Erasmus Mundus Master’s in Journalism, Media, and Globalisation
Joint degree
Master’s Thesis
The discursive trap of journalistic roles: Journalistic role perceptions in the Nicaraguan
democratization conflict
By
Dánae Vílchez Báez
Student number: 12906204
Graduate for the School of Communication
Supervisor/Examiner: dr. D.C. Damian Trilling
Date of completion: 12 June 2020
Abstract
The democratization conflict in Nicaragua that started in April 2018 had an extensive national and international coverage, mainly due to repression and human rights abuses. Independent Nicaraguan journalists covering the conflict served as the primary news providers for the country. Very rarely do journalists working in such contexts reflect on their own perception of the job, and even less so about the role they think they play in society. This study aims to open the debate on those topics and, by
interviewing the subjects, reflect on the vision that journalists have about the work they do. The main findings show journalists proudly consider their role to be fundamental for the democratization conflict. Most journalists tend to relate more to roles such as the ‘populist disseminator’ or the ‘detached
watchdog’. However, they also tend to contradict themselves when they speak about objectivity: the interviewed journalists showed strong support for the victims of state-led repression (meaning opposition groups), even journalists who perceive themselves as detached watchdogs. Through the findings shown in this study, we amplify the scope of discussion about journalistic role perceptions in times of conflict.
Keywords: Nicaragua, journalism, role perceptions, objectivity, democracy, hybrid regimes, repression, democratization conflict
Introduction
In April 2018, due to a widespread civic rebellion, a socio-political crisis was unleashed in Nicaragua challenging the long-term autocratic rule of Daniel Ortega. Citizens protested on the streets to demand the ousting of Ortega and the beginning of a process of democratization in the country. The
government’s official response was a brutal offense perpetrated by the police and paramilitary groups connected to the ruling party, Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) (GIEI, 2019). At least 327 people have been killed as a result of the repression which continues to this date (IACHR, 2018).
Journalism has taken a central role in the crisis not only because of the national and international media documenting the rebellion, but because journalists themselves became direct targets of the
repression. In daily coverage, journalists are robbed, harassed, beaten, and constantly threatened by police and supporters of Ortega's government (EFE, 2019).
With interviews as the preferred method of exploration, this study wants to examine how journalists who covered and continue to cover the Nicaraguan crisis (framed by this work as a
democratization conflict) narrate their experiences of producing news. This research seeks to understand how journalists perceive their role in society in this critical incident and how they reflect on the concepts of democracy and the role they think they should play in a democratic transition.
The research question for this study is: How do Nicaraguan journalists covering the 2018 crisis perceive their role during the conflict for Democratization and subsequent processes?
Zelizer (1993, p. 224), quoted by Parameswaran (2006, p.44), points out that it is in “critical incidents when journalists debate on their professional boundaries, their agency, and the relation of the
press and democracy. When employed discursively, critical incidents are chosen by people to air, challenge, and negotiate their boundaries of practice.”
In this sense, a critical event like the democratization conflict which started in April 2018 in Nicaragua and continues to unfold up to this date, is an ideal scenario for research such as this one. The study of journalistic role perception is essential for Central America and Nicaragua because: first, the region has little to none research on communication and media studies, and second, because conflicts have been defining events in history that have marked the ways for crucial political developments. Voltmer and Kraetzschmar (2015) consider that “during regime transformations, democracy itself becomes a focus of conflict.” The role journalists play within this conflict is crucial as it marks the pace of the conflict itself (p. 2).
It is important to declare that the researcher of this thesis is also a journalist from Nicaragua, who also covered parts of the democratization conflict which is the subject of study in this research. It is in the interest of providing high-quality debate upon the work of the journalists in the country that this research was proposed. The internal validity of the research is built upon a rigorous and meticulous study protocol that assures transparency, confirmability, and credibility of both the results and discussion.
Research Questions
Two sub-research questions, in addition to the main one proposed in the introduction, were prepared in order to delve deep into the subject.
S-RQ1: Has the journalist's perception of their own role changed due to the democratization conflict?
S-RQ2: What notions do journalists have of democracy and what role do they think they should play in a possible democratic transition?
These questions seek to analyze the vision that journalists have regarding their own role and also to understand the ways in which the journalists' understanding of key concepts such as objectivity and democracy shape their journalistic standpoint during conflict.
