turkish journalists were arrested (including Ekrem Dumanli, editor in chief of Zaman, a leading newspaper with links to the moderate Islamic Gulen movement) late last year. The Committee to Protect Journalists named Turkey the world's worst jailer of journalists in 2012 and 2013.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

The drug cartel that protected Sean Penn also terrorizes Mexican journalists

“If the Devil offers me an interview, I’d go down to hell to do it.” The phrase became famous among Mexican journalists when legendary editor Julio Scherer used it to explain his interview with Ismael Zambada, a.k.a. “El Mayo,” one of the leaders of the Sinaloa drug cartel.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Scherer didn’t have to go quite that far to meet El Mayo, one of the most elusive cartel bosses in Mexico. In spring 2010, he traveled to an undisclosed location, probably in the state of Sinaloa or in neighboring Durango, to meet Zambada. Five years later, actor Sean Penn would travel a similar road, in the same area of the Western Sierra Madre, to meet and interview El Mayo’s far more famous (or infamous) associate, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Penn’s interview, published this past week in Rolling Stone the day after El Chapo was captured, caused an uproar in Mexico. That an American actor, along with Mexican TV star Kate del Castillo, were able to meet a fugitive Guzmán turned out to be humiliating to the Mexican government, which hadn’t managed to recapture him after he escaped from prison last year. In the United States, it sparked a debate on journalistic standards and ethics, but for Mexican journalists, the interview can be painful.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For all its journalistic shortcomings — the fact that Penn gave Guzmán final approval over the story, his shallow questions and self-indulgent writing style — the story _is_ an important document in the history of Mexico’s drug war. Although it says more about Penn than it does about El Chapo, and we have to get through 20 paragraphs of an irrelevant and self-centered personal journal before getting to the actual meeting, it still does tell us something about the drug lord. We have some glimpses of how he thinks, such as when he acknowledges that the narcotics trade will go on after he’s dead. And we see how how he thinks he can deceive the Mexican public, saying that he resorts to violence to defend himself but does not start trouble. From a man linked, directly or indirectly, to thousands of murders in Mexico, this is revealing.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The interview is also important, in a cynical way, for what it never bothers to acknowledge: The way El Chapo and his criminal organization, and its rivals, have dealt with the press. Penn might have thought his life, or at least his private parts, were in danger as he traveled the rugged terrain of the Sierra Madre. Unlike virtually every journalist covering drug cartels in Mexico, he had almost nothing to worry about. Last fall, as the Mexican Navy’s special operations unit was hunting El Chapo in the Sierra Madre (and, though we didn’t know it at the time, after Penn had met Guzmán), I was asked by some colleagues about the security precautions they should take while trying to cover the story in the small towns where commandos had carried out raids. The terrain was difficult to cross, and transportation was mostly in trucks on dirt roads. But the real danger was the armed gangs that formed El Chapo’s protective cocoon. The risk of bumping into the wrong people was too great. However, journalists traveled down there and managed to report on the raids at a great personal risk. Did Penn run the same risk? Of course not. He was able to travel those roads protected by the very same people who made it dangerous for every other journalist to cover El Chapo’s hideouts. Penn was protected by the people who did not want other reporters nosing around. The fear of being targeted in a government raid that Penn mentioned in Rolling Stone also proved unfounded, after it was reported that Navy commandos held back their operations because the actors were still in the hot zone.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Once he got to Guzmán’s hideout, Penn was treated to a feast of carne asada, tacos and tequila. He might not have known similar meals happen regularly in several Mexican cities when crime bosses want to meet with reporters. But these are not optional affairs — either the journalists attend willingly, or they’re taken at gunpoint. Once they’re there, reporters might find the same buffet that Penn shared with El Chapo. Something else is served besides tacos, though: a very specific threat about what journalists can and cannot publish or broadcast; a very thorough list of “do’s and don’ts” for reporters and editors who cover local crime; a very clear mention of the price to be paid if they fall out of line. Obviously, El Chapo would not subject a Hollywood movie star to such treatment, especially when he was seeking Penn and Del Castillo’s help to make a movie about himself. That just underscores how different Penn’s experience was from what actual journalists go through trying to cover the drug war in Mexico.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In the last decade, at least 17 journalists have been killed or disappeared just in Sinaloa, Durango, Chihuahua and Sonora, the states where El Chapo was reported to have been hiding out since his first escape from prison in 2001, according to the International Center for Journalists and Freedom House. Many others who cover crime and drug trafficking have been kidnapped, beaten or threatened: Since 2000, dozens of Mexican journalists have been killed or made to vanish. It’s impossible to know which cases can be attributed to the Sinaloa cartel or to its rivals, but most of them are the direct or indirect product of a wave of violence and impunity unleashed by criminal bosses, including Penn’s chivalrous, flatulence-ignoring host El Chapo.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I have seen some cases closely. In the summer of 2010, Sinaloa cartel henchmen kidnapped three of my colleagues who were covering a prison riot in Gómez Palacio, in Durango, where the drug trade is controlled by El Chapo’s group. The reporters were later released. One year later, unidentified people set a car on fire in the main entrance to the offices of El Siglo de Torreón, the newspaper where I was editorial director at the time. The attack came a day after we published a story about the arrest of an important Sinaloa cartel boss in the region.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Did El Chapo personally order these attacks? Probably not. But when he sits at the top of the organization, he bears responsibility for them, because he knows the “benefits” of instilling self-censorship in the press very well. From Penn and Rolling Stone, Guzmán obtained the same discretion criminal bosses routinely impose on Mexican reporters and news outlets. The difference is that Penn and Rolling Stone granted it after a nice meal in the Sierra Madre and a series of polite messages, while journalists in Mexico usually face the barrel of a gun. There is a self-dramatizing tone of false heroics in Penn’s narrative. If he wants to know the real danger in covering the cartels, maybe he should get a job at any paper in Sinaloa or Durango and work the crime beat on a daily basis, along with dozens of brave reporters and editors. There may be fewer charter flights involved, and he might even have to learn to use a laptop. While he wouldn’t have to submit his final draft for murderers to review, he’d live every day with the fear that one of his stories might provoke the wrath of some cartel boss somewhere. And suddenly, he’d be just another statistic.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

China harassing and imprisoning Chinese working for foreign news outlets

BEIJING — Zhang Miao has now been in prison for almost four months. She is a Chinese researcher for a German newspaper in China, and her arrest has sparked fear, outrage and some soul-searching among foreign news organizations in China about the role of their Chinese assistants. Reporting from China has become increasingly difficult and harrowing in recent years for both Chinese and foreign media, with a sweeping crackdown on press freedom since China’s President Xi Jinping took power. According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, China had more journalists in prison last year than any other country. Most were Chinese citizens. For years, the most common threat to foreign news outlets has been expulsion. But increasingly, Chinese authorities are attacking news bureaus at their most vulnerable point: their dependence on Chinese citizens who translate and facilitate their coverage. Zhang Miao’s case — detailed for the first time by the German newspaper, Die Zeit, last week — shocked many because of how aggressively authorities have punished Zhang and threatened the German reporter she worked with. “It’s a scary thing for all of us because it shows how serious and how far authorities will go if they want to create a case against you,” said a U.S. reporter, speaking anonymously to avoid drawing government scrutiny. Working with news assistants, known as “fixers,” is a common practice around the world for foreign news bureaus. But unlike in most countries, researchers in China are strictly regulated by the government and subject to complicated rules that govern everything from their ability to meet interview subjects on their own to banning their names on story bylines. Those rules forbid them from being hired outright by foreign news outlets and instead require them to be hired under contracts with China’s government — an arrangement designed to keep them under the authorities’ watch. In the past year, news assistants have reported a sharp uptick in harassment. In a survey conducted last spring by the Foreign Correspondents Club of China, more than half the responding correspondents said their assistants had been harassed, up from 35 percent in 2013. A few were detained overnight and pressured into spying on foreign journalists for the government. Others said their relatives have been threatened and pressured. Often, there is an invitation to “drink tea” with the authorities — a euphemism for meetings in which the news assistants are questioned about their bureau’s reporting activities. Zhang, 40, had worked for two years as a news assistant to Angela Köckritz, 37, a correspondent for the Hamburg-based Die Zeit weekly newspaper. When pro-democracy protests broke out in Hong Kong this fall, Zhang flew with Köckritz to cover them . Zhang later returned to Beijing while Köckritz remained in Hong Kong. Shortly afterward, she was arrested by police at an artists’ colony on the outskirts of Beijing. According to Köckritz, Zhang had felt inspired by the protests, and said so on Chinese social media posts. She was taken away with 11 others as they were on their way to a poetry reading in support of the protests. In a phone interview, Köckritz said she met with Chinese authorities several times — and later with German embassy officials — to lobby for Zhang’s release. The meetings grew increasingly acrimonious. “It was scary,” Köckritz said. She detailed the experience in a 6,500-word piece in Die Zeit. “They play all these psychological games on you, and they spin everything to try to push you into losing control and saying or doing something irrational or stupid.” During her last meeting with authorities, lasting 41/2 hours, they began suggesting that Köckritz was a foreign spy who went to Hong Kong to help organize the protests. Worried for her safety, Köckritz left China the next day. Zhang was not allowed to see a lawyer until Dec. 10, more than two months into her detention, in violation of Chinese law. The German newspaper said it held off at first on releasing details of Zhang’s arrest in case it might hurt diplomatic efforts to free her, but more than three months later there has been little movement. Two weeks after fleeing, Köckritz returned to China for a short time to pack up her belongings and finish reporting for a book. She now lives in Berlin. Die Zeit and the German embassy said they are continuing to press for Zhang’s release. When asked about Zhang’s detention in October, China’s foreign ministry said Zhang had not been registered with the government as a properly accredited assistant for Die Zeit. Some news outlets have opted against registering their assistants to avoid a $100-a-month “management fee” and other even higher costs charged by the government, and out of concern that doing so might attract increased government surveillance. But others believe that this exposes news assistants to greater risk and has no effect on already ubiquitous surveillance. During her interrogations, authorities told Köckritz she had no legal authority to intercede for Zhang because she was not a registered as working for Die Zeit. Some correspondents have questioned Köckritz for not registering Zhang and not steering her away from getting socially involved with activists. But they and human rights groups are quick to point out that neither activity — even if for some reason deemed illegal — justifies months of imprisonment. In an e-mail, Moritz Mueller-Wirth, an editor at Die Zeit, said the decision to not register Zhang was made by the newspaper’s editorial board and was not for financial reasons. It was, he wrote, to shield her “from the supervision of the state security. When Zhang Miao was imprisoned we understood that not to register her was a mistake, as it impairs our legal means to help.” Zhang’s case has stirred up long-held frustrations among news assistants who feel they bear great risk sometimes, with little recognition and low pay, for foreign news companies. One longtime researcher for a Western broadcaster said there is no choice. “You can either waste your life away working for China’s censored local media where you can’t explore any sensitive issues, or you can work for what you actually believe in at a foreign bureau,” she said. Many complain that there is little prospect for advancement because Chinese citizens are banned from becoming reporters for foreign news companies. Others describe pressure from friends and relatives who view them as spies or unpatriotic for exposing China’s dirty laundry to outsiders. “There is more risk for us than any one else in the bureau. If things continue to get worse, everyone has a bottom line,” said one researcher for a newspaper from a smaller nation. “For me, if it starts affecting my family members, there’s no way I can continue.”

Aziz Alwan, a veteran Iraqi journalist, dies at 57

Aziz Alwan, a veteran Iraqi journalist who covered the Iraq War for The Washington Post and National Public Radio and served as a resourceful in-country guide to international reporters, died March 29 in Baghdad. He was 57. Mr. Alwan died after he was taken to a hospital for treatment of stomach problems, his family said. From 2008 to 2012, Mr. Alwan was an integral member of The Post’s Baghdad bureau, covering the war during some of its most tumultuous periods, including the sectarian conflict and the political turmoil that emerged after the U.S. military withdrawal in late 2011. He later joined NPR, reporting on the rise of the Islamic State militant group and the growing violence across Iraq. Mr. Alwan could appear quiet and reticent, friends and colleagues recalled. But those fortunate enough to know him well found under the surface a generous and sensitive man with a wealth of knowledge and insight about Iraq’s complexities — an asset that was invaluable to the Western correspondents who worked with him. “To me, he embodied both the pain and the fortitude of his country,” said Dan Zak, a Post feature writer who worked with Mr. Alwan in Iraq. “He was prickly, tender, weary, wise.” In a divided country where mistrust runs deep, Mr. Alwan’s mild-mannered personality and diplomatic demeanor allowed him to have good relationships with people on all sides of Iraq’s politics, military, religious institutions and tribes. They all seemed to trust him. During moments of chaos — and there were many in Iraq — Mr. Alwan was a steady force, exuding a quiet yet phenomenal courage. Leila Fadel, a former Baghdad bureau chief for The Post, recalled how Mr. Alwan calmly moved her and other colleagues away from the windows and into a safer room when a hotel in their compound was bombed — sending shards of glass flying into the office — and gunfire erupted outside. “Aziz’s arm was wounded and his ribs bruised,” recalled Fadel, now NPR’s Cairo correspondent. “He told no one, ignored the pain and started pulling others into the room until he collapsed.” As he covered Iraq’s tragedy, it was not uncommon to see Mr. Alwan emotionally affected by his nation’s suffering. At the end of an interview last year with an asylum-seeking family that lost two children at sea while trying to reach Europe, Mr. Alwan was in tears, recalled Alice Fordham, an NPR Middle East correspondent who worked closely with him. He traveled far and wide across Iraq to give voice to his country’s voiceless, including with Anthony Shadid, a Pulitzer-winning former Post correspondent who died in Syria four years ago. “Aziz was never scared, never flustered,” Fordham recalled. “He’d seen it all before, way too many times. His usual response was to look mildly disdainful and light a cigarette.” Aziz Jawad Alwan was born July 1, 1958, in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. He was one of 10 children. After graduating from the National Security College in Baghdad, he held a variety of jobs with the Iraqi government, including a posting in New York. By the late 1990s, he was living in Lebanon with his family, returning to Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled in the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. For many Western correspondents newly arrived in Baghdad, Mr. Alwan doubled as translator and encyclopedia, quickly bringing them up to speed on Iraq’s politics. In one instance, he took a Post reporter on her first day in the city to a protest inspired by the revolutions unfolding in the Arab world at the time. There was one problem, though: The government had imposed a daytime curfew on cars. So Mr. Alwan decided to walk miles through the battered capital to reach the protest, all the while explaining to the reporter why it mattered. “He was brave and tireless, and he knew how important it was to witness this uprising firsthand,” recalled the reporter, Stephanie McCrummen. Mr. Alwan also had a lighter side, poking fun at his own tribe at times and driving around Baghdad in a bright-red car, smiling good-naturedly at the ribbing he got from colleagues. He once crossed a river in a rickety boat after a bridge was blown up, despite not being able to swim. His survivors include his father, his wife, three grown daughters and two grandchildren. Even after he left The Post, Mr. Alwan remained in close contact with former colleagues, helping some get letters of recommendation to apply for asylum in the United States. He was well aware of the dangers of working in Iraq, so much so that last year he telephoned another former Iraqi correspondent for The Post and had his daughter come on the line. “He told her, ‘If I die, call Zaid,’ ” recalled Zaid Sabah, a journalist with Bloomberg News in Washington. “And she did two days ago. This will live with me my entire life.” Read more **Washington Post obituaries **

Mexico’s elite desperately want their own Emmanuel Macron

MEXICO CITY — When Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto met his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, in Paris last week to talk climate, trade and migration, the reaction back home was gushing. "There’s chemistry between Peña Nieto and Macron," read a headline in the Crónica newspaper, which followed several weeks during which Mexico’s chattering classes fawned over the French leader.  Indeed, no fewer than five probable presidential candidates have been named the "Mexican Macron," the man who will supposedly unite the country, fend off populism and impose pragmatic, centrist rule. Amid widespread anger at Peña Nieto — whose approval rating wallows in the teens — and the endemically corrupt political class in general, Mexico’s political and social elite see such a mythic figure as the way to stave off anti-establishment left-wing candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador.  The search is so fevered that it embraces candidates who seemingly have little in common. Some are independents. Some are partisans. Some are controversial and close to the current administration — like Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, who invited President Trump to the presidential palace for an ill-fated appearance. Most are hardly fresh faces at all. But the Macron template appears too attractive to pass up, even for the establishment titan of Mexican politics, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI. Several of the would-be Macrons come from the PRI, which has previously tried running young, supposedly reform-minded politicians — only to end up with a batch of governors confronting graft charges. "The PRI has basically settled on that strategy of presentation," said Federico Estévez, a political science professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. "It’s going to be somebody who stakes out a very normal position for a Mexican politician with respect to the world, which is open, liberal international, free trade, all of that, with a few rhetorical tricks to makes sure you know this person is actually Mexican." "The rest of it is [raising the] fears of the worst," said Estévez — meaning attacks on López Obrador. "It’s all negative." The elites’ villain, López Obrador, is a former mayor of Mexico City and perennial presidential hopeful. His opponents have branded him "populist" and "messianic," often making dark comparisons to Venezuela’s late socialist leader, Hugo Chávez. Yet some observers see an irony at play, with his opponents seeking their own messiah rather than strengthening institutions or the rule of law. "It’s ironic that the defenders of the idea [of a Mexican Macron] place so much faith in a single man — a nonexistent man — when they criticize that same thing about [López Obrador] and his followers," Merino said. Most observers, in fact, don’t see any Macrons in Mexican politics. "It’s a political fantasy. There is nobody even close to that sort of figure on the Mexican political landscape, with that sort of ascending career, that intellectual firepower, that media talent," said Carlos Bravo Regidor, a professor at the Center for Research and Teaching of Economics. The Mexican Macron idea is thought to have started with former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda, a longtime proponent of independent candidacies.   When asked if he was the Mexican Macron, though, he instead fired back at his potential rivals. "Who would be Marine Le Pen in Mexico?" he responded. "I think all the political parties are Marine Le Pen."

What happened to Gustavito, the beloved hippo at El Salvador’s National Zoo?

