Media repression threatens the civil liberties of the public and journalists. Freedom of the press is an important right that should be protected for anyone seeking a career in journalism. The right to accessible information about the government and their policies is a natural desire and right. We have seen the repression of media across the world for the sake of saving face and hiding corruption by political actors. The Democratic Erosion data set references six different incidences involving media oppression since the beginning of Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s presidency. Violence against journalists continues to be prevalent issue in Mexico. This violence promotes self- censorship for political media through intimidation tactics.
In 2012, the Mexican Government created the Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists. This law included emergency response times for journalists and requirements for public officials to uphold the measures within the law. A site that analyzes and scores the freedom of press in all countries, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), recorded 111 homicides or disappearances of journalists since 2012. This demonstrates that the regulations set in place in 2012 have not successfully combated the onslaught of violence against journalists. Thirty eight of the 163 journalist murders that have occurred since 2000 were during Obrador’s term.
President Obrador took office in December of 2018 and does not have a good track record for his relationship with the media. He has continuously berated different sites and journalists when they oppose him or the movements of his party. Some people may say that if Obrador follows the regulations of the Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists then he is doing his civil duty of protecting journalists. The danger he invokes for journalism through his rhetoric outweighs whatever efforts he makes under this law. On his daily morning news conference, Obrador publicly “singles out journalists who are critical of his administration” to incite violence or harassment of these writers for the purpose of intimidating them and other opposition. He name-calls and releases information including their name and other private details.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their book How Democracies Die, construct a table of key indicators for an authoritarian leader. These distinctions are (1) rejection or weak commitment to the democratic rules of the game, (2) denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, (3) toleration or encouragement of violence, and/ or (4) readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including media (23). He violated Levitsky and Ziblatt’s first, third, and fourth distinctions for authoritarian leaders. This could be considered weaponized communication against the reporters. Obrador has addressed people that have published works related to his presidency specifically by name. Including their name and information about them puts a target on their backs. This has incited violence against them. He encourages violence and impedes upon the civil liberties of the media. His attacks being directed towards members of the media represent his lack of respect for freedom of press. This demonstrates his weak commitment to democratic norms.
Another example of Obrador’s offense against the rights of the media is his actions surrounding the topic of Pegasus, surveillance on journalists who were investigating the violation of human rights from the government. His continued denial was publicly falsified when reports containing evidence of governmental use of Pegasus were released in March of this year. A reporter asked Obrador about these reports, unknowingly inviting an onslaught of scrutiny from the president. Obrador criticized the reporter and the sites that published anything about the reports in his next few conferences. Animal Político’s editorial director Daniel Moreno said the president’s remarks “have made him and his reporters feel less safe,” prompting self-censorship among journalists. The Democratic Erosion database also included this incident, reporting illegal surveillance on at least 25 journalists. This series of events represents an instance in which someone tried to hold Obrador accountable and the consequences of doing this.
Jennifer Mercieca, in “Dangerous Demagogues and Weaponized Communication,” details of various examples of weaponized communication to diminish civil liberties. The examples include, “jailing, threatening, and undermining journalists, and lying to reporters and subsequently blaming reporters for carrying false stories” (273). Obrador exemplifies all these features of weaponized communication. Another example included surveillance of citizens which Obrador has proven to indulge in this as well. He uses his conferences to discredit anyone who opposes him. He inadvertently threatens the lives of journalists across the country for his own political gain.
Orzan Varol, in “Stealth Authoritarianism”, describes motives for using surveillance methods to monitor the public realm (1679). One motive is to intimidate potential opposition from practicing their civil right to freedom of press. This also promotes a self-censorship for journalists who are investigating corruption in the government. There “remains no legal protection from intrusive surveillance, no recourse for its victims, and no repercussions for those in public office who facilitated the spying,” and there is a need for all three of these actions.