Theoretical Framework
Journalistic role perceptions, values, and objectivity
One of the major academic approaches towards the journalistic praxis often analyzes the visions journalist have of what they do, researchers like Donsbach (2012) define this as the “journalist’s role perceptions” explaining that they are “generalized expectations which journalists believe exist in society and among different stakeholders, which they see as normatively acceptable, and which influence their behavior on the job” (p. 1). For this research, the operational definition of journalistic role perception will be how journalists give meaning to what they do.
Hanitzsch (2011) declares that this can also be labeled as journalism’s professional ideology “which is believed to serve as the cultural cement that holds journalists together as a profession” (p. 481). The importance of analyzing the role perceptions that journalists have of what they do resides on the influence this can have on the reporting of events. As Shoemaker & Reese (1996) explain, this can “determine what the communicator thinks is worth transmitting to his or her audience and how the story should be developed” (p. 103).
The existing literature on the role of journalists in society takes as a starting point the work of Cohen (1963) and Johnstone, Slawski & Bowman (1976), who placed the journalists solely in two
positions: either ‘neutral’ or ‘participant.' More recently, Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) and Cassidy (2005) propose four leading roles of journalists: disseminator, interpretive, adversarial, and populist mobilizer.
Building upon this, Hanitzsch (2011) developed a survey for journalists in 18 countries where he identified four journalistic milieus or leading roles: (1) the populist disseminator who understands his role as a detached observer and thus does not intend to take a stand; (2) the detached watchdog who checks power but does not advocate for social change, the most ‘prototypical’ milieu of a western journalist; (3) the critical change agent advocating for social change and influencing public opinion; and (4) the opportunist facilitator most likely supports official policies and conveys a positive image of political and business leadership (p. 485-486).
Hanitzsch & Vos (2017) propose a shift on the way academia should look at roles and argue this are “discursive constructions of journalism’s institutional identity, and as a struggle over discursive authority in conversations about the locus of journalism in society”(p. 116). The authors introduce the understanding of journalism as a discursive institution, making the journalist’s own narration of their work the fundamental element of analysis in the study of role perceptions.
The goal of this research is then to analyze the discourses to understand what roles are
identifiable in the context of the conflict in Nicaragua and to see if the discourse has changed with the emergence of the conflict itself. Also, as Lohner et al. (2016) point out, most of the time the roles of journalists cannot be separated distinctively from one another as they are interlinked in manifold ways. “One journalist might adhere to more than one role while reporting on one specific conflict” (p. 41).
This research will also use the concept of journalism as interpretative communities in which Barbie Zelizer (1993) argues that to study journalism from a cultural perspective, we must “see journalists as a community that is united by their collective interpretation of events. They share a
discourse that they produce, which is a marker on how they see themselves” (p. 233). In this sense, we will draw upon this, to understand which main values the journalistic community in this study shares, and what are their reflection upon their own praxis.
Some of the core values—or what Deuze (2005) calls the nomos (logic) of journalism—are keen to understand the perceptions journalists have of their role. The author references: Public service, objectivity, autonomy, immediacy, ethics, and other essential values journalists tend to mention.
Objectivity seems one of the main shared concepts of journalism, and that is why this research will use it to identify the standpoint of the journalist in the conflict. Kumar (2016) points out that journalistic objectivity implies that a journalist has to present “all sides of an argument fairly while reporting a news story without any personal interest.”
Boudana (2011) proposes that objectivity looks like a performance. “Though very different, both athletic and theatrical performances return us to the essentiality of practice (performance as action), to outcome orientation (performance as effectiveness), and to addressing the audience as a rule of the game (no performance if not for an audience)” (p. 395). Boudana (2011) also mentions that, especially in academia, objectivity is “considered doomed to failure and dismissed as an unattainable standard” (p. 385).
Christians et al. (2009) suggest that role perceptions depends on the broader normative vision journalists have of what role media has to play in a democracy since the consensus- both in academia and society- is that democracy is the only suitable ideal for the rule of government..
The theories described in the previous paragraphs will serve as the basis for analyzing the journalistic role perceptions of our sample, and to identify common elements such as shared values,
roles, and practices that stand out in the interviewees’ discourse, helping to answer the main research question of the thesis and the first sub-research question.
Models of democracy and its relationship to journalists’ role in society
Following Christians et al. (2009) it seems crucial to add understanding into the relationship between the models of democracy and the media’s role in society simply because, as Strömbäck (2005) puts it, “media and journalism require democracy as it is the only form of government that respects freedom of speech, expression and information, and the independence of media from the state” (p. 335).