SAN SALVADOR — Late one Sunday night in February, El Salvador’s secretary of culture alerted the world to a “cowardly and inhumane attack.” The perpetrators had used “severe and overwhelming blows.” A beloved national figure was gone. Gustavito, the lone hippopotamus at the National Zoo of El Salvador, had been killed. It takes a lot to shock El Salvador, one of the world’s most violent countries, but Gustavito’s death had done it. Tens of thousands of mourners streamed into the zoo, a leafy enclave in southern San Salvador, to pay their respects. The bereaved held candlelit vigils. When the environment secretary addressed reporters, she was in tears. Had gang violence gotten this out of control? “Forgive us, Gustavito,” one resident tweeted, reflecting the national shame. Within a couple of days, however, the first cracks appeared in the official story. Had Gustavito actually been stabbed in the snout by vicious assailants using an ice-pick-like weapon, as zoo director Vladlen Henriquez alleged? Or did the hippo get sick several days before, as anonymous zoo workers leaked to the local media, then lose the ability to eat and, with poor medical care, fall onto some sharp parts of his enclosure? Ricardo Amaya, the union boss for the zoo workers, could smell one thing. “There is negligence here by the zoo director and the veterinarians,” he told reporters. These initial suspicions soon twisted into more elaborate ones. Was Gustavito’s death part of a conspiracy to shutter the zoo, pushed by shadowy business interests who want to build some mega-project on the property? El Salvador’s attorney general’s office was called in to investigate. Before the investigators could finish their work, however, news of more bizarre occurrences trickled out of the zoo. On April 23, five scarlet macaw parrots were stolen. Four days later, an 8-year-old puma, Soberana, died of intestinal trouble, the same day that a spider monkey drowned in a pond. Perhaps the strangest incident took place April 10,when the zebra died. Zoo authorities explained that an earthquake struck in the middle of a heavy rain, presumably spooking the zebra so much that it ran headfirst into the fence of its pen. “It seems that something weird and abnormal is happening at the zoo, but nobody, absolutely nobody, does anything about it,” Ricardo Chacón, editor in chief of El Diario de Hoy, wrote in an April 29 editorial. “This is almost a syndrome.” The attorney general’s office seemed to discount the Gustavito murder theory, announcing that the animal died of a pulmonary hemorrhage. “You don’t see ice-pick penetration, as was said initially,” one of the prosecutors said, adding that the wounds in Gustavito’s mouth could have come from his own tusks. San Salvador Mayor Nayib Bukele finds the zoo’s explanations of its mysterious deaths even less credible. After Gustavito died, Bukele proposed closing the zoo and relocating all 600 of the animals to a wildlife sanctuary in Mexico. “The zoo here . . . it’s depressing,” Bukele said in an interview. “We have a lion that has eaten his own tail. I’m not joking. Literally, he ate his tail.” He also cited a photo on social media that he said showed four monkeys with about 100 rats eating their food. The zoo is large and jungly, with a big lagoon where the spider monkeys romp in the trees, and rocky outcroppings for the tigers and lions. On a recent Saturday morning, there were few visitors; since Gustavito’s death, visits have dropped by half. Born in captivity in 2002 at a zoo in Guatemala, the hippo was purchased for $5,000 by El Salvador’s zoo two years later. When the zoo’s elephant died in 2010, Gustavito was the main remaining attraction. “He was famous,” one zoo custodian told me. “Famous like Madonna.” Gustavito lived in the herbivore section at the back of the zoo, in a grassy pen with several trees and a concrete bathing pool. He ate huge quantities of bananas, celery, spinach, watermelon and cucumber and spent a lot of time submerged. A two-story school and several houses border his pen, so if someone wanted to break into the zoo, this would be a good place to try. Henriquez, the zoo director, stands by his murder theory and denies any wrongdoing. In recent years, Gustavito, who weighed more than 3,000 pounds, had minor ailments and injuries, but he finished 2016 “apparently in good health,” according to a 23-page report prepared by the zoo. In early February, zoo staff noticed that Gustavito looked “pale” and “ashen,” the report said. He was not eating well and was constipated. A team of veterinarians gave him medicine . His “rosy coloring” returned, the report said. Then, on Feb. 23, a zookeeper alerted superiors that Gustavito had not eaten his prior day’s food. He would not leave the water. Staff saw bruises on his eyebrows and jaw. When they coaxed him out, they noticed cuts and puncture-type wounds on his sides, limbs and inside his mouth. The stress had apparently disrupted his digestive system. His stomach was distended. He was unable to defecate, and he seemed in pain. Inside his pen, zoo staff found a three-inch piece of corrugated iron rod and several small stones, according to the report. Henriquez said they also found a hole in the wire fencing, suggesting that one or more people could have entered. “He had cuts on all sides, which indicates that it was not a fall,” Henriquez said in an interview. “If he had fallen, he would have had wounds on one side.” “The animal had been attacked,” he added. Over the next few days, despite treatment and medication, Gustavito refused to eat. On Feb. 25, zoo staff noticed that he expelled feces from his nose, a sign he was severely obstructed, according to the zoo report. He was given a nasal catheter. He later lost coordination and fell off the lip of the pool. His breathing became labored. The next day, Gustavito’s condition worsened, and he died that night. The cause, according to head veterinarian Virna Ortiz, was cardiorespiratory failure and paralysis of the digestive system due to “stress, the product of an aggression suffered by the animal.” A Brazilian veterinarian, Rodrigo Teixeira, who happened to be in El Salvador when Gustavito got sick, defended the zoo staff. “I saw a team of professionals very involved in the case and very worried about the situation,” said Teixeira, who hosts a reality show on Animal Planet in Brazil. “They have and provide good food and medicine for the animals. During my stay, I did not feel or see a lack of resources in the zoo.” That is small comfort to the zoo’s regular visitors. “It’s a shame,” said Roxana Romero, 20, as she sat on a bench in front of Gustavito’s empty pen. “On the weekends, this place used to be full. Now that the hippopotamus isn’t here, there aren’t big-name animals anymore.” Her sister, Veronica, agreed that Gustavito left a giant hole. “He was my favorite,” she said.

The top story in Mexico is about a feisty journalist who exposed the first lady’s secret mansion, and lost her job

MEXICO CITY -- It's been nearly a month since Carmen Aristegui, Mexico's most famous journalist, was fired from her radio program after investigating the first lady's real estate, but her prominent colleagues have not stopped rallying to her cause. On Wednesday, a group of journalists and academics argued that her firing amounted to violating the rights of the Mexican audience's access to information, and said they are starting a legal process to try to get her reinstated to her popular morning program.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Denise Dresser, a prominent Mexican columnist and professor, said that it was "unacceptable in a democracy" that a company given a government concession for news content "censors and controls the content that the audience receives." "And that's why we ask today that the citizens who are aware of their rights be willing to fight for them and join together," Dresser said at a news conference in Mexico City. The group said they were encouraging supporters to file legal complaints based on a telecommunications law that protects the rights of audiences. But at the same time, they acknowledged that their petitions and the "amparo," a Mexican legal procedure intended to defend human rights, was largely a symbolic gesture to rally public support for Aristegui's cause. "It's a symbolic way to protest in front of the institutions" and mobilize people, said Lorenzo Meyer, a well-known Mexican historian. "To have an informed citizenry gives power to the people." Since the firing last month of Aristegui and her investigative team by MVS Communications, the issue has become an intense political issue in Mexico, and a blow to the administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto. The proximate cause of Aristegui's firing last month was her participation in MexicoLeaks, a new Web site modeled after Wikileaks intended to solicit secret documents about government corruption. MVS said that her involvement was done without their knowledge and they fired two members of her team. When she demanded their reinstatement, and disagreed with conditions imposed on her reporters, she was fired as well and her team disbanded. But Aristegui and her supporters believed the real reason she was ousted had to do with her aggressive reporting on Peña Nieto's government. Last year, Aristegui's team found that the first lady, Angelica Rivera, had a luxurious white house built for her by a company who had received millions of dollars in government contracts from Peña Nieto when he was governor of Mexico state. The Mexican "White House" scandal later grew when a similar arrangement was discovered between the company and the finance minister. Aristegui last month told  Proceso newsmagazine that when it came to her firing, "all roads lead to the White House." A spokesman for MVS was not immediately available for comment. The subtext surrounding much of the anxiety inspired by Aristegui's case is a fear that Mexico is returning to its more authoritarian past. After a 12-year hiatus, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (know as the PRI), returned to power in 2012, and with it memories of its seven-decade stranglehold on Mexican power, and its penchant for media censorship, back-room deals and intimidation of media companies.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The loss of Aristegui is important, Meyer said, because "it was one of the few spaces where they discussed what was important and relevant." "In reality, they are cutting the most important space where citizens can have access, Monday through Friday, to the most important news, and to criticism," he said. "This system needs criticism." **Read more:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Mexico wanted James Bond, but only if the country looked as good as he does    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Is Luis Estrada the conscience of Mexico?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Who’s in charge in Michoacan? Mexican government and militias struggle for control.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Former Mexican president calls Trump ‘a false prophet’ and warns, ‘Wake up, America!’

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox said Donald Trump is "a false prophet" in the model of 20th-century Latin American dictators and charged that the Republican presidential nominee was a messianic figure trying to dupe U.S. voters by playing to their fears and worst instincts. "Wake up, America!" Fox implored repeatedly in a wide-ranging interview Monday at The Washington Post's headquarters. "I want to warn people here in the United States to watch out for this false prophet that promised gold, that promised paradise, that promised everything." Fox has been a sharp and vocal critic of Trump for many months now, after the celebrity mogul launched his presidential campaign last year by slamming Mexican Americans and promising to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border to keep undocumented immigrants out. Fox compared Trump to a long line of dictators, saying that as a Latin American, he recognizes "Trump's genius and his DNA." "We've had many like him throughout Latin America — the Hugo Chávezes, the Fidel Castros, the Kirchners in Argentina, the Peróns in Argentina," Fox said. "Very messianic, very demagogic. They tell you: 'Don't worry, you don't have a job? I'm going to give you a job. You have fear? I'm going to build a wall for you so that you don't have fear.' He has followers, like a false prophet. So please, wake up, America! That's not the way to go." Fox stopped short of labeling Trump a racist, but he said he thinks Trump's racially incendiary rhetoric is what has alienated so many Mexicans and Mexican Americans. "We never hear him speaking about compassion, forgiveness," Fox said. "We just hear him with a stick, like the ugly gringo of the 20th century." Fox said Mexicans see Trump "as a piñata." He said that a couple days earlier, he broke a Trump-modeled piñata in Los Angeles. "It's on Facebook. After I broke the piñata, I got my hand into the head of this Trump piñata, and I thought there was going to be fruit and gifts in the piñata. But it was empty. No brain inside. It's incredible. It's so empty." Fox, who served as president from 2000 to 2006, is a center-right leader who formed a close relationship with President George W. Bush and has a celebrated career in business. He is an advocate of the North American Free Trade Agreement and took issue with Trump's opposition to NAFTA and other trade accords. "You cannot lead without trade," Fox said. "You cannot lead on four walls. You cannot build your own house and forget about your neighbors and forget about the rest of the world." Fox also criticized current Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto for inviting Trump to visit Mexico City a couple of weeks ago and meeting with him. "Putting out the red carpet for this crazy guy to come as a nobody — he's a nobody right now. He doesn't have any decision power," Fox said. "So why do you invite him to speak directly, eye to eye, to a president? That was a big, big, big mistake by Peña Nieto." Fox showered praise on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, and said she was warm and would be seen around the world as an inspirational and uplifting leader. “You’re electing the leader of the world, and we need a compassionate leader, very strong, like the iron lady, Margaret Thatcher — firmness, strength, but at the same time like a caring and loving mother," Fox said. Reflecting on a Trump presidency, he added, “Sitting in that chair, the presidential chair of the United States, where Abraham Lincoln sat, where Washington sat, President Kennedy, President Reagan, with elegance, with authority, with consideration to everybody in the world — how can this guy sit there? That blond hair sitting in that chair? I just cannot envision it.”

Mexico’s president apologized for a corruption scandal. But the nightmare goes on for the reporter who uncovered it.

MEXICO CITY — As he signed into law new anti-corruption measures earlier this week, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto took the opportunity to apologize for one of the defining scandals of his tenure: the purchase by his wife of a $7 million mansion through a favored government contractor. Peña Nieto acknowledged that the "White House" scandal, as it came to be known, had battered his government's credibility, even though he claimed his family had done nothing illegal. "With all humility, I ask your forgiveness," he said. "I reiterate my sincere and profound apology for the offense and indignation I have caused you." But while Peña Nieto apologized, the news network that aired the story remains locked in dispute with the reporter who broke it, the famous Mexican television journalist Carmen Aristegui.  Now that Aristegui has contributed to a new book, "La Casa Blanca de Peña Nieto," that dispute has flared yet again. The president of MVS, Joaquin Vargas, has sued both Aristegui, who wrote the prologue, and the publisher, Penguin Random House Editorial Group, over his depiction in her introduction. (The book was written by Daniel Lizarraga, Rafael Cabrera, Irving Huerta and Sebastian Barragan, reporters who worked on the original story with Aristegui). Vargas's suit demands that the book be taken off the shelves and destroyed, that Aristegui offer a public apology, and that any future copies do not include Aristegui's prologue, according to lawyers for Aristegui and the publisher, who spoke to reporters Thursday. Aristegui described the lawsuit, filed in late May, as part of a sustained campaign of harassment and bullying stemming from her coverage, plus an attack on freedom of speech. If Vargas's suit alleging "moral damage" wins, then "no one is safe, not us, nor our colleagues in other parts of the country," she said. Felipe Chao, vice president of institutional relations and communications at MVS, said that Joaquin Vargas found the prologue "offensive." "The prologue has declarations that are offensive to his person, that make accusations that are baseless and without proof," he said. Chao said Vargas was particularly upset by Aristegui's claim that Vargas, who had earlier defended her work, "finally succumbed" to pressure from the politically powerful, resulting in her firing. Chao said Vargas was not interested in money from the lawsuit. "What the lawyers are asking for is that Carmen proves what she's claiming in the prologue, or that she retracts it publicly," he said. A lawyer for the publisher, Quetzalli De la Concha, said the request to separate the prologue from the book was "absurd" as it has to do with the "destruction, mutilation and modification" of a book, which undermines freedom of expression and the rights of the author. Aristegui's original story centered on a mansion in the luxurious Lomas de Chapultepec neighborhood, purchased by first lady Angelica Rivera on credit from an entity that was part of Grupo Higa, a company owned by Juan Armando Hinojosa Cantú, which had received millions of dollars in contracts from Peña Nieto when he was governor of the state of Mexico. The company had also won a contract, subsequently canceled, to build a high-speed train between Mexico City and Queretaro, about 120 miles northwest of the capital. Rivera later returned the mansion, and a government investigation subsequently found no wrongdoing by Peña Nieto or his wife. But the scandal contributed to Peña Nieto's plummeting approval ratings and the sense that corruption was one of the central failings of his government. That issue has dogged the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, which took a hit in state and local elections last month, as it gears up for the next presidential election in 2018. Peña Nieto signed new laws that would increase oversight of public officials, but critics said the measures did not go far enough.

4 threats to the media under President Trump

President-elect Donald Trump said during the campaign that he was “running against the crooked media.” He referred to journalists as “dishonest,” “disgusting” and “scum.” But beyond the insults and the accusations of a conspiracy against him, Trump also raised the specter of concrete threats to the press. Here are four: “Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems,” Trump said at a rally in February, referring to media companies. “They're gonna have such problems. . . . I'm going to open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”   In other words, journalists in the United States cannot be found guilty of libel if they make honest mistakes; in England, they can. The “actual malice” standard exists so that news outlets can act as watchdogs without constantly fearing financial ruin resulting from errors made in the act of good-faith reporting.  As president, Trump will have the power to nominate at least one — and possibly several — Supreme Court justices. If he alters the court's ideology, Trump could, in theory, create the conditions for a long-standing libel protection to be overturned. As a candidate, Trump ignored the norms of media accessibility. For months, his campaign maintained a blacklist of news outlets (including The Washington Post) to which it refused to grant event credentials. Trump never opened up portions of fundraisers to the media, as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did. Trump refused to allow a protective media pool to follow his every move, something Romney, Obama, John McCain and George W. Bush all permitted. Trump went so far as to block his media corps from traveling with him on the same airplane — and wouldn't even pose for an end-of-campaign photo with the reporters who covered him, as is customary.      It is hard to imagine a President Trump sending the same kind of message. On his final day of campaigning, Trump told supporters it is “good news” that “the Times is going out of business pretty soon” (not true) while the crowd chanted “CNN sucks!” A few weeks earlier, Trump told voters to “forget the press; read the Internet.” The media business is tough. But the next president is a man who actively undermines trust in journalism and roots for the demise of major publications. That can't help.

Journalists can face danger, hardships when reporting from overseas

People who report news sometimes find themselves in the news. This is especially true for foreign correspondents, who risk their lives to bring us important stories from dangerous parts of the world. Reporting from war zones and trouble spots has always been risky. But in recent years it’s become more so, as terrorists, drug lords and even governments seek to control the flow of information. More than 1,000 journalists have been killed worldwide since 1992 — and thousands more have been attacked, kidnapped or imprisoned. It’s not just war correspondents at risk. Recent attack victims include journalists covering the Ebola epidemic in Africa and cartoonists at a French newspaper that pokes fun at political subjects. Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian was arrested in Iran last July with his wife, who also is a journalist. She was later released, but he is on trial on charges that include spying, which he has denied. His trial is closed to the public. To learn more about the life of a foreign correspondent, Kids-Post’s Marylou Tousignant interviewed Tim Craig. Before becoming The Post’s bureau chief in Pakistan, Craig wrote about D.C. area news. He has also covered the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. **Why do The Post and other news organizations have reporters, photographers and other people stationed in foreign countries?** News that happens in faraway places such as Iraq or Afghanistan is very important to the United States. Going there and reporting what we find — even if the job is dangerous — helps people decide whether they should care about what’s going on in those countries. **What draws you personally to dangerous places?** Experiencing up close how many problems still exist in the world; seeing the struggles and challenges that soldiers and police face in trying to keep an area peaceful, and how hard it is for people to live in areas when there is war; and gaining a better understanding of how people from different cultures and countries live. **What do you like about your job?** I like being able to talk to lots of different people about their problems and concerns. Every day I go and find people who want to tell me how different their life is from mine. Sometimes the job can make you sad. You have to talk to kids who don’t get enough to eat, or to someone whose mother or father was killed, or someone who is being bullied because of his or her religion or ethnicity. But then I get to try to help these people by writing about their lives and problems. I also like being able to travel a lot, for work and vacations. In just the past two years I have been to Pakistan, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, France, Monaco, Malta, Italy, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, Canada and Mexico — in addition to the United States. **In movies and books, being a foreign correspondent is often shown as exciting. Do you think the job has become more dangerous recently?** Yes, being a foreign correspondent is getting more dangerous. Before, when journalists covered a war, the soldiers fighting each other usually did not try to harm or capture a journalist. So, reporters could move around more easily and collect information. Now, terrorists are also trying to kill or capture journalists. This means that in some places it’s very hard for reporters to move around and talk to people. **Do you worry about your own safety? How do you deal with that?** Yes, I do worry, but I try not to think about it all the time. In Pakistan, where I live, many places are still safe enough for me to travel to without having to worry a lot about being injured, killed or kidnapped. There are, however, some places where it’s dangerous for me to go, and where I have to think about my safety all the time. Generally, it’s best to travel with someone else so that we can help each other if something goes wrong. In dangerous places, I also try not to stay in one spot for too long. **Have you ever been arrested, or threatened with arrest, as a journalist?** Not in a foreign country, but I was arrested once working as a journalist in the United States. About 15 years ago, I was working at the Baltimore Sun newspaper in Maryland. I was reporting a story about crime in Baltimore when a police officer arrested me for not obeying his order to leave the area. I spent about six hours in jail before being released. So, journalists who work in the United States can also be arrested and face danger, just like those overseas. **What has been your most difficult foreign posting and why?** Countries can be difficult for different reasons. Iraq, for example, was difficult because there were lots of bombings. In Afghanistan, it can be difficult because terrorists are now trying to kill journalists and foreigners who work for charities. Pakistan can be difficult because the electricity goes out a lot, the tap water is not safe to drink and sometimes I get sick. But I consider myself lucky. Many, many journalists have worked in far more challenging environments. **What are the most important qualities or skills a foreign correspondent needs?** Being independent and able to quickly make decisions. Being a good planner in order to reach places that may be hard to get to by car or plane. And being a good listener. **Finally, when did you know you wanted to be a journalist?** Even as a child, I always read the newspaper and kept track of the news. . . . When I was outside playing with friends during summer vacation, I would rush home about 3 p.m. to read the afternoon paper. I am not sure when I decided I wanted to be a foreign correspondent. But my very first job in journalism was working in West Baltimore, the neighborhood where riots took place two months ago. Thinking back, my experience there prepared me for what I do now. Some of the problems I saw in Baltimore — shootings, people who didn’t have enough money, concerns about safety — are the same as what I now face in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Defying the Islamic State and other stories of courage from global journalists