Varol also says this method of legal mechanisms “exacerbates the principal–agent problem by curtailing the public’s ability to monitor and sanction government policies” (1684). Obrador does this with his continuous badgering of media outlets and journalists. He critiques them in effort of discrediting these information outlets. Political media is a necessary part of society as a means of informing the public of the legislative movements of the government and incumbent leaders. The president’s actions lead us to believe that he is performing moves of stealth authoritarianism. He has made no drastic movement to combat the violence against journalists. While there is no clear evidence that proves he has directly facilitated any violence against the media, his verbal attacks against them have done enough to provoke the physical brutality against opposing journalists. Regulation needs to be implemented to protect the natural rights of journalists in Mexico before self-censorship takes over media, and the public loses their rights to information about the government.
Luciano Hoxhaj
Hi Bela,
I had no idea that the Mexican government was cracking down on journalists in the manner that you’re describing, this article was very interesting to read. I always thought that the Mexican government was more democratic, but I guess I was wrong. I like how in your caption you mentioned that the freedom of the press is an important right, and you can see the correlation between countries that are authoritarian/semi-authoritarian and how repressive they are toward the media. This is a trend that is common throughout all authoritarian countries around the world, however, having this repression right across our border personally surprises me very much. Whenever I hear stories in the media about Mexican journalists getting punished, I immediately correlate it with the cartels that run the country, I never knew that the government itself engages in restricting the rights and threatening journalists. Great article!
Hayden Libershal
After reading your post on the dangers that journalists’ face in Mexico, I certainly feel better informed on the state of Mexico’s democracy. One question I still had was on the impact of cartels and large crime organizations in the dangers to journalists. Your article goes to great lengths to discuss the effects of the actions of elected officials, such as President Obrador, to see how they have created a dangerous environment for journalists. I’ve previously read articles that have detailed how cartels have killed journalists that reported on their crimes in order to silence opposition and awareness to their activities. Cartels are also known to target politicians. Some inclusion of instances where journalists were killed by cartels would have helped show how criminal organizations, that in many cases take the place of local government administrations, could show how other kinds of organizations outside of government are impacting freedom of speech in Mexico.
Drew Anderson
Hi Bela,
This was a great article. I studied Mexico for a semester in high school and I remember being particularly appalled by the scale of the violence against journalists in particular. One thing that makes the issue so difficult to address both within Mexico and internationally is the fact that a huge amount of the violence carried out against journalists is conducted by the cartels and organized crime. Naturally that makes the connections between those carrying out these targeted killings and the ones in government potentially commissioning them difficult to expose and prosecute. The cartels also have a surprising amount of credibility, especially in some poor, rural areas where they operate as the de facto local government and offer wages that are significantly higher than what members would otherwise be able to earn in those areas with very little opportunity for economic advancement. For the Obrador government to exploit those conditions and wield them, directly or indirectly, against journalists is deeply troubling both for democracy and at a humanitarian level.
Jarivel Castro
Hi Bela,
I really enjoyed reading your blog. I’ve always known that Mexico was a bad place to speak out against anything, but it has hurt the country’s democracy. Freedom of the press is important for democracy, and your detailed account of the problems reporters face in Mexico hopefully opens the eyes of those that do not know about this. Using surveillance and weaponized communication against the press by President Obrador is clearly against democratic ideals. The shocking numbers and violations show that stronger rules are needed right away to protect the rights of journalists. Your call to action makes sense because it stresses the dangers of self-censorship and the chance that people will lose access to important information. This blog demonstrates how important it is to protect press freedom when threats to democracy are getting worse.
Rachel Kahn
Hi Bela,
This post was very informative as I was unaware that the media and journalists were under attack in Mexico. I agree that this attack on the media by Obrador falls in line with the actions of authoritarian leaders. I especially found it concerning how you mentioned that Obrador singles out journalists by name publicly. This reminds me of Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election in which he went on a campaign to paint the election results as fraudulent. During this campaign, him and his team singled out election officials by name and caused some to have to go into hiding for fear of their lives. It seems like in this case, that Obrador is putting a target on the backs of these journalists just like Trump did to various 2020 election officials. It will be interesting to see if any other countries, particularly the US, step in to criticize Obrador and his administration for his failure to protect journalists.