Strömbäck (2005) proposed four different categories of democracy and pointed out its normative implications on the journalistic work. (see Figure 1.)
Latin American democracies and hybrid regimes
Many modern states fall in between the two ideal types of authority patterns: democracy and autocracy (Dahl, 1973). Ferré et al. (2002) points out that the procedural definition of democracy revolves around governmental institutions guaranteeing free and fair participation in politics, typically through elections. For O’Donnell et al. (1986), democracy is defined in its ability to ensure political and civil liberties by placing constitutional limits on executive action.
A new wave of academia points out that in some cases the elements of democracy (better detailed in (Strömbäck, 2005) are present, but the execution of the protection of citizens is deficient. Arias & Goldstein (2010) explain that academia insists on viewing contemporary politics through the lens of the democratic ideal, and that creates myopia in their perceptions of ongoing crime, violence, and rights violations among poor and marginal groups in Latin America.
In this sense, in this research we will contrapose the ideal democratic models (see Figure 1.) with the concept of Hybrid regime which Diamond (2002) conceptualizes as states that combine democratic and authoritarian elements. This author proposes Nicaragua is in between a western democracy and an authoritarian regime, a categorization that brings a good element of discussion between the normative (ideal democratic models) and the praxis.
Hybrid regimes represent a threat to journalists because of their mix between liberal (democratic standards) and illiberal elements (weak enforcement of the law). A study by Hughes & Vorobyeva (2019) shows that most journalists died in countries where formal democratic norms and practices at the national level encourage investigative reporting in local arenas where power holders have incentives to suppress critical press coverage violently:
“The combination of the national-level hybrid regime with subnational authoritarian enclaves was especially dangerous. We believe this is because institutionalized democratic norms at the national level explicitly guarantee press freedom and condemn illiberal practices, thus
encouraging journalists, many of whom formed professionally during periods of political liberalization, to monitor power and denounce abuses” (Hughes & Vorobyeva., 2019, p. 15).
When conflict arises in these Hybrid regimes (Hughes & Vorobyeva, 2019) it often comes with democratization as one of the main concerns. According to Arenhövel (2008), democratization refers to the process in which a country is transitioning from authoritarian rule to democracy. Democratization is an aspiration and a process itself that, in the context of Nicaragua, can be understood as the primary goal of the conflict.
Voltmer and Kraetzschmar (2015) explain that ‘democratization conflicts’ tend to erupt under vastly different contexts and circumstances. “They are processes of regime transformation from
authoritarian rule to a more democratic order that can invariably involve power struggles between status-quo and reformist regime factions and between ruling elites and pro-democracy forces, as well as
conflicts amongst (new) elites and societal forces over the nature of, and influence in, the newly
emerging political order” (p.16). This definition also includes different stages of the process itself, from the uprising to the political negotiations and the impasses.
Lastly, Lohner et al. (2016) studied the journalistic role perception in democratization conflicts in Egypt, Kenya, Serbia, and South Africa. They found that journalists refer to roles that involve “not only informing accurately and fairly about democratization conflicts but also overseeing and questioning political authorities (watchdog role), investigating and explaining the contexts of conflicts (investigator and teacher), capturing voices of the voiceless and fighting for people’s rights (agent for social change),
moderating between conflict parties and facilitating public debate, and finally seeking to keep the country together and to transmit messages of tolerance and peace (agent for peace)” (p. 41).
Drawing upon the theories mentioned above, the models of democracy, the concepts of Hybrid regimes and democratization conflict we will determine the framework for S-RQ2, which is: What notions do journalists have of democracy and what role do they think they should play in a possible democratic transition?
Methods
Case study: Nicaragua
Explaining the Nicaraguan crisis succinctly can be challenging to do. The current president, Daniel Ortega, has been a political actor since the 1970s, when he was one of the commanders that led the Sandinista revolutionary guerrilla that overthrew the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza in 1979. In 1984, Ortega was elected president of the country amid a civil war and a conflict that lasted for the whole decade until 1990 when a peace agreement between both parties was reached, and he lost general elections against the opposition (Partlow, 2018).
This peace process specifically brought changes to the work of the media, according to Chamorro (2001) that states that peace brought a more autonomous and critical role for the media in their mediation relationships with the state and society. “This is reflected in an improvement in the role of the press around three basic functions: its informative function, its capacity to control power, and the promotion of pluralism and public debate” (Chamorro, 2001).