RECENTLY THE Islamic State in Raqqa sent an ominous message to an exiled Syrian journalist. Tell us who is filing covertly from the occupied city, the terrorists warned, or we will execute your father. The editor refused to name names. His father was shot to death. We heard this story last week from AbdAlaziz Alhamza, who works for the same journalism collective as the grieving editor: Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. With a dozen reporters still filing from Raqqa, Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently is one of the few sources of independent news from inside its terrorized land of lashings, slavery, beheadings and crucifixions. The collective is one of four 2015 International Press Freedom awardees who will be honored by the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York City on Tuesday. The awards reflect both the lengths dictators will go to silence free speech — and the creativity and almost unimaginable courage that journalists summon in response. The other honorees are a Malaysian cartoonist, Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque, whose work under the pen name Zunar appears only online because the government allows no newspaper to carry his work; the Zone 9 bloggers, an Ethiopian collective that came together as its government decimated the independent press; and Cándido Figueredo Ruíz , a Paraguayan journalist who shines a light on drug cartels and the corruption they engender. A reporter for ABC Color, one of his country’s largest newspapers, Mr. Figueredo holds perhaps the most traditional job among the winners. But there is nothing conventional about his bravery: He has been shot at numerous times and lives under police guard, as does his wife. Mr. Zunar, 53, will return to Malaysia to face charges of sedition and a possible sentence of 43 years. The Ethiopian bloggers too have been imprisoned and still have judicial proceedings hanging over them. Why go back, we asked Mr. Zunar? “We do it for reform,” he told us during a visit to The Post. “Corruption is huge. There are so many injustices. . . . I know it is an uphill battle. I’m not sure when it will end, or will I see the change in my lifetime. It’s like an endless marathon, but as long as I’m on the track I’m the winner.” Mr. Zunar showed us his cartoon of President Obama, who traveled to Malaysia on Friday, stretching his arm around a prison full of political dissidents to shake hands with the Malaysian leader he has praised and golfed with, Najib Razak. For those of us who can take our freedoms for granted, the cartoon held a useful message: Never forget the political prisoners, such as Malaysia’s opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, nor the journalists such as Mr. Zunar and his co-winners who bravely take up the cause of freedom. “One of the great supports is to know I’m not alone,” Mr. Figueredo said. **Read more on this issue:** The Post’s View: A dangerous year for courageous journalists Dana Milbank: The noble calling that can come with deadly risk

‘His music is a legacy for the world’: Mexican superstar Juan Gabriel is dead at 66

Mexican singer Juan Gabriel, who established himself as one of Latin music’s biggest stars, died Sunday morning in his California home.  “He has passed on to become part of eternity and has left us his legacy through Juan Gabriel, the character created by him for all the music that has been sung and performed all around the world,” his press office said in a statement to the AP. Juan Gabriel’s career spanned genres and more than three decades. Known as a flamboyant performer and prolific musician, he sold more than 100 million albums and produced more than 100 albums for other artists. He also wrote more than 1,500 songs, and some of Latin music’s biggest names have covered them. His death reverberated across the Spanish-speaking media, with politicians and celebrities alike sharing their condolences. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto tweeted that he was saddened by the death of “one the greatest musical icons of our country.” “A voice and a talent that represented Mexico. His music is a legacy for the world,” Peña Nieto tweeted. “He’s gone too soon. May he rest in peace.” President Barack Obama said in a statement Monday that Juan Gabriel brought “Mexican music to millions, transcending borders and generations. To so many Mexican-Americans, Mexicans and people all over the world, his music sounds like home.” “With his romantic lyrics, passionate performances and signature style, Juan Gabriel captivated audiences and inspired countless young musicians,” Obama said. “He was one of the greats of Latin music–and his spirit will live on in his enduring songs, and in the hearts of the fans who love him. ”    He had a love of music from a young age and began writing songs at 13. “When I was 15, all I knew was that I had to be somebody and that I could be somebody. So I exploited the only thing I knew, which was singing and songwriting,” he told the L.A. Times. “Even if my childhood had been different, I would’ve still sung. But the [hardships] gave me strength and made me realize that I must do something if I wanted to get out of that situation. I’m glad it paid off.” Juan Gabriel left school at fifth grade and went to Mexico City to try to break into music. There he met his mentor, Juan Contreras, according to the AP. The teenager ended up in jail, accused of robbery, but the jail director and his wife helped free him. Juan Gabriel landed a record contract after his 1971 hit song, “No Tengo Dinero.”  In 1986, then-Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley declared Oct. 5 “The Day of Juan Gabriel.”  “[Juan] Gabriel ended the spectacular with his iconic song ‘El noa noa,’ getting the entire audience on their feet and dancing along with him and his dancers,” reads Billboard’s review of the concert. “The crowd was left with a beautiful and positive message on the screen that read, ‘Congratulations to all the people that are proud to be who they are.’ ” In a statement Sunday, Gabriel Abaroa, president and chief executive of the Latin Recording Academy, said: “With a heavy heart and profound sense of nostalgia, The Latin Recording Academy mourns the passing of Alberto Aguilera Valadez, our beloved Juan Gabriel. He left us at an early age, but after almost five decades of enormous creativity. His musical legacy is much more than one or hundreds of songs; he composed philosophy. In addition, he carried out heartfelt philanthropy with orphans of his native Ciudad Juárez. He broke taboos, devoured stages and conquered diverse audiences. In 2009, the Latin Academy named him Person of the Year, and honored him for his career and social work during a star-studded gala. The voice of the Mexican icon will resonate forever in all those who knew him, as we continue to dance to his music and appreciate his art. Rest in peace, Juan Gabriel.”

A Mexican reporter sought asylum in the U.S. after receiving death threats. ICE detained him.

Martin Mendez's ordeal began when he wrote a story about Mexican police officers arresting a man who was injured in an accident. The headline of the article, published in February 2016 in the Novedades Acapulco newspaper, reads: “Gendarmes, abusan y violan los derechos de los ciudadanos” (Security forces abuse and violate the rights of citizens). About a month later, several men showed up at Mendez's home in Acapulco in Mexico's southern state of Guerrero. They assaulted and threatened to kill him. For months he was harassed, pursued and forced into hiding. Mexican federal officers also often called his personal phone.  Mendez decided that seeking asylum in the United States was his only option. In February he crossed the border to El Paso, where his attorney turned him over to U.S. immigration officials. They took him into custody, and he has been locked up since then. Spector said Mendez, a 26-year-old with no criminal record and who is not a threat to public safety, does not belong in jail. “He made a lawful entry seeking asylum,” Spector told The Washington Post. “It's sending a message to asylum seekers that you will be locked up by coming to the country legally.” In March, Spector said Mendez passed what is called a “credible fear screening,” which U.S. authorities use to determine whether an asylum seeker's life is really in danger. But U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, has declined to release Mendez. Officials say he was unable to prove that he isn't a flight risk and has substantial ties in the community. Spector said Mendez has a cousin in Southern California, a U.S. citizen who has agreed to take him in. Human rights groups have rallied behind Mendez, urging officials to release him and allow him to live in the United States as an asylum seeker. “This journalist, who has been persecuted and threatened with death in his country, must be allowed to present his case for political asylum freely and with dignity before an immigration judge,” said Emmanuel Colombie, head of Reporters Without Borders' Latin America bureau. Spector said it could take two to three months before Mendez gets an initial hearing in front of an immigration judge. The asylum process is a lengthy one, which means that Mendez could be in jail for years, said Alan Dicker of Hope Border Institute, a New Mexico-based organization.  Leticia Zamarripa, an ICE spokeswoman in El Paso, said Mendez arrived Feb. 5 at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry, where he was transferred to ICE's custody. He was later detained at the El Paso Processing Center. An ICE official said decisions on whether asylum seekers should be released are made on a case-by-case basis. Each asylum application is reviewed thoroughly, the official said. Spector said his client's incarceration is emblematic of a broader problem with how people who leave their home countries because of fear of persecution are treated after they arrive in the United States. “What's happened to him has happened to others,” Spector said. “It's now become normal to lock people up like criminals if you're fleeing persecution, which is a violation of international and U.S. law. … What the case symbolizes is the criminalization of the asylum process.” A new report by the Hope Border Institute and the Borderland Immigration Council found that asylum seekers were often arbitrarily detained after they arrived — even if they've fulfilled certain requirements, such as showing family and community ties. The report, titled “Discretion to Deny,” documented stories of several asylum seekers who were either turned away, detained or separated from their minor children. One example is a Guatemalan woman who sought asylum because of domestic violence abuse and came to a port of entry in El Paso in August 2016 with her 5-year-old daughter. According to the report, the woman passed a screening, but she was detained for months while her daughter was placed in foster care. Stories of asylum seekers being turned away also have raised concerns among advocates.   Thirty-five reporters have been killed in Mexico since 2010, according to Reporters Without Borders. The organization ranks Mexico No. 149 in its World Press Freedom Index, which lists 180 countries.   Soon after her killing, the owner of Norte decided to end publication.

In Syria, freelancers like James Foley cover a dangerous war zone with no front lines

_Ellen Shearer, a professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, is a co-director of Medill’s National Security Journalism Initiative._ “Conflict zones can be covered safely,” James Foley told students at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism in 2011. “This can be done. But you have to be very careful.” He had just spent 44 days in captivity in Libya, held by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. Until his capture, Foley had been reporting on the conflict for GlobalPost. A few weeks after his talk at the Evanston, Ill., campus, he was in Medill’s Washington newsroom, where he’d been my student in 2007. “Every day I want to go back,” he told the students, who were engrossed in his tale of capture, captivity and release. But being careful while covering conflicts has gotten a lot harder recently. The fighting in Libya and Syria, where Foley reported before he was captured and killed by Islamic State militants, has created a new type of conflict reporting, because the front lines are everywhere — and nowhere. It’s more dangerous on the ground because of this. News organizations know this, and many are not sending reporters to these conflict areas. They are relying more on freelancers, not only because of the danger but also because so many foreign bureaus have been closed. From 2003 to 2010, the number of foreign correspondents employed by newspapers and wire services fell from 307 to 234, including contract writers such as freelancers, according to a 2011 study from the American Journalism Review . And between 1998 and 2010, 20 newspapers and media companies closed their foreign bureaus. Being careful today may mean being confined to a very small theater of operations — or avoiding the risk altogether. The cost of taking risks is real, as Jim’s death so painfully reminds us. As a professor who also runs the Washington Program of the Medill School of Journalism, I taught Jim five days a week for three months when he was a graduate student reporting on national security issues in the fall of 2007. Teachers aren’t supposed to have favorites, but some students leave a lasting impression. Jim, who was in his 30s and older than most of the others, with a teaching career behind him, was a serious student. He knew exactly what he wanted to do by the time he got to Washington: cover wars around the world, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. He was quiet, but his passion for foreign reporting was clear, and he worked hard at Medill to prepare himself. In Medill’s Chicago newsroom, he demonstrated an ability to get tough stories. One told of a playground being built next to a factory with a history of environmental violations. In Washington he took on the national security beat, writing about military recruitment and retention problems, including a piece on the top recruiter for the Army National Guard, who happened to be in Fort Wayne, Ind. That contact helped him later embed with the Indiana National Guard in Iraq. He also enrolled in my class on conflicts, terrorism and national security. The conflicts class gave Jim some basics on how to operate in dangerous areas, and after graduating he took further hazardous-environment training, which teaches journalists how to assess and cope with risks around them. He and I talked about the risks in going into dangerous areas as a freelancer, but it was clear that he was going to follow his passion. He wanted to tell stories about how U.S. policy looks on the ground during conflicts. When Jim embedded with the Indiana National Guard in Iraq, and later when he reported from Afghanistan for GlobalPost, “there were pretty defined lines,” said GlobalPost President Phil Balboni. But in Jim’s two next reporting targets, Libya and Syria, divisions between the warring parties were far less clear. Journalists in Libya were often in harm’s way because of fluid front lines. In the early days of the Syria uprising, reporters seemed relatively safe, even when covering the rebels, who saw them as vehicles for spreading the word about their struggles against President Bashar al-Assad. But as jihadists infiltrated the rebel movement, it became increasingly dangerous for journalists to venture outside Damascus. “We were all learning how to cope with this new type of conflict where we reporters had an opportunity to be in the midst of it with no government minders,” Balboni said. “. . . They had to be smart and careful. That is certainly true in Syria as well.” According to Reporters Without Borders, 39 professional journalists, 12 of them foreigners, have been killed in Syria since March 2011, when the conflict began. A freelance journalist who was writing for McClatchy Newspapers and The Washington Post, Austin Tice, has been held captive since August 2012. “There is a lot of loneliness and isolation,” Jim told Medill students during that talk in 2011. “You need to talk to a lot of people about the realities of this kind of stuff” before heading into a war zone. As Jim spoke to my students about his experience in Libya, I reflected on how much he had grown as a reporter. But I also worried. “You should take a desk job editing,” I suggested to him, maybe at GlobalPost’s headquarters in Boston. Why don’t you spend time with your family, give your mom a break from worrying? I said. I’d met his mother, Diane, during one of her trips to Washington to talk to government officials about securing her son’s release. Jim agreed and said he’d give it a shot. Balboni told me that “it was great having him” in Boston, “but he was obviously like a caged lion.” Passion prevailed. Jim wasn’t a desk guy. Later that year, he headed back into Libya. “I’m drawn to the front lines,” he told the Medill students. Jim was at the front lines, blurred or nonexistent as they are in today’s conflicts, when he was captured. He believed, rightly, that giving Americans a complete picture of the Syrian conflict means going beyond officials’ statements. Jim also knew well that the cost of getting the truth could be high. But the cost in not getting the full story is real, too — we have fewer witnesses to the historic events unfolding in Syria and elsewhere. **shearer@northwestern.edu **

Latino media shifts focus from GOP to Obama

Here’s something that could turn into a real problem for the White House: After months of hammering away at Republicans to act on immigration reform, the Latino media is increasingly shifting its focus to President Obama, urging him to unilaterally slow deportations. “There has been a shift within the Hispanic media,” Jorge Ramos, the influential Univision anchor who has been called the “Walter Cronkite of Hispanic media,” told me. “If you read the editorial pages in the most important Spanish language newspapers, you notice immediately how the conversation has changed from attacking Republicans to attacking Obama.” Ramos said Latino media are increasingly calling on Obama to defer deportations of other categories of the 11 million — which he did for the DREAMers — as this editorial in La Opinion did the other day. Some top Dems and immigration groups have began demanding this more vociferously, prodding along this media shift.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University It’s a real change. Last summer, Dems saw Latino media pressure on Republicans as potentially helpful to immigration reform’s hopes. But now Ramos says many in the Latino media have decided Republicans will never act, leaving them little choice but to focus on Obama.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University “They’ve already given up on Republicans,” Ramos said, characterizing Latino media viewpoints. “Immigration reform is not going to happen now. The only one who can do something is President Obama. On a personal basis, what is more harmful: Republicans who are not moving on immigration, or a president who is removing your father, your mother, your brother, your co-worker, and your friends from this country?” The legal nuances are murky. Experts say Obama certainly can’t “stop all deportations” or legalize anyone unilaterally. He only _deferred_ deportation for DREAMers. But there’s even some question about how many categories he could _defer_ deportation for, because that means pushing more people to the bottom of the list, making it harder to justify with prosecutorial discretion.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Ramos insisted there are some categories — parents and siblings of DREAMers, and parents of Latinos born here — that could legally benefit from presidential action. But whatever the legality of this, Latino media are increasingly _convinced_ Obama can do this. “We are seeing more and more reporting in Spanish language media that Obama has the power to stop deportations,” Ramos said.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Shifting to Obama also has a strategic downside: It removes the pressure from John Boehner and Republicans. Latino radio host Fernando Espuelas argues that focusing on the “magic realism power that Obama supposedly possesses” to stop all deportations removes attention from the “real problem,” which is the GOP’s “serial deception in regard to blocking immigration reform.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Asked to respond, Ramos agreed this was a risk, but said a balance could be struck. “Pressing Obama and forgetting about Republicans is wrong,” he said. “We have to put pressure on Obama to stop deportations while keeping pressure specifically on Boehner and Republicans. You can do both.” Fair or not, what all of this indicates is that, as it becomes clearer Republicans will do nothing, the pressure on Obama to act unilaterally — or to signal more clearly he’s genuinely exploring options — will likely build. Of course, if that happens, it will further persuade Republicans they can escape blame from Latinos for not acting, and lead to more chatter about #OBUMMER TYRANNY, which Republicans will seize on as a further excuse for inaction. ************************************************************ **UPDATE:** It’s also worth noting that this is reportedly something the White House has been worried about for some time.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox said Donald Trump is "a false prophet" in the model of 20th-century Latin American dictators and charged that the Republican presidential nominee was a messianic figure trying to dupe U.S. voters by playing to their fears and worst instincts. "Wake up, America!," Fox implored repeatedly in a wide-ranging interview Monday at The Washington Post's headquarters. "I want to warn people here in the United States to watch out for this false prophet that promised gold, that promised paradise, that promised everything." Fox has been a sharp and vocal critic of Trump for many months now, after the celebrity mogul launched his presidential campaign last summer by slamming Mexican Americans and promising to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border to keep undocumented immigrants out. Fox compared Trump to a long line of dictators, saying that as a Latin American he recognizes "Trump's genius and his DNA." "We've had many like him throughout Latin America — the Hugo Chavezes, the Fidel Castros, the Kirchners in Argentina, the Perons in Argentina," Fox said. "Very messianic, very demagogic. They tell you, 'Don't worry, you don't have a job? I'm going to give you a job. You have fear? I'm going to build a wall for you so that you don't have fear.' He has followers, like a false prophet. So please, wake up, America! That's not the way to go." Fox stopped short of labeling Trump a racist, but said he believes Trump's racially incendiary rhetoric is what has alienated so many Mexicans and Mexican Americans. "We never hear him speaking about compassion, forgiveness," Fox said. "We just hear him with a stick, like the ugly gringo of the 20th century." Fox said Mexicans see Trump "as a piñata." He said that a couple days earlier he broke a Trump-modeled piñata in Los Angeles. "It's on Facebook. After I broke the piñata, I got my hand into the head of this Trump piñata and I thought there was going to be fruit and gifts in the piñata. But it was empty. No brain inside. It's incredible. It's so empty." Fox, who served as president from 2000 to 2006, is a center-right leader who formed a close relationship with President George W. Bush and has a celebrated career in business. He is an advocate of the North American Free Trade Agreement and took issue with Trump's opposition to NAFTA and other trade accords. "You cannot lead without trade," Fox said. "You cannot lead on four walls. You cannot build your own house and forget about your neighbors and forget about the rest of the world." Fox also criticized current Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto for inviting Trump to visit Mexico City a couple weeks ago and meeting with him. "Putting out the red carpet for this crazy guy to come as a nobody — he's a nobody right now. He doesn't have any decision power," Fox said. "So why do you invite him to speak directly, eye-to-eye, to a president? That was a big, big, big mistake by Peña Nieto." Fox showered praise on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, and said she was warm and would be seen around the world as an inspirational and uplifting leader. “You’re electing the leader of the world, and we need a compassionate leader, very strong, like the iron lady, Margaret Thatcher — firmness, strength, but at the same time like a caring and loving mother," Fox said. Reflecting on a Trump presidency, he added, “Sitting in that chair, the presidential chair of the United States, where Abraham Lincoln sat, where Washington sat, President Kennedy, President Reagan, with elegance, with authority, with consideration to everybody in the world — how can this guy sit there? That blond hair sitting in that chair? I just cannot envision it.”

