Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
Sat May 25, 2013, 02:13 PM May 2013

Not Writing History (Guatemala, Rios Montt and the Washington Post)

Not Writing History
Written by Sara Kozameh
Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:29

Ten days ago Guatemalan courts convicted former dictator General Efraín Ríos Montt, to 80 years in prison for charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Though the ruling has just been overturned on technical grounds, it was the first time that a country has been able to use its own criminal courts to try a former head of state for genocide, arguably making it one of the most important court decisions in decades. Despite the significance of the ruling, not just for what it represents for the more than 200,000 victims of the genocide and their families, but also for human rights worldwide, the mass media in the U.S. has mostly ignored the U.S. role in contributing to and supporting the genocide.

The New York Times provided a couple of exceptions in the last week. Its “Room for Debate,” feature, which is regularly published online but not in the print edition, and allows perspectives from a broader political spectrum than is normally permitted in news articles or even the op-ed page, published a range of opinions on the extent of U.S. support and complicity for the Ríos Montt regime. And last week the New York Times published an exceptional print article about the role of the U.S. government in Guatemala, Reagan’s financial and fervent military support for Ríos Montt’s bloody dictatorship, and how this aspect of the genocide had been conspicuously absent during the trial against Ríos Montt.

Amazingly, the Washington Post chose not to report at all on the historic ruling in their print edition following the day of the ruling. Although stories on corruption scandals in India, a detained youth activist in Egypt, and voting in Pakistan did make the international section of the print edition of that day’s Washington Post, the Post found no space to print this story. Two days after the conviction was announced (and after it made headlines around the world), and buried deep in the digest section of Sunday’s print international section were a total of 73 words dedicated to what it said human rights activists called “a historic moment” in Guatemala.



This dearth of words from the Washington Post shouldn’t be too surprising. After all, not reporting or investigating news about massacres and genocide in Guatemala when it had the opportunity to do so is consistent with the Post’s reporting on the country throughout the 1980s when the U.S. government supported death squads in the countryside killing anyone and everyone that they could. Yes, the Post reported on Guatemala, and on guerrillas, and occasionally it even paid some lip-service to the idea that some people claimed that the government and army, not the guerrillas, were behind the vast majority of deaths in the country. But, despite reliable indications and reports that government-led massacres and even a genocide was in fact underway in Guatemala, for example from this October, 1982 episode of PBS's MacNeil/Lehrer Report (see below) and this one from November of 1983 (see below) , the Post neglected the opportunity to dig up the truth during this period. The New York Times, it should be pointed out, also mostly ignored the genocide when it was taking place. This was the pre-internet era, so if these newspapers did not report on massacres, for the United States public and policy-makers, they weren’t part of the news. (However, investigative reporter Allan Nairn did get opinion pieces into the NYT and Washington Post some time after the worst massacres had occurred.)

Thirty years later human rights defenders, victims of the genocide, dedicated investigative reporters, activists, lawyers, historians, and more, have done that work, showing the world what it takes to win back some justice, and putting themselves on the right side of history. But the Washington Post, in its silence, continues to commit the same mistakes that enabled U.S. military and financial support for genocide in Guatemala or, to draw a more recent parallel, the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of perhaps more than a million people.

The latest news, from a decision made late last night on the ruling is that Guatemala’s top court has annulled the conviction against Ríos Montt. While the trial is expected to backtrack to where it stood on April 19, before again resuming, appeals from the former dictator’s lawyers have consistently stalled the process. If the trial resumes and Ríos Montt is again convicted for genocide and crimes against humanity in Guatemalan courts, the Washington Post will have a rare second opportunity to offset its most recent silence, and join its peers in reporting on these important current events and the history of U.S.-Guatemalan relations.

You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/not-writing-history

Videos originally linked in article but not linkable here:

"October, 1982 episode of PBS’s MacNeil/Lehrer Report "


"this one from November of 1983 "
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not Writing History (Guatemala, Rios Montt and the Washington Post) (Original Post) Catherina May 2013 OP
No acknowledgement of the judgement when it happened from the Wash. Post. Judi Lynn May 2013 #1
I never read it much until it went online Catherina May 2013 #2

Judi Lynn

(160,516 posts)
1. No acknowledgement of the judgement when it happened from the Wash. Post.
Sat May 25, 2013, 03:07 PM
May 2013

After seeing them in action in their odd position toward Hugo Chavez, it's not a surprise by now, is it? All this from the paper we used to believe was uniquely courageous because the Post broke the Watergate scandal.

After seeing them in action as more mature adults, we aren't shocked, any longer! What a shame. They have had a big name.

To overlook a story like this is willful, flagrant, criminal negligence. The story is clearly there to be published, it's impossible to overlook! It's too big, meaningful, too historic.

The Washington Post couldn't have sent a louder signal by not dealing with this story at the appropriate time.

They must be pretty convinced their side is in charge, or is it that they fear what will happen for their side if too many people learn the truth?

I can't figure this one out, yet.

Thank you, Catherina.

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
2. I never read it much until it went online
Sat May 25, 2013, 03:28 PM
May 2013

and then only with a jaundiced eyed.

I just looked at their wiki entry. At least they're not fooling anyone:

The newspaper's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.[citation needed]

In "Buying the War" on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations.[42]

On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Latin America»Not Writing History (Guat...