Ortega as the leader of the Sandinista National Front (FSLN, for the acronym in Spanish), returned to power in 2006 and started co-opting all branches of the state, changing the political
constitution to re-elect himself and demolishing the rule of law, restraining civil the and political liberties of the country (Rocha, 2014).
Furthermore, Ortega and his family procured half the share of tv and radio with his ally, Mexican media mogul Angel Gonzalez, owning the other half. In fact, “only one out of the nine open television channels [in Nicaragua] is not part of this duopoly” (Higuera, 2016). Since Ortega’s election in 2006, a media phenomenon started to arise: journalists and academics alike started to denounce the duopoly of tv and radio. Moreover, the works of Montenegro (2007) propose that from journalists and politicians alike, there persisted the perception that there was an increase of barriers to the work of journalist, including lack of access to public information.
The events of 2018
At the beginning of April 2018, a forest fire in the southeast of the country, in the nation's biggest ecological reserve, took university students to the streets where they encountered police repression, something that was not new since Ortega’s rise to power in 2006 (Amnesty, 2018) (UN, 2018).
However, the protests that started on April 18, motivated by a social security reform, became distinct not only because of the massive showcase of people on the streets but also because of the “awakening” of citizens. The protests quickly became a civil unrest when government forces violently repressed demonstrations. The IACHR (2019) manifested that “the State's violent response to the social protests that began on April 18, 2018, has resulted in the deaths of 327 people.” Ortega’s government has dismissed the protests as “a conspiracy sponsored and financed by the United States” (Alvárez, 2018).
Journalist also became victims: On April 21, 2018, the reporter Angel Gahona was killed while he was doing a Facebook live in the Caribbean city of Bluefields (CPJ, 2019). Journalists Miguel Mora
and Lucía Pineda were detained by the police in December 2018 and kept in inhumane conditions and prosecuted for “inciting hate” (Vílchez, 2019). They were released in June 2019 due to an amnesty law.
There have been two recent publications about freedom of expression and journalism that can shed light on the current media environment in the country. Gaitán & Sánchez (2019) and Vílchez (2020) compile and analyze the situation of freedom of expression in the context of the 2018 crisis.
Gaitán & Sánchez (2019) conclude that there has been an “atrocious deterioration” of the
environment of freedom of expression of the country. “Currently, among the risks faced by journalism in Nicaragua, there is censorship, imprisonment, and prosecution, attacks, assaults, murders, intimidation, threats, surveillance, persecution, stigmatization, and criminalization, among others” (p. 17).
On the other hand, Vílchez (2020) proposes that there was a shift in the media environment in Nicaragua in 2018 due to the protest and the repression. The author estimates that there was a sort of awakening in the media, evident in things like the shift they took in the terms and languages they used. Before April 2018, many journalists used the euphemism “authoritarian or authoritarianism” on the Ortega government, and after the events on April 2018 many started calling it a dictatorship.
The 2019 edition of the World Classification of Press Freedom prepared by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) that annually evaluates the exercise of journalism in 180 countries, published that Nicaragua is one of the nations of the region where they could verify further degradation of press freedom in 2018. In the last year alone, Nicaragua moved 24 places down the scale:
“Journalism as a whole is stigmatized, and journalists are often the targets of harassment campaigns, arbitrary arrest, and death threats. At demonstrations, reporters are treated as
participants and are often physically attacked. The persecution of independent media outlets has become much more intense since the political crisis intensified in April 2018” (RSF, 2019).
In this recent period, Vílchez (2020) pointed out that Nicaraguan media can be divided into two main groups: “state-sponsored media” and the media owned by government’s allies, and the other hand the “independent” media, that in this case indicates no affiliation with the party in power. “This last group has done crucial work since it has challenged the official narrative that described the protests as an attempted coup” (p. 657).
Many independent journalists have suffered deep consequences for assuming this position. Looking at the 2018 crisis, as state violence increased, “more than 70 male and female journalists have been forced into exile because of insecurity that persists in the country” (Romero, 2019).
Design Data Collection
This study was based on 12 semi-structured, in-person, and in-depth interviews to 7 male and 5 female journalists. The use of a qualitative method was decided upon considering that it is an exploratory study since there is no research available on Nicaraguan journalistic role perception. This tool allowed us to gather perceptions, beliefs, and concepts and open the discussion. As Bryman (2012) points out in semi-structured interviews, “the researcher has a list of questions or fairly specific topics to be covered, often referred to as an interview guide, but the interviewee has a great deal of leeway in how to reply (p. 471).