In America, attacks on the press are turning literal

_Joel Simon is executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Alexandra Ellerbeck is the senior Americas and U.S. research associate at the Committee to Protect Journalists._ Ten days ago, Javier Valdez, one of Mexico’s most courageous investigative journalists, was gunned down outside his newspaper’s office in Culiacán, a center for drug trafficking. On Wednesday, Getachew Shiferaw, editor of a leading news website in Ethiopia, was convicted of inciting state subversion. He faces 10 years in jail. Whenever a journalist in the United States is insulted, threatened or harassed, there’s a natural tendency to want to avoid overreacting. After all, journalists in this country are not subjected to the level and kinds of threats that reporters working in repressive and violent places face every day. It’s true that this perspective is important, but the actions of Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte, who is accused of body-slamming Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs on Wednesday after Jacobs pressed him for his view of the Republican health-care bill, represent an alarming escalation. Gianforte faces a misdemeanor assault charge in the altercation. The experience of countries that have seen a serious and rapid decline in press freedom — from Mexico to Ethiopia, Russia and Turkey — shows that the process proceeds in stages, with the media first being delegitimized and undermined. The United States has reached a juncture in which critical questions must be asked: How much do we as a society value freedom of the press? How energetically are we willing to fight for it? Based on the audiotape recording of the incident made by Jacobs, it appears that Gianforte acted impulsively and out of anger. More chilling was the response by his campaign staff, which put out a statement echoing the kind of anti-media rhetoric favored by President Trump. In their telling, Jacobs was an aggressive, “liberal” reporter — as if that justified a physical attack. This incident follows disturbing reports that Trump asked then-FBI Director James B. Comey to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information. It is clear that the threat to journalists in the United States has escalated to a stage beyond angry rhetoric. That’s troubling enough for America, but what’s at stake is not just the rights of journalists in this country but also press freedom as a global value. When Trump calls the media the “enemy of the American people,” he provides fodder for dictators around the world to justify their own press abuses. The Cambodian government cited Trump in February when it threatened to shutter foreign media outlets. The Russian and Syrian governments and Chinese state media have used Trump’s “fake news” epithet in criticizing the press. But the Trump administration seems to have little concern for this global impact. Already, the president has met with the leading jailers of journalists — Chinese President Xi Jinping, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — whose countries together accounted for 56 percent of all journalists imprisoned worldwide late last year. Trump has declined to publicly call on these countries to improve conditions for their media. This is not to say that Trump or anyone in his administration bears responsibility for Gianforte’s confrontation with Jacobs; Gianforte alone must grapple with any legal consequences of his actions. But as the president of the United States, Trump is responsible for upholding and defending our political values and the constitutional principles at the heart of our democracy. Our president owes it not only to the people of this country, but also to all those around the world who are fighting for a free press, to condemn the most recent attack. Let us hope he can find his voice. **Read more:** Erik Wemple: Of what was Greg Gianforte ‘sick and tired’? The Post’s View: In Mexico, journalism is literally being killed off Michael J. Abramowitz and Arch Puddington: How Trump is undermining press freedom around the world Dana Milbank: These are the American people Trump calls enemies of the American people Fred Hiatt: Trump considers the media his enemy. We shouldn’t treat him as ours.

Why it’s such a big deal that Oscar Romero was declared a martyr by Pope Francis

Pope Francis's declaration of Archbishop Oscar Romero as a martyr has been met with an outpouring of emotions in the slain priest's native El Salvador, where he is a revered figure and where wounds of a war that started soon after his 1980 assassination remain fresh.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In Romero's home town, Ciudad Barrios, churches blasted music and people set off fireworks upon this week's announcement, La Prensa Grafica reported.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "It is an overwhelming joy,” said Gregorio Rosa Chavez, a Romero disciple and auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, the Los Angeles Times reported. "A lot of us said, 'We’re never going to see this happen.'. . . Well today, we’re seeing it happen, bendito sea Dios [thank God]."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For many Salvadorans, the designation had been a long time coming. Francis made the declaration after years of theological questioning as to whether Romero died for his religion or for political reasons, as well as opposition among some in the church. Romero's path to becoming an outspoken advocate of the poor ended with his 1980 assassination, ordered by right-wing officials. He had been celebrating Mass when a gunman shot him in the heart. His death became a pivotal point at the start of El Salvador's bloody 12-year civil war, which left about 75,000 people dead.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico At the time, Romero was considered one of the most prominent Salvadorans to publicly criticize the country's military and government, as he denounced violence by extremists on the right and left. But his career didn't begin that way; Romero, who studied in Rome and El Salvador, was ordained in 1942. Before he became San Salvador's archbishop in 1977, he was regarded as a conservative priest in a climate in which many Latin American nuns and priests were increasingly critical of governments' treatment of the poor, giving rise to a movement called liberation theology. The elite in many of these countries became wary of such clergy, whom they viewed as aligning with Marxism. So Romero's ascent to archbishop of San Salvador was initially met with relief by the aristocracy and government, which thought he wouldn't buck the status quo. Violence continued to spread in El Salvador. The Rev. Rutillo Grande, a Jesuit priest and friend of Romero, was killed in 1977 after he helped to organize Salvadoran peasants. This event, as well as Romero's time serving in the rural and poor region of Santiago de María, caused him to "experience a transformation of sorts," as the Associated Press described. He publicly rebuked his country's junta government, just as he had denounced violence by leftist fighters.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Romero's words were often broadcast via radio, and he built up a massive following. In February 1980, Romero wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter, in which he described human rights abuses perpetuated by the military and asked the Carter administration to reconsider supporting the junta government in El Salvador.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "The contribution of your government instead of promoting greater justice and peace in El Salvador," Romero wrote, "will without doubt sharpen the injustice and repression against the organizations of the people which repeatedly have been struggling to gain respect for their most fundamental human rights." His public denunciation of military violence against civilians put his life in danger: In the weeks before his assassination, he told reporters that he had been receiving death threats. “These are nothing new for me, and there is nothing really I can do about it," he said, according to the AP. "When the church produces conflicts there will be threats. There is nothing more I can say."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico He had been "offered security in the past because of the possibility of attempts on his life," AP reported. "He refused protection, saying, 'The shepherd does not want security for himself, but for his flock.'" On March 23, 1980, Romero delivered a now-famous homily in which he urged soldiers to turn to their consciences and disregard orders to kill fellow Salvadorans.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "Brothers, you are all killing your fellow countrymen. No soldier has to obey an order to kill," he said. "It is time to regain your conscience. In the name of God and in the name of the suffering people I implore you, I beg you, I order you, stop the repression." That sermon drew sharp rebuke from government officials, who said Romero was committing a crime in inciting rebellion. A day later, Romero uttered these words as he celebrated Mass at a hospital chapel, just moments before a gunman shot him through the heart:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico He was 62. When news of Romero's death broke, about a thousand people flocked to the hospital where he was being treated, and thousands more rushed home, fearing an outbreak of violence, the Associated Press reported. About 25,000 to 50,000 people turned out for Romero's funeral, where a bomb exploded and gunfire erupted. As The Washington Post's Christopher Dickey reported from San Salvador at the time, the "solemn funeral mass" soon "turned into a panic-driven hell" that left at least 40 people dead. Romero's death marked a turning point in the country, with the violence soon turned into a full-blown civil war that killed thousands, many of them rural peasants. A year after the war ended in 1992, a U.N.-sponsored commission concluded that former army Maj. Roberto D’Abuisson, who died of cancer in 1992, ordered Romero's death. But many in El Salvador suspect more powerful elements in society actually plotted Romero's assassination, the Los Angeles Times's Alex Renderos wrote.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Since the war, Romero's image has been embraced by those on the left throughout Latin America. In El Salvador, which had a right-wing government for decades following the war, Romero's death received no official commemoration. It wasn't until 2010, following the election of the country's first leftist president, that Romero received such recognition. As Renderos wrote:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "It’s almost an act of acclamation from the people who claimed him as a saint a long time ago,” said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican media spokesman. “Msgr. Romero’s tomb in El Salvador is a huge place of pilgrimage.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico But his legacy has been divisive for some, including among some in the Vatican who strongly oppose liberation theology, which prioritizes fighting social and economic oppression, particularly of the poor. Although Romero didn't advocate for liberation theology, he has been embraced as a symbolic figure by those on the left, and his legacy has been aligned with the movement. Romero's new designation may signal how the Vatican is warming to liberation theology under Francis.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The question also loomed as to whether he was killed for political reasons. But Romero as a figure is so powerful in El Salvador, that some of Romero's former enemies have been quick to praise him; some have even called him a social activist, and promised to erect memorials in his name, AP reported.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Jorge Velado, head of country's right-wing Nationalist Republican Alliance, recently called Romero "a historical leader of the country, a leader for Catholics, because he was our guide and the head of our church." Devotees of Romero have criticized such former enemies as "opportunists," AP noted. Francis, the first pope from Latin American, declared that Romero was "killed in hatred of the faith." Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who spearheaded the effort for Romero to earn the designation, told reporters this week that Pope Benedict XVI actually helped remove obstacles in the sainthood case before he left the papacy. “It’s clear that the figure of Romero required time, because for he who wasn’t in favor or who had robust prejudices against it had to be helped to understand that he was wrong,” Paglia told reporters, AP reported. “But, as we can see today, the truth has had its victory.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In 2010, the U.N. General Assembly designated the anniversary of Romero's assassination as a day to honor Romero and others who dedicated and lost their lives in the pursuit of protecting human rights. Thus, March 24 is observed as International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In his 2014 message, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wrote about Romero: "Our commemorations defy the attempt by his murderers to silence his cries for justice and reinforce the importance of standing firm for fundamental freedoms."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Weeks before Romero's death, he told a reporter about how he had often been threatened with death.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "If they kill me, I shall arise in the Salvadoran people," Romero said. "If the threats come to be fulfilled, from this moment I offer my blood to God for the redemption and resurrection of El Salvador. Let my blood be a seed of freedom and the sign that hope will soon be reality." Romero's beatification, the step that precedes sainthood, will take place in El Salvador later this year.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Martin Baron delivers the Landon Lecture at Kansas State University

