¿Y qué es ese ruido?

¿Y qué es ese ruido?  / Es el silencio.

— Juan Rulfo

While journalists are supposed to report the news, not make it, last Saturday reporters, news readers, camerographers, editors, and other members of the fourth estate took to the streets in Mexico City and throughout the country.

Carrying signs reading “Not one more!”, they demanded protection on Saturday to do their work in a country international media groups say is one of the most dangerous for practising journalism.

“We’re a little late – 64 killings late – but we’ve finally decided to practice our right to protest, to seek justice for our colleagues who have died or disappeared and to end the impunity for crimes against journalists,” Elia Baltazar, a protest organiser and co-editor of the local newspaper Excelsior, told the Associated Press.

Not all those sixty-four killings during this administration were at the hands of the narcotics gangs, and there’s a recognition that covering gangsters is dangerous work, and can lead to death.  And, one doesn’t take to the streets demanding justice by organizations which, if they have a mission statement, is dedicated to subverting justice. No, the protests were directed at the State.

There is some sense that criminals committing crimes is inevitable.  What is intolerable is not only the state’s laxity and seeming disinterest in  pursuing the criminals who murder, kidnap or intimidate journalists and media outlets, but complete denial of their own role in attacks on journalists.  The “Brad Will” case attracted international attention, and there are questions as to whether he should have even been working as a journalist in Mexico, but he was simply the most highly-profiled of those journalists killed while reporting on political issues.  Even sports writers have been kidnapped (at least a sports writer whose brother is a well known pollster).  Here in Sinaloa, situations like that in May 2008, when El Debate’s main office in Culiacán was attacked by armed police, are all too common.  Reporters have been roughed up, or prevented from doing their jobs, or threatened throughout the Republic… BY THE POLICE.

The protests, once again, were directed at the government.  On Saturday, the same day, Federal Police officers in Juárez, who had been protesting corruption in their own department, violently clashed with other elements of their force when they took it upon themselves to arrest corrupt officials.  Which was — and is — newsworthy.  They too, were protesting the state of the State.

As usual, almost nothing about these events was reported by the U.S. media, and what was reported was — as usual — superficial at best.  Which is what makes this so appalling —

The presenter, for those not familiar with U.S. media, is Rachel Maddow.  She is,  by U.S. standards, a “progressive” (she jokes about being considered a “leftist” in her broadcasts) and whose news program is usually considered a “liberal” alternative to other “talking heads.”  She is best known for — besides being one of the few gay major media figures — being a bona fide intellectual (she is Doctor Maddow, her degrees earned in wonky fields like public policy administration) whose news programs often treat under-reported items.  All of which is to the good.  However, when she says “We’ll keep you posted — particularly if the mutineer, vigilante police officers keep letting camera crews show them doing stuff that is this nuts,” Maddow pushes more than a few buttons.

While there is nothing wrong with a news presenter letting one know his or her biases.  I am on the side of the “mutineer, vigilante police officers” (the wording suggesting Maddow’s apparent belief that the officers were criminal in their actions) in attempting — successfully, it turns out  — to bring criminals before the prosecutor (of course, no good deed goes unpunished).  but Maddow is entitled to her suggestion that the “mutineers” were in the wrong.

However, her suggestion that what they did wrong was to “allow” journalists to film the event is a slap in the face at her own profession.  Maddow is saying the police have the right to decide what journalists can and cannot cover, and she is giving aid and comfort to those who believe the state authorities are right to silence journalists.

Maddow is not stupid.  She’s got researchers and fact checkers.  Don’t any of them read Spanish?  Do they have internet access (she referred to TVAzteca as a “TV Channel” — a quick glance at Wikipedia might have confirmed it’s the second largest NETWORK in Mexico, and one of the largest NETWORKS in Latin America)?  Do they bother to pay attention to organizations like The Committee to Protect Journalists?  Or — as I fear — do even the brightest and most “progressive” of U.S. media outlets simply dismiss anything south of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo as so much noise?

The journalists protest was a silent protest, the police protest noisy.  Perhaps it needs to be the other way around, or next time, we will only hear from the police, and not from the journalists.