The set of questions aimed to understand how journalists define their roles or tasks. Other questions about journalists' views on the journalistic values they must follow reveal their praxis' normative stands. Also, questions about their views on normative democracy ideals can show whether they see themselves as a mere informant or that they see themselves more engaged with citizens. (See Appendix B for the interview guide).
The idea was to let journalists speak about their experiences and reflect on their practice.
Hanitzsch & Vos (2017) propose that “reflection refers to the process by which journalistic practices are put into narrative form. This is the act of putting perceived performance—and the evaluation of that performance—into a rationalized whole” (p. 127).
David and Sutton (2011, p. 120) argue that the qualitative method seeks to emphasize the validity of each interview, allowing the informant to determine the dialogue's flow. The interview guide was shaped according to a literature review and the general topics and concepts from the theoretical framework.
Sampling
Purposive and snowball sampling (Marshall, 1996) was selected to target the right individuals for the interviews. For this research, only journalists defined with the “independent” label were interviewed since journalists and communicators who work for state-sponsored media were not accessible for commentary.
A total of 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted in person in February 2020. The duration of each interview ranged from 25 minutes to 38. After explaining the study and obtaining informed consent, a series of open-ended questions were posed, and respondents were given ample time to answer them. Interviews were recorded as well as notes were taken during the conversations (see Appendix A for list of interviewees).
The interviewees' selection was based on the researcher's initial contacts list and knowledge of media in the country to be able to maximize the assortment of perspectives. To ensure a variety of opinions and experiences, journalists holding different positions from different media were interviewed.
The total number of journalists interviewed was determined until the saturation of content was reached, meaning that the data collection has reached a point where no same theme or elements are rising or recurring from the interviews. This is in line with a grounded theory where “representativeness of concepts, not of persons, is crucial” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 9).
Data Analysis
The interviews were conducted and transcribed in Spanish (the local language). The coding for further analysis was conducted in English. An inductive coding, process was applied in the software Atlas TI that allowed to keep track of the codes and appropriately organize sub-themes and general topics. Inductive means there was no grounded theory but rather general concepts, that they were intersected with what the theory explained (David & Sutton, 2011).
A line of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding proposed by Corbin and Strauss (1990) was followed. Open coding broke the ground for the first set of themes and categories. With the results from the first cycle coding, a coding list was created and later narrowed down in axial coding. Lastly, themes were clustered in broader categories to create a final coding list for the discussion.
Overarching concepts were categorized into three major themes: (1) Roles perceptions: Normative vision and praxis in the context of the democratization conflict; (2) Context, barriers, and facilitators; and (3) Normative democratic standards and the implications in the praxis.
For a more precise and straightforward representation of the significant themes and sub-codes, five conceptual maps were created (see Results) to guide the readers into the most important aspects of the data analysis and formulation of results. Lastly, the results were analyzed by linking them back with the theories and research questions.
Results
Roles perceptions: Normative vision and praxis in the context of the democratization conflict
Journalistic role perceptions of journalist in Nicaragua
This first part addresses the main research question that asks about the role perceptions of journalists in the democratization conflict. The journalists interviewed for this research mention many primary journalistic roles, including the disseminator of information, the watchdog that checks political and economic powers, and a small portion of them mention openly their role as critical change agents in Nicaraguan society. “I believe that the role of the journalist is to inform the population, to contribute to the balance of society, not to put yourself on either side, to denounce when it is from one side or the other, that is the job of the journalist,” Journalist 1, a reporter for a news website said.
Most of the journalists interviewed refer to roles such as the populist disseminator and the detached watchdog proposed by Hanitzsch (2011), however when reflecting about their praxis, they tend to be clear about their sympathy for the opposition cause, meaning that in practice, they tend to align more with the critical change agent role. Few journalists openly stated they incline more to the critical change agent role.
There were new elements such journalists mentioning several times, roles such as activists, human rights activists, or pressure groups. Journalist 7, the director of a very well-known outlet, says that especially at the beginning, they did the work of a human rights NGO: “As the first days went by, I understood that one of our fundamental missions as journalists was to name the victims, was to identify them with name and surname as far as possible. We did the work of a human rights organization.” Another journalist indicated that an element that always conflicted her when exercising her role was the
balance between her role as an activist and her role as a journalist. “At times I was betrayed by my activism and the relationship I had with the people protesting on the streets," Journalist 8 said.