Thank you for having me here at Kansas State. You were kind to invite me. I’d like to begin by discussing a statement by the president of the United States. In February, the president declared that people like me were the “enemy of the American people.” Not just me, of course, but the major mainstream media overall, or the “fake news media” as he likes to call us. Those of us who work as journalists had already endured many months of disparagement over the course of a vitriolic and volatile presidential campaign — and then, for good measure, we were subjected to more of that during the transition. We were called “scum,” “disgusting,” “garbage,” “the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “the lowest form of humanity,” and “the lowest form of life.” Those denunciations of the press provoked thousands of people to send nasty, bigoted, misogynistic and threatening emails and tweets to journalists, some of whom then required extra security. At rallies, thousands heard the media demonized, effectively granting permission for reporters to be verbally harassed, which they were. By the time of the inauguration, I thought the language for attacking, discrediting, marginalizing, delegitimizing, and even dehumanizing the American press had been exhausted. But these days you just can’t predict. And the vocabulary of vilification was subsequently stretched even further. And so the citizens of this country were told that we who work in this profession were enemies of the American people. When the president made that statement, I had some immediate thoughts. Like so many of my professional colleagues, I thought first of the journalists who had risked their lives to inform the American public, journalists who were eyewitnesses to the world’s most dangerous conflicts. I thought of the journalists who didn’t just risk their lives but lost them. Most immediately, I thought of May 9, 2003, when I, as editor of The Boston Globe, had to inform our newsroom of the death of Elizabeth Neuffer. She was 46. Elizabeth had died covering the war in Iraq. Her driver was moving at a high speed, a necessity when there was heightened risk of abductions. The driver lost control. Elizabeth was killed. So was her translator, Waleed Khalifa Hassan Al Dulaimi, 31. As a journalist, she had been fearless in investigating war crimes and human rights abuses. Her Globe reporting overseas led to a much-honored book, “The Key to My Neighbor’s House: Seeking Justice in Bosnia and Rwanda.” As one human rights activist said at the time: “She had literally knocked on the doors of a couple of indicted war criminals that people had said couldn’t be found. They were there. Elizabeth found them.” She also covered the first Gulf War, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Retired Army Major General William Nash came to know Elizabeth while he was commander of US Army forces in Bosnia. After her death, he said: “She educated me, both in her writings and in her questions, as to the issues of human rights and war crimes in the Bosnia war.” She left behind her brother as well as her longtime companion, Peter Canellos, then the Globe’s Washington bureau chief. On October 1 of that year, I, along with other journalists and some officials of the George W. Bush administration, gathered at Gathland State Park in Maryland. There, four journalists became the first to be honored at a national monument since it was dedicated in 1896 to the writers and artists who covered the Civil War. Civil War battlefields are nearby. Four reporters were honored: Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, Michael Kelly of The Washington Post and the Atlantic Monthly, David Bloom of NBC News, and Elizabeth. Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan, his throat cut by a senior al-Qaeda operative and his body dismembered. The others died that spring covering the conflict in Iraq. I was invited to speak at the ceremony on behalf of Elizabeth and journalists like her. “They remind us of our mission as journalists,” I said, “and American democracy is nothing without them. For all the burdens they bear, the risks they take, and for all the difficulties they face overseas, they give us in return the ingredients that sustain a free society. “Their coffins may not be draped in the American flag, but they are draped in America’s highest ideals. “We owe it to ourselves as journalists, and we owe it to Elizabeth, to state, clearly and without fear of boasting, that such work, her work – the reporter gathering information with determination and honesty and empathy, the hard and often unpopular business of truth-telling – is not just a job, but a vital and virtuous enterprise.” And today let me add: Elizabeth and the other journalists honored that day were no enemies of the American people. Nor were the many other American journalists who have died covering conflicts overseas. Nor are the journalists who cover your local and state government – the police, the school board, the city council and county commission, the mayor, the governor, the legislature, the courts. They spend hours attending tedious meetings you won’t – and poring over documents dense enough to cure insomnia — to let you know what is happening in your state and your community.  A conference call was conducted with a consultant in Minneapolis, 120 miles away. The city manager introduced the people in the room: council members, mayor, city staff. “And then,” Reed said, “looking across four empty rows of chairs, he said, ‘And the newspaper representing the people of Benson.’ ” Reed, owner and publisher, was also the reporter there that day, keeping tabs on local government. Now, that story is not uncommon in thousands of small towns. But it’s also not wildly far off from what happens in government meetings and court proceedings that take place in bigger towns and cities, where often only one reporter shows up in a room routinely empty of ordinary citizens. Who tracks our government closely but for the press? And even that now is in doubt. In many states, the largest newspaper may have only one person covering the entirety of state government – the governor, both houses of the legislature, numerous state agencies. The most recent data I’ve seen showed that 27 states had no reporters in Washington covering their congressional delegations. The labor of the journalists who do this sort of work is in service of their fellow Americans. In service of every citizen’s right and duty to understand the community and country we inhabit and to understand the broader world over which our nation wields profound influence, even in matters of life and death. By the way, that October, 2003, ceremony in honor of journalists killed covering war was supposed to revive use of the National War Correspondents Memorial. The monument was built by George Alfred Townsend, the youngest correspondent to cover the Civil War, the first conflict to be covered extensively by independent reporters. Finally, journalists were to be honored once again. In preparation for this talk, I checked to see if anyone followed through on that noble idea of regularly honoring journalists who served their country by keeping its citizens informed, losing their lives as eyewitnesses at scenes of war. The answer is no. Those four war correspondents were the last to be honored. No names have been added to the monument. Why do I tell you this story? Because, as we can conclude from the names that remain unetched on that national monument, the contributions of journalists so routinely go unrecorded, unremembered, unappreciated. That should not continue. And journalists like myself who have the honor of calling hard-working, talented, dedicated, and brave journalists their colleagues have an obligation to speak up on their behalf. The president ultimately modified his comments about “enemies of the American people” to say that not all of us were, that there are some “great reporters” and to profess his affection for the First Amendment. But it is hard, if not impossible, to rescind a message so searing, one so clearly intended to savage those in the press who weren’t seeking his favor, weren’t carrying his water, and might well contradict him. And the president’s tactic appears to have been effective with his base. Republican voters agree by a stunning 81% to 17% that certain news organizations are “the enemy of the American people,” according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. Fortunately, most Americans disagree – 58% — vs. 39% who agree. Democratic voters are in overwhelming disagreement. Independent voters disagree by 60% to 38%. And, fortunately, 89% of American voters still believe it is “very important” or “somewhat important” for the news media to hold public officials accountable. We can be grateful for that. Because that’s what we fully intend to do. One thing that particularly troubles me these days is the picture that’s been painted of who the mainstream press is. We’re portrayed as an out-of-touch elite, disconnected from the lives and concerns of ordinary Americans. That is a caricature. Caricatures like it have a long history in populist movements. In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, an economist born and raised in Venezuela and now living in Madrid identified demonization as essential to populism – the sort that the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez represented in his country and the sort that we see in our own country today. “Populism,” wrote Andrés Miguel Rondón, “can survive only amid polarization. It works through the unending vilification of a cartoonish enemy.” A few months ago, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank performed a service in writing about some of the people who populate our newsroom at The Washington Post. First, he mentioned Thomas Gibbons-Neff, who deployed twice as a Marine to Afghanistan. The second time, as a 22-year-old corporal, he led an eight-man infantry team into combat. One of his best friends later died in combat. He went to Georgetown University on the GI Bill. He joined The Post two years ago and covers the Pentagon. Dana also cited Lori Montgomery, our deputy national editor. She was raised on a dairy farm in western Pennsylvania. Her brother still runs the farm. And he mentioned Jose DelReal, a political reporter. He was born in central California to immigrant farmhands from Mexico. His mother worked as a maid, his father as a cook and dishwasher. He graduated from Harvard. Dan Eggen, a political editor, is the son of a Lutheran minister from small-town Minnesota. I would also mention Tracy Grant, a deputy managing editor who oversees our hiring and career development. She is the daughter of Irish immigrants who came to Chicago with only $200. Her father worked first as a hotel waiter, then as a day laborer laying bricks and worrying that temperatures would plunge and deprive him of work, then took a job filling cans in a soda factory, and then finally got a union job as a helper on a beer truck. As Tracy told me the other day, “It was as blue-collar as blue-collar could be (literally, I would iron his blue shirts). “He was an incredibly smart man, who read voraciously and would have loved college if he had had a chance to go. “I think a lot about my mom and dad when I read some of the stories about families in middle America. My parents made a life for themselves and their daughters against odds that many people are facing today. But the jobs that my dad did are largely jobs that are going away. “I got to go to college because of an immigrant’s determination and an economy that valued hard work. But I am never far removed from the days when the weather might be too cold for him to bring home a paycheck. It engenders an empathy I wouldn’t trade for anything and for which I will be eternally grateful to my parents.” We continue to hire with the objective of bringing on board talented individuals with varied life experiences. A recent hire of ours joined the Marines after graduating from Notre Dame and then served as an infantry officer, deploying twice to Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He then decided to attend Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism. Another recent hire is the oldest of 11 kids, was homeschooled, and graduated from Wheaton College, which is rooted in evangelical Christianity. These people who work for us are not elitists — no matter which multimillionaire or multibillionaire currently in government would like to stick them with that label. They bring the lessons of their lives to our newsroom, where they find meaning in the work. One of our religion reporters, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, also a Wheaton graduate, wrote recently about what drew her to journalism. Her commentary came immediately after a presidential campaign that became fertile ground for conspiracy theories, one of which motivated an armed gunman to walk into a Washington, D.C. pizza parlor and fire a few shots. “As a reporter who also happens to be a Christian,” she wrote, “I believe that truth exists and can be ascertained, even if imperfectly and the fact that we understand it imperfectly heightens our duty to pursue it diligently. “And I believe journalism is one of the best practical pursuits of truth in earthly life, one that allows us to reveal and explain the truth to others. Many religions seek a truth that is beyond the scope of journalism, yet if people of faith no longer accept the veracity of factual truth, then they threaten to undermine their own pursuit of ultimate questions.” I am proud that those who populate our newsroom have lived varied lives, are informed by different experiences, and bring distinct perspectives. We must do even better at diversifying our newsrooms. The late journalist Gwen Ifill once said: “We have stories to tell, but many in our audience have stopped listening because they can tell that we’re not talking about them.” This is true of too many people: African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, middle Americans, working-class Americans. I could go on. We have a diverse and complex country. It is a challenge to reflect the perspectives of all its people. But we who run newsrooms have an obligation to work at it. Whatever our backgrounds, there is much that unites us as journalists. Based on 40 years in the profession, here is what I would list as the beliefs we share: We believe in free expression. We believe that includes a free, vigorous, and independent press. We believe the press should hold powerful institutions and powerful individuals accountable, no one more so than the president of the United States. We believe wrongdoing and abuse of power should be exposed. We believe in open, honest, and honorable government that respects and upholds democratic – small d – norms. We believe in civil rights. And we believe in civility. We believe in acceptance for all people. And we believe all people deserve dignity and respect. We believe in a societal obligation to help the least fortunate among us. We believe evidence and expertise and experience should be highly valued, not ignored or dismissed or denied. We believe there is such a thing as fact. We believe there is such a thing as truth. And we don’t take well to being lied to. The seeds of conflict with politicians – not just those today, but in any era – can be found in those beliefs. Conflict between the press and the presidency is not new to this administration. An adversarial relationship has been a constant from one administration to the next. One of my predecessors as executive editor of The Washington Post, Len Downie, released a report more than three years ago on behalf of the Committee to Protect Journalists. It excoriated then-President Obama for an erosion of press freedoms and government transparency. The language of the report may surprise you. It begins like this: “In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An ‘Insider Threat Program’ being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues.” It continued: “Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated promise that his administration would be the most open and transparent in American history, reporters and government transparency advocates said they are disappointed by its performance in improving access to the information they need.” And the report quoted David Sanger, a veteran Washington correspondent for The New York Times, as declaring: “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.” A look back at the Clinton administration also offers lessons. When Donald Trump, in the final weeks of his campaign, was under siege from nearly a dozen women accusing him of having sexually forced himself on them, he pronounced it “the single greatest pile-on in history.” Well, maybe not. Anyone with a good and honest memory will recall the pounding that Bill Clinton took for his affairs. They were intensely covered for years, dating to the beginning of his presidential campaign. As Trump sought to fend off charges from his accusers, Politico’s Jack Shafer helpfully reminded readers of the January-February 1998 period when Clinton was accused of having an affair with a White House intern but forcefully denied it. “We don’t find a press feeding frenzy,” Shafer wrote. “No, it was more like a bloody bacchanalia, as reporters filed their teeth down to dagger points and tore through Clinton’s lies and obfuscations until he wearily conceded the affair that August.” “Why,” Shafer asked, “didn’t the press just take Clinton at his word that he didn’t consort with the young intern? Why did reporters pile on? For one thing, his denial was not consistent with the available evidence pointing to an affair, and if there’s one thing reporters can’t stand it’s being lied to.” Today, we have an administration that claims to be especially persecuted by the press. The president’s chief strategist has called us the “opposition party.” The president himself, shortly after inauguration, visited the CIA and chose the occasion to assert that he had a “running war with the media.” The president may be at war. But The Washington Post is not. We’re at work. We’re just trying to do our jobs – the very job envisioned by this nation’s founders who saw the press as a check on the potential abuse of power. And our independence from the administration is not a hostile act. It’s a moral duty – and a realization of what the nation’s founders envisioned when they wrote the First Amendment. It’s easy to appreciate why the administration would like to position the press as its political opponent. As journalist John Cassidy wrote in the New Yorker, “the aim is to portray the media as a political adversary rather than an independent monitor, so that when damaging stories appear the Administration can dismiss them.” The biggest conflicts with this administration – the ones that have the president calling us enemies of the people – have to do with basic facts. But when we as journalists are confronted with a torrent of falsehoods, we have an absolute obligation to point them out – and call them what they are – no matter how creative the administration is in the name-calling it directs at us. No matter whether they label us “fake news” or the “opposition party” or “garbage” or “bad people” or “enemies of the American people.” No matter whether the president threatens to sue us or to exclude us. We should not be intimidated. The fundamental task of journalism is to tell the facts as they really are, no matter what. I mentioned toward the start of my talk the memorial to journalists killed doing their jobs in conflict zones. One of them was Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter brutally executed by al-Qaeda in Pakistan. This past February, his colleague at the Journal, Bret Stephens, gave a lecture named in Daniel Pearl’s honor at UCLA. It was a brilliant speech. Bret Stephens is a conservative columnist. As a true journalist, he is committed to facts. And he used the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture to talk about the need to remain faithful to our profession’s fact-telling mission during this administration. I am going to read at some length from his speech here because he said it so much better than I possibly can. “When you work at The Wall Street Journal,” Bret Stephens said, “the coins of the realm are truth and trust – the latter flowing exclusively from the former. When you read a story in the Journal, you do so with the assurance that immense reportorial and editorial effort has been expended to ensure that what you read is factual. “Not probably factual. Not partially factual. Not alternatively factual. I mean fundamentally, comprehensively and exclusively factual. And therefore trustworthy. “This is how we operate. This is how Danny operated. This is how he died, losing his life in an effort to nail down the story.” He continued: “We honor the responsibility to separate truth from falsehood, which is never more important than when powerful people insist that falsehoods are truths, or that there is no such thing as truth to begin with. “So that’s the business we’re in. The business of journalism.” And he concluded: “We each have our obligations to see what’s in front of one’s nose, whether we’re reporters, columnists, or anything else. This is the essence of intellectual integrity. “Not to look around, or beyond, or away from the facts, but to look straight at them, to recognize and call them for what they are, nothing more or less. To see things as they are before we re-interpret them into what we’d like them to be . . . To hold fast to a set of intellectual standards and moral convictions that won’t waver amid changes of political fashion or tides of unfavorable opinion. To speak the truth irrespective of what it means for our popularity or influence. “The legacy of Danny Pearl is that he died for this,” Bret Stephens said. “We are being asked to do much less. We have no excuse not to do it.” Truth and falsehood are neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat. So when Donald Trump, well before his candidacy, publicly doubted that President Obama was born in the United States, he was promoting a falsehood. Evidence showed Obama was born here. And finally, late in the presidential campaign, Trump had to acknowledge that. When Donald Trump, as a candidate, asserted that he saw television footage of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering the fall of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, that was false. There is no such footage and no newspaper coverage, and no evidence anything like that occurred. The day after the inauguration, when the White House press secretary, acting on the president’s instructions, declared “this was the largest audience to ever witness the inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,” that was false. And National Park Service photographs proved it. When, as a new president, Trump claimed that 3-5 million people voted illegally – and that, without that fraud, he would have won the popular vote – that was false. Neither he nor anyone has been able to produce evidence of any pattern of fraud. When the new president said that there were buses carrying people from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to vote illegally during the general election, that was false. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. When the president declared that his predecessor had wiretapped Trump Tower before the election, engaging in “McCarthyism” and behavior that was equivalent to “Nixon/Watergate,” he had a duty – just as any of us would – to produce evidence. He never did. And, judging from the sworn congressional testimony of the FBI director and the National Security Agency chief, he never will. Because, from everything we know, the allegation was false. The president’s press secretary scolded the press for repeatedly insisting that the president provide evidence to back up an extraordinary accusation against President Obama. But the press was obligated to do that. Since when has it been a sin for journalists to demand evidence when someone alleges grave wrongdoing, even a crime? There is a lot of head-scratching material these days in the interactions between the press and the presidency. In February, when the president spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference, he singled out for criticism a story that happened to be one of ours. It was our disclosure that General Michael Flynn, his national security adviser, had not told the truth when he insisted that he had not held pre-inauguration discussions with Russian officials about sanctions against that country. In fact, he had held such discussions, we reported. He had not told the truth to the American people. He also had not told the truth to the vice president, who, based on Flynn’s assurances, publicly dismissed any notion that someone in the administration had discussed sanctions with Russia prior to Trump becoming president. We attributed our story to nine sources, and we cited intelligence intercepts. And yet the president said, “There’re no nine people. I don’t believe there was one or two people. Nine people. And I said, ‘Give me a break.’ … They make up sources. They’re very dishonest people.” That was a perplexing statement. Because the president had just fired General Flynn on grounds that he had not told the vice president the truth about his conversations with the Russians. His press secretary said at the time, “The president was very concerned that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice president and others.” He cited an “evolving and eroding level of trust” with the national security adviser. If the press secretary is to be believed, then what we reported could not have been made up. In fact, it was true. Which means we really did have sources. Of course, we did. On top of that, the president pointed to our story and others in his call for a leak investigation. He repeated that call prior to hearings that featured the FBI director and NSA chief disputing the president’s allegations that President Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped. Even as that hearing was getting under way, Trump tweeted: “The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!” So, here’s a question: If the president really believes we had no sources for our story, then what exactly does he think needs investigating? By his own reasoning, there would have been no leak. This is head-spinning stuff. And it explains why the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal published an editorial in March entitled “A President’s Credibility,” pointing to what it described as the president’s “seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.” The president also has been selective in his denunciations of the press. He hasn’t condemned all uses of anonymous sources, nor all purported leaks of classified information. In support of the accusation that Obama had ordered surveillance of Trump Tower, the president’s team pointed to news reports that relied on anonymous sources. If true, those stories would have represented a leak of classified information. You didn’t hear the president attack those leaks. He didn’t call for a leak investigation. Nor did he assert in that instance that the use of anonymous sources meant there were no real sources. There are two possible reasons the president didn’t call for a leak investigation on those occasions: One, he never genuinely believed those stories to be true, so no leak investigation would have been warranted; or two, he isn’t concerned about leaks of classified information as long as they help him politically. George Will, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, last January offered this biting assessment of the White House’s relationship with facts: “What is most alarming about the president and his accomplices in the dissemination of factoids is not that they do not know this or that. And it is not that they do not know what they do not know. Rather, it is that they do not know what it is to know something.” Who could have imagined that we would now see the word “epistemology” mentioned so often? Epistemology concerns how we know what we know. David Roberts of Vox has pointed to the emergence of what he calls “tribal epistemology.” “Information,” he wrote, “is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. ‘Good for our side’ and ‘true’ begin to blur into one.” In polarization between right and left, the great casualty has been the distinction between true and false. Instead of concocting an imaginary “enemy of the American people,” we would be better served by confronting the profound threat to civil society of having falsehoods and crazy conspiracy theories accepted as truth. Citizens can and should debate how to interpret events. We will form different opinions on how to address the world’s many challenges. But how does democracy survive when people cannot agree on a core set of facts, when we cannot agree on what happened even yesterday? Contrary to how the press is so often portrayed — with “fake news” being the latest favorite epithet — unearthing facts is what quality journalists have done for decades. And that has served the public interest. Unearthing facts is what reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull and photographer Michel du Cille of The Washington Post did in 2007 when they exposed the mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, sparking public outrage and leading to overdue reforms. That’s what the Los Angeles Times did in 2010 when it dug up pervasive corruption in the California city of Bell, where officials had used the city’s accounts as their personal piggybank. Convictions and reforms followed. That’s what the Las Vegas Sun did in 2008 when it exposed the high death rate among construction workers on the Las Vegas Strip, where safety regulations were not rigorously enforced. Workers today are better protected as a result. That’s what the Times-Picayune of New Orleans and the Biloxi-Gulfport Sun-Herald did in 2005 when they provided nonstop coverage of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina — even as their own homes and workplaces were threatened. Their work proved to be a lifeline for the people of their communities. And unearthing facts is what the Boston Globe did in 2002 when it exposed a decades-long policy and practice of concealing clerical sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. The voices of sex-abuse survivors were finally heard. A powerful institution was held to account. Reforms followed. And children were made more safe. Who would have done this work but for journalists? Enemies of the American people? I don’t think so. Thank you for listening.

How to cover the Islamic State — and survive

_Joel Simon is executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. His book“The New Censorship: Inside the Global Battle for Media Freedom” is due out Nov. 11._ Sometime in 2013, as Islamic State militants expanded the territory under their control, an order came down to the local brigades: Grab any non-Muslim foreigner you can find. Western journalists became prime targets, and over the next few months dozens were captured by local fighters. International news organizations purposely avoided covering the kidnappings. Such blackouts are intended to create space for hostage negotiations to move forward discreetly, undisturbed by the media spotlight. Yet this voluntary censorship also had unintended consequences: In late 2013, when 30 journalists were missing in Syria, there was virtually no coverage of the problem, little public awareness that Islamic State fighters were actively searching for journalists and humanitarian workers to abduct, and less recognition of the rise of a group that has now emerged as a serious international security threat. The Islamic State’s approach to news media, meanwhile, has reaped huge benefits for the group. Ransom payments by European governments have generated millions of dollars in revenue, with the going price per hostage estimated to be north of $2 million. Its grisly videos showing the beheadings of journalists such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff have reinforced the militants’ message of terror and served as valuable recruiting tools. And the group has managed its global image through its deft use of social media and its ability to restrict access to independent journalists. In the battle over information between the Islamic State and journalists, the terrorists are winning. Given the dangers and unique challenges involved, news organizations need to reconsider the value of media blackouts, find creative ways to gather news from inside Syria at a time when much of the country is a no-go zone for international reporters, and take steps to ensure that their coverage does not advance the militant group’s goals and propaganda. **** The modern media blackout emerged in Iraq around 2005, when the insurgency there was gaining ground. When individual journalists were abducted, news organizations often asked their colleagues in the business for a few days of quiet to sort out who was holding their reporters and to attempt to carry out quick negotiations for their release. As the kidnapping phenomenon spread to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, requests for blackouts became more routine and more extended. When New York Times reporterDavid Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan in November 2008, the blackout lasted seven months, until he escaped. In the case of Michael Scott Moore , kidnapped in Somalia and recently released, the blackout lasted almost three years. But the scale of the kidnapping crisis in Syria is unprecedented. All told, more than 90 journalists have been kidnapped there in the past three years — many of them Westerners taken by Islamic State fighters. The relative lack of coverage has made it harder for journalists traveling to Syria to assess the risk for themselves. While each kidnapping case is different, there is little evidence that news blackouts are effective, particularly when it comes to American and British journalists taken captive by the Islamic State. This is because, as New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi pointed out during a recent discussion at Columbia University’s journalism school, the United States and Britain have a policy of not negotiating with the militant group — so blackouts that are supposed to create space for negotiations serve no purpose. While families and media organizations (rather than governments) have negotiated the release of hostages in other parts of the world, this has not been the case in Syria. More open reporting on kidnappings, however, and the public engagement it would elicit can compel governments to take more decisive steps. This could include military action, efforts to find another government that could serve as an intermediary with the hostage-takers or more direct engagement with the families of the kidnapping victims. It is less clear, but possible, that more open discussion of kidnappings could also pressure Islamic State militants. For example, the family of recently killed British hostage Alan Henning sought to highlight his humanitarian work on behalf of Muslims in Syria, and the family of American aid worker Peter Kassig , shown in the most recent Islamic State video, has publicly emphasized his conversion to Islam (while in captivity, Kassig changed his name to Abdul-Rahman). To have the best chance at success, these campaigns must begin long before Islamic State fighters issue a public death sentence — after which the group cannot back down without losing face. It is reasonable to withhold certain information that could endanger a hostage. But as blackouts become the norm, governments’ demands on journalists are growing. The British government, for example, now routinely sends messages to British and U.S. publications, requesting that they suppress certain news. And in Turkey, the government recently demanded that the local news media withhold coverage of the abduction of Turkish diplomats by Islamic State fighters in Mosul, Iraq. When I recently met with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, he contrasted the “responsible” U.S. media with the supposedly reckless Turkish media, which revealed information about the Mosul hostages. In such cases, he argued, the media has an “ethical responsibility not to say anything.” The threshold for blackouts needs to be raised, and at a minimum there should be more aggressive and comprehensive reporting once hostages are released. It is a sensitive issue, but the Islamic State benefits from an environment in which these facts are obscured. The horrifying beheading videos released by the Islamic State have heightened public awareness of the dangers journalists face when covering the conflict in Syria. In fact, more than 70 journalists have been killed there since the civil war erupted in 2011. Initially, rebel fighters welcomed international journalists, hoping that more coverage of the brutal tactics of the Bashar al-Assad government and the devastating toll on civilians would prompt Western governments — including the United States — to intervene militarily. Reporting from Syria was dangerous during this period, of course; many journalists were killed on the battlefield, including some possibly targeted by Assad forces. But as the conflict shifted, with more-radicalized militants from the Islamic State and the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front gaining the upper hand over the more moderate rebel groups, the risk to journalists exploded. In December 2013, editors from 13 news organizations, including the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and The Washington Post, wrote to the leadership of the Free Syrian Army, noting that because of the kidnapping epidemic, many news outlets “have decided to limit their coverage of the war” because the rebel leadership was unable to provide for their security. “Going to war is nothing new for us,” the Associated Press director of photography, Santiago Lyon, told me. “The game-changer for us was kidnapping for ransom.” But the reduced presence of international news organizations in Syria has opened the door for freelancers with a higher tolerance for risk. Few have had the full support of established newsrooms. Istanbul-based freelancer Sarah A. Topol recalls meetings with editors who told her that it was too dangerous to send her to Syria but that if she did decide to go, they would be interested in seeing her reporting. She decided she would not cover Syria under these conditions. Foley, who had the support of his media organization, GlobalPost, made a different decision. Following his 2011 abduction by the Gaddafi regime during a reporting stint in Libya, he described to Topol the “freelancer’s conundrum” in assessing danger: “I think it’s just basic laws of competition; you need to have something the staffers don’t, but in a conflict zone that means you take bigger risks: go in sooner, stay longer, go closer.” After the murders of Foley and Sotloff, however, many publications announced that they would no longer take contributions from freelancers in Syria. “We no longer accept work from freelance journalists who travel to places where we ourselves would not venture,” Agence France-Presse announced on Sept. 17. “. . . If someone travels to Syria and offers us images or information when they return, we will not use it.” So if the risks make it impossible for international journalists to operate on the ground in Syria, particularly in areas under Islamic State control, how can they cover the war? Several strategies, valuable but limited, have emerged. The first is to rely on a network of Syrian observers, paid or unpaid, to provide firsthand observations. Some large news organizations covering the conflict out of their Beirut or Istanbul bureaus use this approach. Of course, Syrians providing information under such circumstances face extraordinary risks; 85 percent of the journalists killed covering the Syrian conflict so far have been local journalists. The second approach is to seek information from those who have left the country, including refugees streaming across the border bearing fresh news. They are often in contact with others still in the country, and by working the phones reporters can glean a decent understanding of events on the ground. Third, social media has been a critical source of information about the Syrian conflict. A number of reporters and bloggers have made an effective specialty of parsing, verifying and contextualizing social media postings, notably British blogger Eliot Higgins (a.k.a. “Brown Moses ”), who has received much acclaim for his groundbreaking reports. Such approaches are useful, but little can substitute for on-the-ground reporting. If and when conditions allow, newsrooms should deploy only staffers or fully supported and seasoned freelancers to cover the Syrian conflict. News organizations must obviously take responsibility for their Syrian contributors as well — providing training on personal security as well as information security — but here the calculation is different. Everyone living in Syria, particularly in areas under Islamic State control, takes risks just to survive, and the decision of brave Syrians to put their lives on the line in the cause of providing news to the world should be respected. VICE News sent a film crew to embed with Islamic State fighters and in August released a 40-minute documentary. It makes no pretense of balance. It presents the conflict from the perspective of the militants. And it has been viewed on YouTube more than 4 million times. This approach has been criticized by some more-traditional journalists, who say it risks glorifying the Islamic State. At a recent panel discussion at New York University, the New York Times’ Amy O’Leary suggested that the documentary could be viewed as propaganda and asked VICE News editor Jason Mojica what conditions were agreed upon with the terrorist group to gain such access. Mojica said there was “no collusion” but refused to specify any conditions. I wish VICE editors would be more forthcoming about the circumstances under which the documentary project was undertaken and whether the Islamic State had the opportunity to review or censor footage in an effort to advance its agenda. But given the dearth of information about this war, I’m glad the documentary was made. This challenge is not unique to VICE News. When information is at a premium, how can journalists ensure that they are not used to advance Islamic State propaganda and, therefore, Islamic State objectives? The more the militants restrict independent reporting, the greater value given to the information from the group’s propaganda network, including the beheading videos. And news media blackouts allow the Islamic State to determine the timing of the release of information about hostages. The impact is clear: Whether the group used the killings to forestall U.S. military engagement or to provoke, the emotional, intensive media coverage of the videos contributed to changes in U.S. policy — including the decision to undertake military action in the region. News organizations, recognizing how the Islamic State is seeking to manipulate and terrorize the public, have shifted their coverage dramatically, becoming more restrained with each subsequent video release. Many did not show video or stills from the execution of Henning, the most recent hostage to be killed. This contrasts with coverage of Foley’s killing six weeks earlier, which was graphic, emotional and visceral. The Independent, a British daily, made the point dramatically after the Henning beheading, publishing a black front page with the headline, “Here is the news, not the propaganda.” These decisions are not censorship; they are an appropriate exercise in news judgment. The videos should also be removed from YouTube and other popular Web sites according to their terms of service. However, I don’t want to see the videos scrubbed from the Internet altogether. Despite their use as Islamic State recruitment tools, they should remain accessible to determined Internet users who want to understand the group’s brutality. News organizations must be cognizant of the strategies the Islamic State uses to manipulate its image in the press. As the AP’s Lyon told me, when the Syrian war began, many of the images presented the story from the perspective of the victims. Today, because of Islamic State propaganda, the war is presented from the perspective of the perpetrators of violence. This forever changes the way the public experiences and understands the conflict. **Twitter:@Joelcpj **