Ari Antar
Hi Bela,
Thank you for such an informative blog post! The number of journalists who have experienced violence since Obrador certainly puts this beyond sheer coincidence. I liked your explanation of the weaponized rhetoric towards journalists and found it especially interesting that there was a law that Obrador was violating when he was threatening the media. A quick V-dem search demonstrates exactly what you suggest: since 2018, Mexico’s Freedom of Expression and Alternative Information Index has gone down quite sharply. On a 0-1 scale, it has gone from .85 – .72, shocking! Of course, freedom of expression and alternative sources of information are key to democracy being able to function. This allows for fairness and access to opposing points of view and provides avenues for competition from opposing parties. When the freedom of the press is attacked, it may open the door for state controlled and consolidated media. We have seen this happen many times, notably in states like Poland. Hopefully, Obrador’s harmful rhetoric does not do permanent damage to this vital institution.
Caroline Hopkins
Hi Bela!
This was a very interesting and informative post. I was unaware of just how urgent this situation is in Mexico. The portrayal of media oppression during President Obrador’s tenure vividly showcases the precarious state of press freedom in Mexico. Despite the 2012 law, the rise in journalist fatalities and disappearances indicates a systemic breakdown in defending press freedom. The correlation between Obrador’s rhetoric and violence against journalists highlights a critical concern: the genuine threat unchecked executive power poses to media independence. This narrative emphasizes the pressing need for comprehensive regulatory reforms. Mexico urgently needs legislation guaranteeing journalists’ safety. Preserving press freedom extends beyond shielding journalists; it safeguards the public’s right to information, a fundamental element of democracy. Immediate action is imperative to prevent the normalization of self-censorship and to uphold citizens’ essential right to a well-informed society. It will be interesting to see how the state of freedom of the press in Mexico progresses from here. Great post overall!
Skylla Silva
Hi Bela! Your analysis of Mexico’s media landscape adeptly unpacks the concerning issue of media repression in Mexico under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The staggering statistics on journalist homicides and disappearances since 2012 provide a distressing backdrop, underscoring the severity of the issue. Your examination of Obrador’s rhetoric aligns with indicators of authoritarian leaders, revealing a disregard for democratic norms and a willingness to curtail civil liberties. The Pegasus surveillance incident exemplifies his attempts to undermine media accountability, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.Drawing on Jennifer Mercieca’s concept of weaponized communication adds depth to your analysis, highlighting Obrador’s use of verbal attacks to diminish civil liberties. The link to Orzan Varol’s perspective on stealth authoritarianism enriches the discussion, emphasizing the motives behind surveillance methods and their impact on public oversight.
In reading, I found a lot of connections to the media landscape of Brazil, where the Committee to Protect Journalists reports 60 journalists have been killed since 1992 (the most in one year being in 2015). Brazilians’ trust in news is declining, and a significant portion of the population relies on online platforms like WhatsApp for their news. Overall, issues of media manipulation, fear, and self-censorship resonate, reflecting broader challenges to democratic values in both countries. Your insightful call for regulations to protect journalists’ rights is not only relevant to Mexico but also holds implications for safeguarding media integrity and civil liberties in Brazil’s evolving democratic context.
Gabriela Leon-Palfrey
Hi Bela, I really enjoyed your article. I myself am Mexican and I thought you did a great job of outlining the threat posed by Obrador to democracy. His lack of transparency surrounding the Pegasus scandal underscores a broader trend of stealth authoritarianism. Due to his discrediting and intimidation of journalists investigating government corruption, Obrador hinders the public’s ability to monitor government policies and hold their leaders accountable. I agree with you that legal mechanisms would be important to protect journalists’ safety and allow them to do their part and facilitate transparency and accountability between leaders (crucial pillars of a strong democracy) and the electorate and uphold free press.
Additionally, Mexico is a country that faces high levels of violence/drug trafficking. Obrador’s outing of journalists has major consequences as a result; although he does not directly facilitate violence, he is creating an environment conducive to brutality against the media in a country with lots of violence already.
Overall, Mexico serves as a reminder for democracies all around the world that reinforcement of free press is essential to democracy.