Figure 2. Role perceptions: Normative vision and praxis in the context of the democratization conflict
Journalistic Values
Journalists' values are generally shared among the journalistic community; however, ones are more prevalent than others. In the case of this research, the interviewed journalists assure that the most important values are neutrality, detachment (which can sometimes be understood as part of objectivity), impartiality, public service, and ethics. One of the values that were mentioned several times was
Objectivity approach
The interviewed journalists position themselves in different ways when it comes to talking about objectivity. More than half of the journalists consulted believe in objectivity as an essential journalistic value, and these also believe that they were objective in covering the crisis. They refer to specific actions or mechanisms that “probe” whether they were objective, for example, they refer to not participating in the protests on a personal level, or not using the symbols used by opponents of the government (which in this case are the colors of the national flag). “I did not put on a blue and white outfit precisely to try to show distance from my professional work as a journalist from the work of an activist” Journalist 9 said.
There is a group of interviewees who believe in objectivity but who claim that they could not achieve it in their coverage of the protests, as is the case with Journalist 10: “We cannot be impartial, you cannot be objective when you see that they are killing people.”
However, others say that they do not believe in objectivity as something achievable and bet on other values such as honesty. For example, Journalist 11 says that he does not believe in false
neutralities but that he bets to find as many voices as he can. On the other hand, Journalist 3 also explicitly said what side he thinks he is: “here objectivity is superfluous because in this country there is a victim and there is a villain and so to speak journalists have been victims as well.”
It is important to emphasize that another considerable number of interviewees mentioned that they also participated in the 2018 protests in their capacity as citizens and that many times for them the dividing line was blurred between their work as a journalist and their role as an “opponent to the government.”
Context, barriers, and facilitators
A before and after
One of the main aspects that resulted from this research was when the journalists explained a clear before and after scenario and how that changed many things from their praxis. This clearly answers the first sub research question about how the journalist's perception of their role has changed due to the democratization conflict. The context in which journalists worked before April 2018 was often referred to as an authoritarian environment with sporadic but not severe manifestations of violence against journalists.
The scenario changed after April 2020, when the unprecedented violence perpetrated by the government created a before and after scenario for journalists. Especially after two very symbolic deaths at the beginning of the crisis: journalist Angel Gahona (April 21, 2018) and 15-year-old Alvaro Conrado (April 20, 2018). Many of the journalists mentioned the deaths of Gahona and Conrado as decisive moments where they had to change many things, from their editorial stances (many started calling the government a dictatorship) to the way they started perceiving themselves in one side or another (in this case the side of the victims).
Journalist 7 said: “In the first week we made the editorial decisions that are definitive as to how we faced this crisis, that has to do with the way we covered state, police, and paramilitary violence. When Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo first appeared on the national tv, what struck me the most was their denial of the victims, and at that moment I understood that one of my fundamental missions as a journalist was to name the victims.”
Many of the interviewees narrated key moments where they were at severe risk while covering the protests and pointed out they felt shattered because some of them (especially the young journalists) had not seen that level of repression.
Figure 3. Context, barriers, and facilitators.
Principal barriers
Journalists mention that many of the barriers they encounter were present in their work before the crisis of 2018 emerged; however, on a minor scale. The most mentioned barrier by journalists was violence and repression, especially state repression, personified not only in the death of Gahona, the journalist who was killed while filming a Facebook live video, but also in many other incidents, some of which involved the interviewees selected for this research.
For example, Journalist 11 was assaulted the very first day the protests erupted and, for him, that experience marked his subsequent coverage: “That day we observed a pattern when paramilitaries acted together with the Nicaraguan police in total impunity.”
These acts of violence have several consequences that interviewees mention throughout the research. At some point all of the interviewees suffered either the loss of their equipment due to attacks, others have suffered physical attacks by police, others have lost their newsroom due to government confiscations, and others have fled to exile from a period of time and came back to Nicaragua.
Another barrier that was mentioned was the lack of access to public and official sources of information, meaning that often journalists were not able to interview either state officials or sources linked to the Sandinista Liberation Front (the party of President Daniel Ortega). This was not something new for them as they have faced that since Ortega came back to power in 2006.