Mexico protects wounded leader of citizen militia trying to fight off cartels

MEXICO CITY — Fifty federal police officers armed with black assault rifles guard the gates of an exclusive private hospital in this cosmopolitan capital. They are patrolling the polished stone lobby, standing sentry under palm trees, surveilling the Starbucks. Private security guards and local police man the doors, driveways and elevators. “We are all here for him,” one federal police officer said. That would be for José Manuel Mireles, a wiry, mustachioed surgeon who once worked for the Red Cross in California and who is now Mexico’s most famous militia leader. Mireles arrived at the hospital this week as a patient, after his small airplane crashed in his home state of Michoacan, where he is leading a growing civilian rebellion against the drug cartel known as the Knights Templar. The massive security presence at the Medica Sur hospital speaks to both the newfound fame and the national importance of Mireles, but also to the tricky position in which Mexico’s government finds itself with regard to the rebel movement. Since the spring, when Mireles banded together with local residents, officials in President Enrique Peña Nieto’s government have described the citizen fighters as operating outside the law. But in recent months, as more towns have joined in, Mireles’s stature has only grown. “Yes, we are protecting him,” Interior Minister Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong said this week. “Because he is a person who has wounded the cartels, particularly the Templars.” Osorio Chong told reporters there was no sign of foul play when Mireles’s airplane went down Saturday as he was traveling from Guadalajara to his home town of Tepalcatepec. One of the five passengers onboard was killed, and 55-year-old Mireles suffered head injuries and a dislocated jaw. Osorio Chong blamed the crash on pilot error, and other senior officials said there are no plans to arrest Mireles. If Mireles returns to lead his movement, which has spread to about 20 towns in Michoacan, his survival will undoubtedly burnish his growing legend. The doctor, who used to live in Sacramento and often carries a hand-held radio in his white hospital jacket, has said he rallied villagers against the Knights Templar to stop rampant extortion by cartel members as well as a wave of abductions and rapes of women and girls. Peña Nieto dispatched thousands of soldiers to Michoacan last year, but residents say the citizen militias have had far more success. “We do the work of the government, and we are willing to die fighting,” Mireles has said. In Internet videos, a leader of the Knights Templar, Servando Gómez Martínez, a.k.a. “La Tuta,” has accused the civilian militias of being proxy fighters for a rival drug gang, New Generation, which operates across the state line in Jalisco. Managing the volatile and confusing mix of gunmen in Michoacan has become one of the most vexing problems for Mexico’s government. Because Mireles and his vigilantes consider local officials inextricably linked to the drug mafias, siding with the militiamen puts the federal government at odds with its own local administrations. Over the weekend, militiamen seized a government building in the town of Paracuaro and refused to release 11 local policemen they took prisoner. That prompted roadblocks by masked people denouncing the militia takeover — protesters who the militiamen said were working at the behest of the cartels. Paracuaro’s mayor called for the federal government to release the police. Elsewhere in Michoacan, local policemen have been arrested on charges of collaborating in the killings of dozens of people whose bodies were found in a mass grave in the town of La Barca in November. Authorities have kept Mireles and his relatives out of the public spotlight while he recovers. But the heavy police presence worries some hospital officials, who fear that it could prove disruptive. “I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said one hospital clerk as the federal police officers patrolled the lobby.

This study says being a ‘newspaper reporter’ is the worst job there is

Something called CareerCast puts out an annual ranking of 200 common jobs. This year, "newspaper reporter" finished 200 out of 200. So, last.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Here's the CareerCast explanation: "Readership has steadily moved from print publications, whether they be newspapers or magazines, in favor of online outlets. The resulting decline in advertising revenue has left newspapers -- and thus, newspaper reporters -- feeling the pinch." And, just in case you are saying "well, sure, 'print reporter' might be a bad job but almost no one does _just_ that anymore", which is what I did, then here are a few other rankings to humble you: Photojournalist (195), Publication Editor (137) and Social Media Manager (101.) (Hat tip to the indispensable Romensko for flagging the rankings.)    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Here's the "good" news from CareerCast: "However, those with good writing skills often can find new employment in public relations, marketing, advertising and social media, where the outlook may be brighter." GREAT! While the full methodology of how CareerCast arrives at its rankings is pretty complicated (you can read it here), it essentially comes down to how much money you make, how much stress you have and what your work environment like. So, the next two worst jobs behind "newspaper reporter" according to CareerCast are "lumberjack" and "enlisted military personnel" -- both of which carry very high risk of danger or even death. (Corrections officer is the 6th worst job.)    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Look, I get it. Journalism, broadly, is not terribly high-paying and there does tend to be a fair amount of stress tied to it. And, yes, for some reporters far braver than I, there is also the risk of death when they put themselves in dangerous places in the world to report. (Sixty one journalists were killed in 2014, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.) Add all of that to the fact that journalism is in the midst of a massive change in the way in which news is delivered (and constructed) and you get the worst job in the country.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Let me mount a defense of this profession that I have worked in my entire post-college life. I will avoid the "it's a noble calling" or "it's not a job, it's a passion" cliches -- though I do think for many people in the field, they hold true. To me, journalism isn't the worst profession for a simple reason: I like learning. If you boil down journalism to its essence, it's really just about finding things out and then telling people what you've found out. That's the mission we are all on -- trying to understand and synthesize the world around us. Where can't you fly a gyrocopter in Washington? Why is brunch so divisive? How are our veterans being treated (or mistreated)?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I love spending every day trying to figure things out in the political world. I love talking to people -- sources and other journalists -- who make me see something in a story or a politician that I couldn't see on my own. I love the process of looking through some huge poll with tons of numbers in it and finding the one thing that I think is worth sharing with folks. I love seeing people who work with me on The Fix -- and in journalism more generally --  producing the charts, GIFs and pictures that allow us to explain things in the best possible way to the online reader. The honest truth is that journalism is really damn fun most of the time. That doesn't mean -- this is for you, haters -- that we don't take what we do seriously. We do.  But, a profession where you get to not only engage in the daily conversation around politics, pop culture (or whatever) but also write about it for some broader group of people is pretty hard to beat. I am not saying journalism is for everyone or that it is as awesome as being an actuary -- the best job, according to CareerCast. But as someone who has devoted my life to the field, I can tell you I am having more fun now than ever before.  How many people can say the same?

Trump is not just a risk to the country. He is also a risk to the planet.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump spent an hour with The Post’s editorial board on Monday, and he made at least three points that show why he is not just a risk to the country — but also to the planet.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico First was **Trump’s astonishing position on free speech**. He doubled down on the notion that he would “loosen” U.S. libel laws so that it would be easier to go after journalists and other writers. For example, he would weaken the requirement that aggrieved public figures must show “malice” when suing a journalist who “writes incorrectly.” He attacked stories that are “written badly” and argued that a newspaper that “writes something wrong” and fails to run a retraction should “have a form of a trial.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico He was serially unclear on what he meant by “bad,” “incorrect” and “wrong” — factually wrong? Simply unfair? When I asked him to clarify, he gave an example of television news broadcasts failing to give more details about an altercation at one of his rallies, which is not a matter of inaccuracy but of emphasis. He also kept making clear that he was concerned with all sorts of coverage he disliked. He brought up Post opinion writing to which he objected, calling it “so angry,” which suggests that purely factual issues are not motivating his concerns. After more pressure, he seemed to disclaim the notion that he would crack down on angry columnists, but he ended on this scary bottom line: “I want to make it more fair from the side where I am.” Trump’s loose talk of loosening freedom of speech protections is not just chilling in this country. The United States is such an exemplar of liberal values, Trump would reset the global standard downward. He would enable dictators such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to say, “I told you so.” Second was **Trump’s embarrassing nonsense on climate change** , which he has previously called “bulls—.” On Monday, he said that “perhaps there’s a minor effect.” But, “if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s, and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things. Now they’re using ‘extreme weather’ I guess more than any other phrase.” See, climate scientists — who have consistently raised concerns about global warming, and called it that, for decades — are constantly changing their story.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?” I asked. In other words, why not pay something now to head off possibly much costlier outcomes later? “I just think we have much bigger risks,” Trump said, warning that the country is in “tremendous peril.” “Our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons,” he said. “To me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That is climate change. That is a disaster.” There are several ways to interpret some of this language. But what makes it classic Trump is its brazen lack of reason. Forget this issue I do not want to confront. You know what you really need to worry about? The nuclear apocalypse. Admittedly, Trump’s irresponsibility on climate change is not much different from many other Republicans’. But his justification is nevertheless a masterpiece of Trumpian illogic. Third was **Trump’s approach to foreign affairs and trade.** He insisted that, as president, he should be “unpredictable,” arguing that, “sitting at a meeting like this and explaining my views” is unwise because, “if I do become president, I have these views that are down for the other side to look at.” Then he said, “I hate being so open.” This telegraphs insincerity, making it seem as though he just wants to avoid answering the question, which concerned what he would do about China’s moves to take control of the South China Sea. Assuming he means unpredictability to be a real strategy, it is a risky one. It can help in certain negotiations. But, along with Trump’s more isolationist approach to foreign affairs, it can also encourage adversaries to act more aggressively.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Trump was clear about one thing: He might use trade to punish China for its geopolitical advances. “We have power over China and people don’t realize it. We have trade power over China,” he said. “You start making it tougher.” Tempting a trade war with China certainly would make it tougher — on American consumers and the global economy. Hillary Clinton, the most recent former secretary of state, has said that foreign leaders are telling her that they are worried about Trump. They should be.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

The worst public relations pitches pegged to Robin Williams’s death

Earlier this week, Alex Williams at Pew Research filed a report on the discrepancies between reporters and the public relations specialists whose job it is to pitch those reporters. By examining Bureau of Labor Statistics data, he found that last year, 43,630 people were employed as journalists, up against 202,530 people working in PR (and for every dollar publicists made, reporters were making $0.65). Those numbers are up sharply: In 2004, there were 3.2 publicists for every working reporter. Now the ratio is up to 4.6 people working in PR for every reporter out there.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday This is good news for anyone concerned about the basic robustness of the publicity industry. But it also makes publicists’ jobs harder to do. More of them are competing for fewer reporters’ attention. To try to cut through the clutter, some (though by no means all) publicists take unfortunate advantage of tragic events, occasionally in ways that exhibit a shocking lack of taste and good sense. These pitches are a common joke among journalists. But even I and some of the reporters I know were stunned by the boldness of some of the releases or offers of interviews that came through the transom in the wake of Robin Williams’s suicide. A number of my colleagues forwarded me a pitch from Wilks Communications offering up “Cyber security expert” Steve Weisman as a source. The hook? “Robin Williams’ tragic death leaves consumers at high risk of identity theft. The 1.2 billion people already endangered from the massive Russian hacking just got more vulnerable as identity thieves lure curious citizens with links promising details about Robin Williams.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday One reader forwarded me an e-mail from LeadingThinkers suggesting that this would be a great time for reporters to talk to the writer Joyce Maynard, essentially on the grounds that we are all having a lot of thoughts and feelings. “If anyone knows how to talk about the elephant in the living room, it’s Joyce,” the e-mail suggests. “Whether it’s a novel about a teenager whose mother died on 9/11, coming to terms with the legacy of an alcoholic parent, detailing the ugly truth about her relationship with J.D. Salinger or sharing the painful personal story of her experience adopting and then relinquishing custody of two Ethiopian girls, Joyce has never shied away from the facts at hand.” I suppose the pitch acts as further proof of Maynard’s — or at least her representative’s — willingness to forge forward without concern for how anyone might react. Lots of e-mails offering up physicians who treat or research mental illness landed in my inbox. Most of these were relatively benign, even if the publicists were not exactly exerting themselves to draw clear connections between what is known about Williams’s mental health issues and their clients’ specialties. But one that came to me via Samantha Rollins, the news editor at the Week, stood out. X Factor Digital Marketing wanted her to consider talking to clinical psychologist Dr. Bart Rossi, who, “although he has not treated Robin Williams or can definitely determine what happened,” is apparently eager to declare that Williams “most likely had a longstanding personality disorder.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday Not all of these pitches are necessarily terrible — a broader version of the identity theft pitch, drawing on more examples, and pushed out after a more decorous interval might have been a story I was interested in writing. But it rarely seems to occur to folks that patience might serve them and their clients better (as would more targeted pitches). And publicists are hardly the only people prone to draw tenuous connections and to show serious lapses in taste when processing and analyzing a tragedy as part of their jobs. Maureen Dowd has a perfectly fine explanation for why she associates Robin Williams with the late journalist Michael Kelly, but I simply do not believe that this particular memory always leads her to contemplate Hillary Clinton and the war in Iraq. Rush Limbaugh, who is normally impervious to criticism, has attempted to amend his remarks drawing a causal relationship between “leftist” politics and Williams’s suicide. I received 15 e-mails from NBC News or NBC News publicists trying to get me to write about the network’s coverage of Williams’s death.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday The examples of PR pitches that landed in my inbox succeeded at half of a publicist’s job: They cut through the noise. But the harder half is just as important. When sending out a pitch, you should think about how a signal might be transformed by context and what it might look like in a journalist’s inbox.

Who is Juan Carlos Lopez? Meet the CNN debate moderator.

Tuesday night's premier 2016 presidential debate, like all the others so far, will feature three moderators. One of them will likely be unfamiliar to the vast majority of viewers. But know this: The reporter that many English-speaking viewers haven't heard of might ask some of the toughest questions. Juan Carlos Lopez is an English- and Spanish-speaking reporter with CNN en Español based in Washington, D.C. And unlike co-moderator Anderson Cooper's work, which calls on him to drop in on the world's controversies but work mainly behind an anchor desk in New York, and Dana Bash, who spends most of her time on Capitol Hill, Lopez's beat requires him to roam far and wide.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico His work often involves stories on trade throughout the Americas, immigration to the United States, inflation rates in other countries and political and social controversies in the the U.S. and abroad. He covered events in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, the Elian Gonzalez matter in Florida and more recently the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. He has also been involved in covering drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman's prison break and the related manhunt, as well as political protests related to high- level corruption scandals in Latin America this year.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Lopez reported extensively on efforts to boot the U.S. Navy off of Vieques Island in Puerto Rico and the environmental mess left behind, and he weighed in on the Florida presidential election debacle in 2000, as well as the 2010 earthquake in Haiti and the moment that the United States made its case for war in Iraq at the United Nations.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Lopez has interviewed a number of politicians, including Hillary Clinton, the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, deposed Honduran president Manuel Zelaya and his successors; as well as former Colombian leader Alvaro Uribe, Mexico's former president Vicente Fox and Panama's Ricardo Martinelli. And back in the United States, he has covered both both the Republican and Democratic Party conventions. Last week alone, Lopez covered the congressional hearing where U.S. officials took responsibility for the mistaken bombing of a Doctor's Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, and helped to tell Spanish-speaking viewers about Myriam Witcher, the Colombian American woman who Trump brought up on stage at an event where she promptly professed her commitment to the Trump campaign.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico If you need more evidence, check out the wide range of topics Lopez tweeted about in the last few days. Then, if you don't speak Spanish, make use of that Google translate button up top. You will get a rough but very clear idea.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico And if that's not enough prep work for the debate, Lopez's moderator skills get a regular workout. He's the host of CNN en Español's weekly debate program "Choque de Opiniones" (that translates roughly to "Clash of Opinions") and a daily news show, "Directo USA." His role on the latter program is what the New York Times called CNN en Español's Wolf Blitzer.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Lopez is also regular contributor to CNN's English language programs. And some of CNN en Español's programing featuring Lopez also appears on Sirius XM __ radio. It's also worth noting that, while some English-speakers may not know Lopez, CNN en Español is available in 30 million homes. Those houses stretch “from Alaska to Patagonia,” according to CNN executives. And Lopez has been nominated for Emmy Awards twice — once just this year in the Outstanding Newscast or News Magazine in Spanish category.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Perhaps that's why Lopez's official CNN en Español job title — presentador y corresponsal en jefe (chief anchor and correspondent) — seems to pretty much fit. But to be perfectly honest, there's not a lot of personal information out there on Lopez. There's not even a Wikipedia page of questionable quality dedicated to the journalist. On a semi-personal note, we do know this: Lopez is a native of Colombia and began his career as a TV reporter in Bogota before moving to Miami and working for Univision. Lopez joined CNN in the 1990s and moved over to CNN en Español when the company founded the network in 2000. So like Bash and Cooper, he's been with CNN for a long time. And in an August interview with the Venezuelan newspaper, El Universal, Lopez told a reporter that he's thankful to work as a journalist in the United States. In the United States, people may not like what a reporter writes or airs, but journalists are rarely killed or jailed in connection with their work, he said. Lopez pointed out that in Mexico, the United States' neighbor, and many other countries, the situation is quite different. (Here's a link for those who can read Spanish.)    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Lopez earned his journalism degree at Javerina University in Bogota and spent time studying at the New Iberoamerican Journalism Foundation — an organization founded by acclaimed Colombian and Nobel Prize-winningnovelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who died in 2014.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Marquez, who is probably best known in the United States as the mind behind the books "One Hundred Years of Solitude" and "Love in a Time of Cholera," began his professional life as a journalist. He created the foundation to train journalists to do high-quality work which contributes to democracy and development in Latin America and the Caribbean.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico So it's fair to say that Lopez has swum with big fish in more than one country.

Donald Trump is pushing journalists to their professional — and personal — limits

Cynical news consumers often assume that journalists’ personal biases seep into every story, as if a reporter writing about calls for more gun control obviously must endorse that position because it is too hard to set aside one’s own beliefs. It’s actually not that tough, in most cases. Workers in all kinds of fields manage to do their jobs well and do them fairly while suppressing their opinions. Lawyers vigorously defend clients they don’t like, accountants accurately keep the books for companies they can’t stand, and believe it or not, journalists report truthfully on people and policies they don’t agree with. This isn’t always the case, of course, but good professionals generally find a way to keep their opinions out of it. There are always limits to the human ability to compartmentalize feelings, however, and Donald Trump is testing them -- perhaps deliberately. His attacks on the press have become so personal, so mean-spirited, that they have to register at some level. When Trump mocked New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski during a rally in South Carolina last month, appearing to mimic the effects of Kovaleski’s congenital joint condition, the Times issued a strong rebuke, and other media outlets covered the incident extensively. (Trump denied that his spastic motions were intended to be an impression of Kovaleski’s disability.) It was a legitimate news story, but it also felt a bit like circling the wagons.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Trump dispensed perhaps his heaviest dose of venom on Monday in Grand Rapids, Mich., where he mused about whether he would ever kill journalists. “Uh, let’s see,” he said at one point, his hand wavering indecisively. “Eh, no, I wouldn’t. I would never kill them. But I do hate ’em, and some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It’s true.” Trump was being glib (I think), responding to critics who questioned how he could embrace recent praise from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Since 1992, 80 journalists have been murdered in Russia, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, though there is no proof that Putin had a hand in the killings (as Trump himself has emphasized).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Even if we assume that Trump would never seriously entertain such a thing, his total disdain for the fourth estate — whose role in a free society is so vital that the Founding Fathers sought to protect it in the First Amendment — is troubling. It’s only natural to imagine the life of a journalist under a Trump administration and to shudder at the thought. All of this might not matter for now, while Trump is in first place, but if he falters (he leads Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas by just four points in the latest national poll and trails him in Iowa), it will be tempting for many journalists to take at least a modicum of pleasure in his downfall -- politics aside. That's human nature.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Of course, whether or not that matters politically or journalistically is an open question. Coverage has already been very critical of Trump, and Trump has in turn thrived on a critical media declaring his lead won't last and that he has problems with the truth. But it's also clear that a guy who has clashed with the press is now making clear he has basically no respect for it. And as with many things in the Trump campaign, that's basically unprecedented.

Immigration turnaround offers chance for real solutions

Now that the immigration “crisis” has solved itself, this is the perfect time for Congress and the president to agree on a package of sensible, real-world reforms. Yeah, right, and it’s also the perfect time for pigs to grow wings and take flight. Perhaps this week’s most significant news was areport from the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center showing that net migration from Mexico to the United States has slowed to a halt and may actually have reversed. That’s right: There may be more people leaving this country to live in Mexico than leaving Mexico to live here. End of the “crisis” — which wasn’t really a crisis at all, except in overwhelmed border-state cities such as Phoenix. There’s no longer the slightest excuse for histrionics about the alleged threat to our way of life from invading hordes intent on — shudder — working hard and raising their families. Why the turnaround? The report cites “many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.” To me, all of that makes perfect sense. Whether they have papers or not, immigrants are rational. As a general rule, they don’t come here to commit crimes; they could do that at home if they wanted. They don’t come here to laze around and enjoy government benefits because, well, what benefits would those be? They come to work. But the U.S. economy fell off a cliff, meaning there is less work to be had. Mexico’s economy, while not unscathed, is improving. And the Obama administration has dramatically stepped up border enforcement while carrying out a record number of deportations. Suddenly, both for Mexicans who considered immigrating legally and those who might have been tempted to come without documents, the risk-reward equation has changed. According to the Pew report, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States; six out of 10 are Mexican. The number of immigrants without papers has actually been falling. Wouldn’t this be a perfect time to take a deep breath and start talking about reasonable ways to engineer a more rational immigration policy? Yes it would, but don’t hold your breath. Apparently, we’re going to have a lot of shouting without actually trying to find a solution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona’s “driving while brown” law, which instructs police to challenge and, if necessary, apprehend anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. The law forbids racial profiling, but the truth is that it effectively _guarantees_ profiling. The administration argues that the state law usurps the federal government’s prerogative to set immigration policy. The court is expected to decide the case this summer, and the ruling’s impact may be less practical — since illegal immigration, I repeat, is already on the decline — than political. Democrats will react with thunderous outrage if the court upholds the Arizona law — but if you stand outside the back room where the pollsters and campaign strategists work, you might hear the slapping of high-fives. Anything that draws attention to the Republican Party’s extremist position on immigration will only reinforce a tendency that Mitt Romney recently characterized as “doom” — the headlong rush of Latino voters into a waiting Democratic embrace. Barack Obama won a remarkable two-thirds of the Latino vote in 2008. This year, according to the polls, he’s running even stronger among the biggest minority group in the country. If Republicans don’t find a way to win more Latino support, Obama will be hard to beat. In the long term, if Latinos become a more or less permanent Democratic constituency like African Americans have, the GOP will inexorably go the way of the Whigs. So that is what this year’s immigration “debate” will be about: how to reap political gain and avoid political loss. What should our elected officials be talking about? I’d suggest they start with the obvious solution. We don’t need to build a giant wall along the Rio Grande; Obama has already “hardened” the border. We need a Reagan-style amnesty that would allow the great majority of undocumented immigrants to stay, along with reforms that give Mexicans and others a realistic hope of being able to come here someday. Assuming they want to. **_eugenerobinson@washpost.com _ ** **Read more on the immigration debate:** Dana Milbank: Antonin Scalia’s rough justice Jennifer Rubin: Can Romney win over Hispanics? The Post’s View: Arizona goes too far Andrew Friedman and Nisha Agarwal: A better states’ welcome for immigrants Dana Milbank: Romney won’t be able to shake immigration debate

Threats to a free press, from Ferguson to the White House

This is a terrible time for journalists. Just last week, the world watched in horror as James Foley, a freelance photojournalist for GlobalPost and Agence France-Presse, was beheaded by a jihadist from the Islamic State. The disturbing video suggests that the perpetrators intend to target more journalists if their demands are not met. There is something particularly chilling about murdering those seeking only to inform, about reporters around the world having to fear for their lives. But right here at home, we’re seeing a less lethal, yet still deeply troubling threat to journalism. In recent days, all eyes have been on Ferguson, Mo., where the shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown on Aug. 9 touched off citywide protests and a national debate over racism, equal justice and police brutality. But if local Ferguson police had their way, there would be little or no coverage at all. Since the killing, Ferguson law enforcement have arrested or detained at least 10 journalists , and tried to silence many more. They’ve escalated violence against the media, shooting tear gas canisters at reporters and dismantling cameras and lighting equipment. The Post’s Wesley Lowery was slammed into a soda machine and arrested after disregarding an illegal order to stop filming. “Don’t resist,” one cop threatened an Al Jazeera reporter. “I’ll bust your head right here.” Some media critics have argued that journalists are behaving irresponsibly, that instead of providing unbiased coverage, they risk becoming the story. But it is a story — an essential one — when our supposedly free press is prevented from doing its vital duty. President Obama was absolutely right in his Aug. 18 remarks on Ferguson: “Our constitutional rights . . . to report in the press must be vigilantly safeguarded.” And yet, in areas outside of Missouri, White House actions regarding press freedom have been at best, unconscionable and at worst, unconstitutional. Take the case of James Risen. A New York Times reporter, Risen is being subpoenaed to testify in the Justice Department case against one of his alleged sources. He has opted for jail time rather than “giv[ing] up everything I believe in.” Risen knows that journalists cannot fulfill their duty to investigate the government and hold elected officials accountable if they cannot guarantee the anonymity of their sources. The Espionage Act with which Risen is being threatened has become one of the Obama administration’s favorite tools: It has charged more U.S. whistleblowers under the World War I-era law than all other presidents combined. And, as I’ve written previously, this administration has waged an aggressive campaign against reporters and those who leak information to them. There is an indelible connection between what is happening in Ferguson and what is happening in Washington. In both places, and in cities all over the country, journalists — the very watchdogs of our freedom — are being intimidated and suppressed. This is a dangerous road to travel. Journalism is not a footnote to politics. It is not an addendum to history. A free press is the very lifeblood of democratic representation. It was the muckraking work of Upton Sinclair that alerted the nation to the scourge of the Chicago meatpacking industry. It was the meticulous reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that curbed a president’s abuse of power. It was the graphic images of fire hoses and dogs at the Children’s Crusade that breathed new life into the Civil Rights Movement. As John Lewis said, “If it hadn’t been for the American media . . . a free press, the civil rights movement would have been like a bird without wings.” It is the intrepid reporters who questioned the CIA’s tactics, who unveiled the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program, who challenge the decisions of the powerful and, yes, shine an unwavering light on Ferguson. As my Nation colleague John Nichols wrote, “When journalists are harassed, intimidated, threatened and detained, the basic premise of democracy — that the great mass of people, armed with information and perspective, and empowered to act upon it, will set right that which is made wrong by oligarchs — is assaulted.” Recent events are stirring people into action. In Risen’s defense, a coalition of media groups submitted a petition with 100,000 signatures to the Justice Department. Americans see the sinister alternative to a free press in other countries: from Al Jazeera correspondents arrested in Egypt, to dissident Web sites gutted in Russia, to Mexican journalists abducted and murdered by drug cartels, to Russian journalists detained in Ukraine. While U.S. officials condemn such assaults abroad — and rightfully so — it’s time they show an equal commitment to our own vital principle of a free media. _Read more fromKatrina vanden Heuvel’s archive or follow her on Twitter._ **Read more about this topic:** The Post’s View: The administration should not press reporter James Risen to reveal a source Katrina vanden Heuvel: Don’t confuse truth-tellers with traitors

Trump’s attacks on the media sound eerily familiar to Germany’s journalists

Despite increased security measures, reporters were seriously assaulted at least 20 times in the German state of Saxony — home to Dresden and Leipzig — in 2015. Did hateful rhetoric incite that violence? And could something similar happen on a larger scale in other countries where verbal attacks against journalists are on the rise?  Human rights observers, academics and affected journalists are alarmed that the answer could be "yes." That's particularly true in the United States, where President Trump's attacks on the media reflect a pattern observed in eastern Germany shortly before the assaults began and that persists today.   In the run-up to the U.S. election, Trump banned several media outlets from his rallies, including The Washington Post, and prefers using campaign rallies or Twitter to reach his supporters directly. In Dresden, leaders of Pegida and many supporters categorically refused to speak to certain media outlets but happily spread their message to papers or TV channels they perceived to be less biased or through social media. The right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party recently banned a reporter from a public event in Dresden. Martin Hoffmann, a senior researcher at the European Center for Press and Media Freedom, also thinks there are parallels in the way Trump singles out media outlets and the attacks unleashed by Pegida. "Trump recently sent around an email to his supporters asking them to rate individual media outlets, and he has [attacked individual] reporters in the past. That reminded me of Pegida, which once handed out awards to the 'least honest' journalists," he said. In Germany, the far right's attacks against journalists also ended up becoming almost normal. AfD, which has sometimes polled as the third-most popular party in Germany, adopted some of their slogans. Its leader, Frauke Petry, frequently refers to the "Pinocchio press," which some people see as a sanitized version of the historically loaded "lügenpresse" term. "The backing of the AfD, as a large political party which stood behind verbal attacks on the media, legitimized violence against journalists," said a local reporter who did not want to be named due to fears over her safety. To a large extent, the attacks on the media in eastern Germany and the United States also have similar origins. In the states, many voters accused journalists based in Washington or New York of ignoring life outside of those urban areas. In Germany, a similar dynamic has developed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Critics say that many reports about what used to be East Germany in national media outlets still sound like dispatches from foreign countries, and locals see such coverage as arrogant and misleading.  Local newspapers say they have attempted to fix that problem. The Sächsische Zeitung newspaper has tried to become more transparent since 2015 by explaining how editorial decisions are made. It also prints more letters sent in by readers, "because it is true that many journalists have the same political and educational background," acknowledged Heinrich Löbbers, one of the paper's executive editors. The number of attacks has declined since 2015, as has the number of Pegida supporters marching on the streets. But although, Löbbers said, tensions between journalists and protesters have calmed down since 2015, others warn that longer-term effects might emerge now. Hoffmann thinks the distrust has become deeply entrenched among certain parts of the population. "We've recently seen the emergence of a new severity of attacks, targeting journalists working far away from protest marches who are simply doing their everyday jobs," he said. "Covering a protest is voluntary. But if attacks became more widespread, that would be a really serious problem." And if such distrust gets official sanction, says Jana Merkel, a freelance TV journalist in eastern Germany, things can get much worse: "Here in eastern Germany, some low-profile organizers steered the hatred against journalists. But in the U.S., it's the president who is behind the bashing. That's much more frightening."

In Germany, tabloids welcome refugees. In Britain, they propose sending the army to keep them out.

It's a difference that could hardly be more striking: Germany expects an influx of as many as 800,000 refugees this year alone, but its government is nevertheless trying to make it easier for Syrians to reach the country. Meanwhile, Britain is increasingly isolating itself. In both countries, there are many who oppose the influx: Up to 40 percent of all Germans don't want to take in more refugees. Nevertheless, nearly all German media outlets -- even those known as staunchly conservative -- have embraced a pro-refugee stance. Even BILD, the country's best-selling tabloid paper, known for its controversial and conservative orientation, published a cover on Saturday featuring two young refugees with the headline: "We help." In Britain, BILD's equivalent, the Daily Express, warned its readers: "Migrants swarm to Britain." Earlier, the competing Daily Mail tabloid commented: "We kept out Hitler... Why can't our feeble leaders stop a few thousand exhausted migrants?" And in a column published by the Sun newspaper, columnist Katie Hopkins offered a solution months ago: "Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico On Twitter, several commentators argued that British journalists should learn from their German counterparts. "When #Bild is more socially liberal than the British press something has gone very wrong with Britain," wrote Frank Roberts on Sunday. Others expressed hope that some British journalists would reconsider their coverage.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Nearly all major German TV stations are preparing special newscasts or mono-thematic programs to discuss prejudices against refugees. When RTL, a TV channel that draws a disproportionate number of young viewers, announced that it would focus on refugees in all of its programs on Monday, some of the feedback was negative. "I'm fed up with it," some commentators wrote on the channel's Facebook page, referring to the continuing coverage of the topic in evening newscasts. But most German journalists appear to be ignoring their critics. The violent protests and burning reception centers have alarmed journalists and potentially made them more aware of their own role in provoking opposition to the influx of refugees. On Facebook, RTL posted the following statement: "Your neighbor is a Jew, Your car is Japanese, your pizza is Italian, your democracy is Greek, your coffee is Brazilian, (...) and your neighbor is simply foreign?" The post was shared more than 10,000 times on Monday and reflected a sentiment of many who complain that those opposed to refugees have never actually met and talked to them. The channel also posted numerous short videos featuring its anchormen and anchorwomen who made emotional pleas to support refugees. "There is so much unjustified fear, and there are so many rumors," Maik Meuser, the anchor of the channel's nightly newscast said in a video. Public TV station ARD has taken a similar approach: Although the network's senior news director Kai Gniffke denied in a recent blog post that the channel had favored pro-refugee opinions, he acknowledged that the network was indeed taking a stance. "It's our task to report, to be impartial and unbiased... However, we put a special emphasis on those people, initiatives and organizations that work on finding constructive solutions," he wrote.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Nevertheless, some critics have questioned whether tabloids like BILD should be praised for their efforts. Germany has recently seen a wave of attacks on asylum reception centers, and some argue that the violence has its origins in news reporting that had portrayed refugees as potential threats for decades. "It's much more typical for (BILD) to have xenophobic headlines," Twitter user Michael Hartmann wrote. The paper has fiercely refuted such arguments. BILD is now focusing on the countries that are isolating themselves from the growing tide of migrants. "Europe's shirkers," the paper's page two read, referring to Slovakia, France, Italy, Latvia -- but above all, Britain. **Read more:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico As tragedies shock Europe, a bigger refugee crisis looms in the Middle East    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Why some German universities will educate refugees for free    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico ‘We love you': Angela Merkel becomes an unlikely hero to Syrians online    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Reporters’ deaths point to dangers of working in hotspots abroad