Principal facilitators
An essential facilitator mentioned by most of the journalists on this research was social media, and especially the way citizens were able to share information about what was going on in their communities regarding state repression or protests. Journalist 7, the director of a news website describes this: “The coverage of the crisis is marked by an explosion of freedom of expression from citizens. We are a tiny newsroom that does not have a single correspondent outside of Managua, how could we cover a national event? Only by doing a professional curatorial work of citizens' social media content.”
Another facilitator often mentioned by journalists was the openness they encountered from victims and NGOs that became their primary sources throughout the crisis. A facilitator mentioned several times by journalists was the creation of some sort of “journalistic solidarity network” that allowed them to protect themselves by going into the streets altogether, by sharing information and
content through different platforms and sometimes to endure internal situations in the newsrooms. Journalist 12 said: “We have made some sort of fraternity and that has helped us survive. This has been one of the greatest ways of counteracting repression, to have a partnership between colleagues.”
Emotions
One interesting aspect that emerged from this research was the constant mention of emotions by journalists when they were describing their role in society and specific incidents they had to overcome during their coverage. Fear and sadness were the most mentioned emotions, primarily when referring to how they felt when covering a protest on the streets, and there was state repression. Interestingly, these emotions were also mentioned when journalists talked about their role in society, especially when saying that they felt they were committed to fulfilling their role as journalists despite the fear and sadness they felt
Another vital aspect mentioned throughout the interviews was the pride that they felt for the work that they do, that despite all the barriers and consequences, they felt very proud not only of their role in the conflict but for their role in the country in general. Some other emotions were confusion, excitement, and anxiety.
Normative Democratic standards and the implications in the praxis.
Democracy perspectives
Based on open questions on how they define democracy in their own words and what they thought about its essence, most journalists replied that they think freedom, especially freedom of expression, is the main element. Elections were also mentioned several times as a key aspect.
Journalists interviewed made it clear that they do not believe Nicaragua is a democracy at the moment but that they aspire to it becoming one someday. Their visions are not clearly subscribed to one model, although they tend to mention most of the time the procedural aspects of it (since it is what is missing in the country). In this case, the notions will mostly align with the procedural and the
competitive democracy models proposed by Strömbäck (2005).
Role of journalists in a Democracy
Most journalists replied that the role of journalism in a democracy is to be the watchdogs that tell citizens when something done by the political powers was wrong. This was especially pointed out by journalists who mentioned that their role, in general, was to be the watchdogs (either in a democratic or non-democratic system). Other interviewees believe the journalist’s role is only to inform and not to trespass the line between their role as informants and activists and point out that they would be able to achieve objectivity in a democracy.
However, some of the journalists interviewed believe that in democracy their role is still, in their words: “to be on the side of the victims.” Even if we were to be in a democracy there is always going to be something that goes against the rights of the population, against the vulnerable people. The role of the journalist is still to be the voice of the voiceless,” Journalist 8 said.
Role in possible democratization process (transition)
The Nicaraguan conflict continues to unfold and the country's longings for justice and democratization are still growing, and although the government has not shed light on a possible peaceful solution to the conflict, there are some scenarios for a possible democratic transition in the country. That is why journalists were asked an open question about what they believe their role should be in a process like
that, taking into consideration that they have been critical elements in the developments of the entire conflict.
Most journalists affirmed that their neutrality would be truly measured in this position since they point out that in that hypothetical case if the opposition came to power, the media would then be in another position, very different from what they have today. In this sense, two roles were mentioned almost unanimously by the interviewees: detached watchdog and informant. “Our job would be to scrutinize the democratic transition Our job is to question everything and everyone,” Journalist 1 said.
Conclusion & Discussion
April 2018: A game-changer for journalists in Nicaragua
Journalists in Nicaragua are currently in the center of the country's most crucial socio-political crisis in the last 30 years. The work of journalists changed dramatically not only in the risk level but also in the routines, discourse, and how the journalists saw themselves embedded in society. In this context, this thesis aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the role perceptions of Nicaraguan journalists since the protest erupted in April 2018 and shed light on the aspects that have made Nicaraguan journalists what they are today.