The horrific executions of journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley at the hands of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) demonstrate the dangers Americans and others face when traveling in hotspots abroad.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Those dangers, of course, also are very real for the people living among militant forces who think beheadings, the fate suffered by the two journalists, and mass murder are the way to victory. Not only do federal employees and contractors faces these same dangers, but they sometimes are targets. They have been marked, for killing or politically motivated imprisonment, even when posted in places thought to have been relatively safe. Here are a few examples of attacks where U.S. Foreign Service officers were captured or killed: –Two years ago, four Americans were killed in attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. –Bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam on Aug. 7, 1998. U.S. government personnel clearly were targeted , but it was the local people who suffered the most. Of the 224 people who died, 12 were Americans. Thousands were injured. –In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was stormed and 66 Americans were taken hostage, with most held for 444 days. –In 1973, the U.S. ambassador and the Charge d’Affaires, along with a Belgian diplomat, were killed when gunmen seized the Saudi Arabian embassy during a reception  in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. The State Department has this list of U.S. ambassadors who “have been killed by militants” since World War II:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico • “John Gordon Mein, Ambassador to Guatemala, August 28, 1968. Mein was killed by a gunman in Guatemala City. • “Cleo A. Noel, Jr., Ambassador to Sudan, March 1, 1973. Noel was taken hostage in Khartoum and killed by his kidnappers. • “Rodger P. Davies, Ambassador to Cyprus, August 19, 1974. Davies was shot during a demonstration at the Embassy in Nicosia. • “Francis E. Meloy, Jr., Ambassador to Lebanon, June 16, 1976. Meloy was killed by a gunman in Beruit. • “Adolph Dubs, Ambassador to Afghanistan, February 14, 1979. Dubs was captured in Kabul and was killed during the rescue attempt. • “J. Christopher Stevens, Ambassador to Libya, September 11, 2012. Stevens was killed in an attack on the Mission in Benghazi.” At the C Street NW entrance to the State Department is a memorial plaque, sponsored by the American Foreign Service Association. It honors Americans who died while serving the government abroad. The 245 names on the list include individuals who died from accidents or disease.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “When you are talking to a FSO (Foreign Service officer), you are probably to talking to someone who has lost a colleague ‘in combat,’” said Thomas Boyatt, who has been ambassador to Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) and Colombia. He can name eight friends and coworkers who died from hostile action on duty during a 15-year period. “Unhappy memories,” he said. Another former ambassador, John Limbert, was among the hostages held in Iran for 444 days. That experience left him focused on security. “I became ferociously security conscious for everyone,” said Limbert, who now teaches at the U. S. Naval Academy. He was in the Foreign Service for 35 years, recalling “some pretty nasty places.” Nasty or not, it is the job of diplomats to get out of the office and into places where they meet citizens of the host country. “If you have to be surrounded by a contingent of Blackwater guards everywhere,” Limbert said,  “it makes it very hard.”

For Mexicans, Trump’s bid is getting scarier

MEXICO CITY — If Donald Trump were president, he would have Mexico pay to build a wall along its 2,000-mile border to keep itself out. He would block the billions of dollars that Mexicans illegally in the United States send home to their families. And prevent their children born in America from automatically becoming U.S. citizens. There wouldn’t be many of these children, however, because Trump would be deporting millions of undocumented Mexicans — all of them, if he had his way. How does that sound, Mexico? “We don’t know if we should laugh or if we should cry,” said Guadalupe Loaeza, a prominent Mexican columnist. “We think he’s really a nightmare.” The longer he floats atop the polls, the more Trump has started to make people here feel a bit queasy, forcing them to contemplate whether his candidacy is really something they need to worry about. As Trump published his immigration proposals this week, Mexicans expressed growing concern about his bid for the Republican nomination. “What he says makes me laugh, but it’s a nervous laughter,” said Gustavo Vega Canovas, a professor at the international studies center of the prestigious College of Mexico. “His comments sound to me like Germany in the 1930s, when they made Jews responsible for everything that was happening.” “He’s playing with the fears of an important part of the American population,” Vega added. “Perhaps that will help him win the nomination, but it won’t help with the election, because he won’t have the Hispanic vote that is very important.” Trump has said that he respects Mexico and is trying to defend the needs of working Americans. But he has caused outrage in Mexico by labeling border-crossers drug dealers and rapists. The Mexican government has tried mostly to stay above the fray. Over the past few months, Foreign Minister José Antonio Meade and other top officials have gone on record with their displeasure about Trump’s comments. But they’ve also chosen not to engage Trump’s near-daily anti-Mexico barrages, in part because the candidate’s proposals change so often and also because officials don’t expect that he’ll be president. “We haven’t even considered that seriously,” a senior diplomat in Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said about the possibility of a Trump victory. “Otherwise, I think we would be combating it verbally.” He spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. Even if he doesn’t win, Trump’s hard-line stance on immigration could have a lasting impact. His keep-’em-out rhetoric seems to have influenced other Republican candidates, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said this week that his position on immigration is “very similar” to Trump’s. Asked how the Mexican government views Trump’s immigration plan, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday that “we continue to stand by our position that these comments reflect prejudice, racism or plain ignorance.” “Anyone who understands the depth of the U.S.-Mexico relationship realizes that those proposals are not only prejudiced and absurd, but would be detrimental to the well-being of both societies,” the statement said. The Mexican government issued a fact sheet noting that the more than 33 million people of Mexican origin in the United States account for 8 percent of the gross domestic product, that there are more than 2 million Hispanic entrepreneurs in the United States and that trade between the two countries has reached $530 billion per year. “What Trump is missing here,” Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States, told MSNBC, “is that this is a relationship that is a mutually beneficial one for both countries . . . that at the end of the day, Mexico and the United States will either fail or succeed together, and that a rising tide will lift boats on both sides of the border.” Trump’s comments have already burned bridges between his companies and his Mexican partners. Billionaire businessman Carlos Slim’s Ora TV and the Mexican entertainment giant Televisa canceled projects with Trump, including broadcasting his Miss Universe pageant. Trump’s threat to block remittances from immigrant workers struck Mexicans as particularly provocative. “We’re living in a moment of profound crisis, with the fall of petroleum prices and public finances in a very bad state. This would lead to the destruction of the economic system,” said Rodolfo García Zamora, an economics professor at the Autonomous University of Zacatecas. “There’s very little feasible about this declaration,” he added, “but it increases the culture of fear and aggression against migrants.” Trump’s comments are covered in the Mexican media, but not as extensively as in the United States. He’s often treated as an oddity or a bad joke rather than a serious politician. In a column over the weekend, Armando Fuentes Aguirre wrote in the Reforma newspaper that while he believed in the ultimate goodness of humanity, there exist bad men capable of instilling evil in others. “Donald Trump is one of these perverse specimens of whom humanity should feel ashamed,” he wrote. Fuentes, like many Mexicans, doesn’t expect Trump to win the nomination or move into the White House: “That would push the limits of indecency, and would set back several decades a country that despite all its flaws and defects has maintained its fight against racism and discrimination. I trust that Republicans — and all North Americans — will lance this ugly boil that has suddenly erupted in their national life.” Gabriela Martinez contributed to this report. **Read more:** Republican candidate Donald Trump’s platform: Because I said so Republican debate veers between two subjects: America and Trump Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is “easy.” But is it really?

Sorry, Bill O’Reilly, you don’t have the credibility to hammer Sean Penn, Rolling Stone

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly last night joined the legions of media critics who have found fault with Sean Penn’s interview with Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in the pages of Rolling Stone. Not only is Penn a leftist who blamed American consumers for El Chapo’s prominence, argued O’Reilly, but the Rolling Stone story lacked journalistic integrity.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “And here’s the incredible kicker to the story. Rolling Stone gave ‘El Chapo’ final editing as to what went in the article,” scolded O’Reilly. In other words, a journalistic betrayal far, far less severe than the ones that snared O’Reilly in his own media morass early last year. A number of outlets, including Mother Jones (disclosure: the wife of the Erik Wemple Blog is a staff writer there), CNN and Media Matters for America, showed how O’Reilly’s boasts about his past reportorial exploits didn’t withstand scrutiny. He either exaggerated or misremembered or lied about hairy incidents in Argentina, Los Angeles, Florida and other precincts. For example, colleagues don’t share O’Reilly’s recollections of coming under attack from protesters in the Los Angeles riots of 1992. For another example, colleagues and news reports from the time don’t share O’Reilly’s recollections of murderous mayhem in Buenos Aires protests in 1982. For yet another example, O’Reilly has claimed, against a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that he was present for the suicide of an interesting figure in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Faced with the significant discrepancies between his accounts and the ample historical record, O’Reilly decided to play politics. “The far left attacks on my reporting continue,” he said at one point. “There’s nothing I can do about it.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico O’Reilly is far better off riffing about how President Obama has failed to protect Americans; or how political correctness has run amok; or how great Jesse Watters is. Not that his journo-critic hypocrisy will bruise his ratings. Nothing does, as last year’s scandalito showed.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Five myths about the border crisis

_Douglas Farah is president of the national security consulting firm IBI Consultants and has worked in Central America since 1985, including as a correspondent for The Washington Post from 1987 to 1997._ The surge of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children to the United States from Central America’s Northern Triangle — Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala — has sparked an emotional debate over the crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border. The three regional presidents and many Democrats in the United States demand more aid, arguing that the situation is a refugee crisis rooted in U.S. neglect of the region, which has led to growing gang violence. Meanwhile, many Republicans say that the crisis is due to lenient U.S. immigration policies and that most migrants are primarily seeking economic opportunity. Here are some myths from all sides of the debate. **1. U.S. immigration policy is to blame for the surge of unaccompanied minors.** The crisis at the border is a result of a convergence of factors largely unrelated to U.S. immigration law. A crucial element was the ability of coyotes, who smuggle migrants across the border, to orchestrate a campaign of rumors that intersected with increasing violence and hopelessness in Central America. The coyotes had seen their trade wither since the 2008 recession, with more people returning to the region than coming to the United States. They needed to drum up new business. So, sensing an opportunity as gang-fueled violence rose and the region’s governments foundered, they spread word that children and mothers with children who came to the United States would be allowed to stay. Some Republicans blame President Obama for encouraging this message with his 2012 executive order allowing some illegal immigrants who came to the country as children before 2007 to stay and work legally without the threat of deportation. This policy is not well understood in Central America and has been grossly mischaracterized in the local media. The coyotes’ promises resonated because corruption and the implosion of the rule of law in the Northern Triangle have pushed many people past a psychological tipping point; slim hope for a better future has given way to a profound belief that there is no future possible if their children stay. Gangs and transnational criminal organizations control ever-larger swaths of territory in the region. They blow up buildings with C-4 explosives and battle one another with assault rifles while the state retreats. Measured by homicide rates, the Northern Triangle countries are more dangerous than war zones such as Afghanistan or Iraq, Gaza or Ukraine. Less than 5 percent of the homicides are prosecuted. Gang violence has grown especially brutal toward girls, who are routinely gang-raped and forced into membership by the age of 11. If you want to blame U.S. policies, look back to the mid-1990s, when the United States began deporting thousands of hardened criminals to Central America. That severely aggravated regional problems. Though, ultimately, the region’s leaders are responsible for the failure of their states. **2. More aid to the Northern Triangle would address the crisis’s causes.** Calls for more aid and increased foreign investment are unrealistic in light of the dysfunction of the Northern Triangle governments. The rule of law there has been replaced by transactional politics: Whoever pays the most gets the results they want, and the police, judiciary, executive branch and legislature are at the service of the highest bidder. In this environment, more money would inevitably mean more corruption. Government leaders in the region squandered the international aid and goodwill that existed after their countries’ civil wars ended in the early 1990s. Leaders pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been used to tackle violence, create jobs, strengthen institutions and otherwise avert the current crisis. For example, former Salvadoran president Antonio Saca (2004-2009) was expelled from his own party after an internal investigation found that he had stolen more than $219 million while in office. Since 2008, the United States, through the Central America Regional Security Initiative, has provided the region with $649 million. Yet by every measure — homicides, kidnappings, prison overcrowding, functionality of the judiciary — the situation has gotten worse. As demonstrated by Plan Colombia — the $1.6 billion program that helped the Colombian government weaken drug cartels and Marxist guerrillas — until there is genuine political will to change what is so badly broken, more money is not wise policy. Instead, the United States should press for real reform while working with the small pockets of each government that do function. Each step is fragile. U.S. support to Guatemala’s courageous attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz, brought significant results, until she was abruptly forced from her post this year. **3. Increased border security would significantly stem the flow of migrants.** While the current surge in minors is record-breaking, thousands of unaccompanied children have been crossing the border for years in ebbs and flows. Enforcement has never been the primary determinant. Economic and social factors in their home countries carry far more weight. Sophisticated networks of human smugglers, drug traffickers, weapons merchants and bulk-cash smugglers have endured for generations, showing incredible ingenuity in crossing the border. A portion of the millions of dollars the coyotes have earned from the surge is surely being invested to devise new and different ways across. Border security can never patch all the holes. Even if expensive new security measures would be more effective than past ones, budget constraints and the inability of Congress to pass meaningful legislation indicate that such measures are unlikely to be available, anyway. **4. The people fleeing to the United States are the poorest of the poor.** Coyotes charge $7,000 to $10,000 per person to provide passage to the United States, usually half in advance and half after crossing the border. The average annual per capita income in the Northern Triangle is less than $6,000. Even with help from families abroad, those at the bottom of the economic ladder rarely have the means to make the trek. (Those attempting the trip on their own usually lose everything they have and often die along the way because they are left to the mercy of police, drug-trafficking organizations and common thieves.) Tens of thousands of the truly destitute and desperate are migrating internally or moving to Costa Rica or Belize — nearer, more peaceful nations now being overwhelmed by the migrations. The poorest go as far as their scarce resources permit. The sole objective is to get away from the gangs and endemic violence. **5. Sheltering these immigrants invites gangs into U.S. communities.** This argument is common among communities refusing to host Central American children while they await deportation hearings. And there’s some truth to the notion that the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Calle 18 gangs are using the situation to accelerate a strategy of seeking asylum in the United States and trying to expand their reach. But the vast majority of those now arriving are fleeing gangs and their violent, predatory control. Gang members are unlikely to find sanctuary among these people, who already know and detest them. The more serious threat is to young migrants forced to return to their countries. They are likely to be targeted by gangs notoriously vicious toward people who seek to flee their influence. Gangs can and do find out who attempted to leave, meet them at arrival shelters and exact retribution. **douglas.farah@gmail.com **

Trade can break down China’s Great Firewall

_Marcus Brauchli, an adviser to Graham Holdings Co., was executive editor of The Washington Post and managing editor of the Wall Street Journal. Lee Bollinger is president of Columbia University and the author of “Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century.”_ Beijing has hinted ominously that it might rescind the right to live in China from as many as two dozen foreign journalists based there for U.S. news organizations. Such a mass eviction would be a dramatic escalation from its previous practices of denying visas to individual reporters and blocking access to foreign news organizations’ Web sites or suspending the distribution of their publications in China. Chinese print media and bloggers have endured increased restrictions over the past year, including the harassment and imprisonment of journalists, bloggers and social activists who report on corruption, the wealth of officials or other social issues. The result is a deterioration of the free flow of information within and about China at a time when the world’s interests and those of China intersect more widely. During his recent visit to China , Vice President Biden correctly said that “ Innovation thrives where people breathe freely , speak freely, are able to challenge orthodoxy, where newspapers can report the truth without fear of consequences. ” Unfortunately, the Chinese appear inured to Washington’s complaints about human rights. Journalists are not the only ones facing restrictions. Scholars are similarly challenged. Like reporters, they are committed to providing objective and accurate information and analyses. U.S. universities recognize that engagement with the world is essential if they are to teach a new generation to remedy problems such as climate change, terrorism, infectious disease and poverty. For schools with a presence in China and other nations intolerant of a free press, this means regularly confronting threats to academic freedom. These threats are troubling on many levels. The reporters at risk have done remarkable work exposing corruption at the highest levels in China. To Beijing, the reports are profoundly embarrassing rather than a road map to reform. And while Beijing says it favors deeper understanding between China and the United States, supporting wider cultural and economic ties, it appears to set severe limits on the depth of that understanding. That last point offers an important alternative framework for approaching dialogue between China and the West — and for the treatment of journalists, academics, civil society activists and anyone else whose work involves the free exchange of ideas. These professionals’ freedom to write and speak is vital to an innovation-driven global economic system dependent on the free flow of information. Countries that restrict U.S. news organizations’ access to collect or sell information or the ability of American academics to research or publish are imposing non-tariff barriers on institutions central to an open economy. In this era of Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks, our government has made things difficult for journalists covering sensitive national security matters and for whistleblowers reporting on such matters. That, in turn, affects the credibility of efforts by U.S. officials and nongovernmental organizations to respond to China’s heavy-handed approach, a cost of these controversial U.S. policies that must be addressed. How should the United States proceed? In a typical trade dispute, countries often impose tit-for-tat sanctions in response to a trading partner’s behavior. In this case, Washington could rescind the visas of Chinese journalists working at state-run CCTV or the state news agency, Xinhua; or block Chinese academics from coming here. But we would oppose this. If one believes in the importance of the free exchange of ideas, information and understanding, then we must recognize that any steps that diminish that exchange harm us and our case that the right to report freely serves the interests we all share in having greater knowledge about the issues before our societies. Besides, as written, international trade law obliges countries to treat foreign businesses as they would treat their own. Beijing can easily persuade the world that its news organizations wouldn’t be allowed to conduct journalism the way the Americans do, or that its academics aren’t free to publish everything. In addition, a broad exception to fair-trade rules allows a nation to skew trade in defense of its national security. And there are no codified rules protecting ideas and information. A better approach would be for Washington to embrace the economic importance of ideas and information and to develop a new international trading regime that would protect journalism, academia and digital information. Why go the trade route? To start, the practical demands of the commercial marketplace and economic integration mean that China, the United States and other nations have a shared interest in universal and open access to commercial and financial information. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has shown signs of moving in this direction. These measures could be strengthened if the U.S. government and commercial interests jointly call for such progress. On behalf of leading U.S. digital technology companies, the U.S. trade representative filed a formal inquiry two years ago with the WTO to address China’s Internet censorship. Congress has mandated an annual compliance report on China and the WTO. A meaningful next step would be for Washington to insist that regional and bilateral trade agreements commit all parties to the free flow of information and ideas integral to trade and investment. This isn’t just about China, though the size and significance of China’s economy make the issue especially significant. The Obama administration should be outspoken that the U.S. government believes that journalism, academia and the technology industry are central pillars of both our society and our emerging global economy. The U.S. government should defend them with confidence born of experience that freedom isn’t only the right thing to champion, it’s also the economically essential thing to protect. **Read more about this topic:** The Post’s View: China’s strong-arm tactics toward U.S. media merit a response Fred Hiatt: Five Chinese daughters speak up for their fathers Fred Hiatt: Chinese leaders control media, academics to shape the perception of China