It is certain that this socio-political conflict, which in this thesis is referred to as a
democratization conflict, represented a before and after in the way in which Nicaraguan journalists exercised their profession. The journalists interviewed were emphatic in describing that not only did the conditions in which they worked got difficult and that the barriers that already existed before this scenario were intensified, but also that there were decisions within the media, as well as individual decisions, that made these protests a decisive moment for journalists because they were forced to decide
Journalistic role perceptions in conflict: a discursive trap
This first part of this thesis addresses what roles journalists refer when covering a democratization conflict. The findings suggest that journalists revert to journalism's primary roles, at least when asked about the normative rules they follow. They mention roles such as essential dissemination, and checks and balances of the institutions in power, however, when talking about their praxis they tend to be more inclined to be in between a watchdog and a critical change agent, feeling that sometimes this last one crosses the line between journalism and activism. They can also be classified as being adversarial although they did not use that term, nor did they intend to be explicit about that position.
These are all primary roles cited by the journalists that also coincide with studies about role perceptions of journalist in other countries (Johnstone, Slawski & Bowman(1976), Weaver and Wilhoit (1996), Cassidy (2005) and in typology studies of roles such as Hanitzsch (2011). This also proves what Lohner et al. (2016) found out in their research about journalism in the context of democratization conflict: (1) journalists do not stick to one role in particular, and (2) it’s usual for journalists to feel close to several roles at a time. In the case of Nicaragua, what seems particular is not the mentioning of several roles at a time, but the contradiction that seems to arise between the roles, the normative standards, and the praxis.
Following Hanitzsch & Vos (2017), when we analyze the discourse that journalists generated about their work, the issue about their role becomes particularly contradictory when they would first mention their role as a detached watchdog who does not take any sides, and later on they openly described that their role was to stand by the victims. This shows a discrepancy between the roles that journalists impose on themselves and what they do in practice.
It is interesting to see that despite the particular context in which independent Nicaraguan journalists work—one in which they have to operate under an authoritarian hybrid regime that is increasingly distancing itself from basic democratic rules—journalists always return to the original typologies and normative roles that Strömbäck (2005) proposes. Western views of democracy and journalism praxis seem to be the standard normative notions that journalists tend to follow, at least on the discursive level.
In the Nicaraguan context, journalists say they always aim to contribute to democracy. They mention it as one of the pillars of their work. This is particularly interesting because this positions them discursively on the same side as those who protest (the opponents to the government) that is, they seek to achieve the ideal of democratization and depose the current party in power. This is particularly curious if we reflect on the roles that journalists themselves refer to, especially the detached watchdog.
When journalists see themselves as detached watchdogs—and even make conscious efforts to detach themselves from the symbols that are associated with the opposition, as one of the journalists said —they have many internal conflicts when they realize that at the same time they share ideological visions with citizens who oppose the government. They intentionally try to hide these similarities, so they are not classified as activists.
On the other hand, this ideal vs. reality inconsistency not only has consequences in the discourse, as stated by Hughes & Voroyeba (2019), this becomes a discursive trap that can represent an immense risk to the journalist's life. Journalists assume a role that comes from democratic normative standards but face a scenario where the state exercises violence against them and they are in the hands of a system that does not maintain the protection and counterbalance mechanisms typical of a democracy. This puts them
in severe danger, as mentioned by the majority of the interviewees, who either were victims of repression or were afraid something might happen to them in the future.
Concerning the literature review, the study finds how the objectivity discourse and the mention of values such as detachment are still very important for journalists in Nicaragua. As Boudana (2011) states, it is still widespread for journalists to take into account objectivity in contrast with what academia has been suggesting, that “objectivity is an unattainable ideal.” Following Boudana (2011) who proposes objectivity as a performance, the interviewed journalists (like the performers) want to show to the audience they are objective to be seen by then as effective in fulfilling their role. The issue is that this becomes a vital contradiction for journalists, especially in times of conflict, when on the one hand they aspire to fulfill the role of the detached watchdog, and on the other hand feel very close to a particular cause, in the case of Nicaragua the ideal for democratization and justice for the victims.
The most mentioned emotion during the research was fear. The constant fear journalists refer to is directly linked to their role as a journalist, since it is in the fulfillment of that role that journalists experience persecution and repression and as a consequence feel scared about what could happen to them or their families. It is essential to understand what drives a journalist to do what they do and what we encounter in this research is that the interviewed journalists are driven by passion and pride. They say they do their work and risk their lives because they have a passion for the profession and feel proud to fulfill an essential role in society. This also shows they feel proud about one of the facilitators that were often mentioned, which is the “journalistic solidarity," meaning that pride is a matter intrinsically linked to their perceptions of community, sense of belonging, and role fulfillment.
Overall, these findings implicate that journalistic roles tend to be some sort of normative
conflict. Western standards of how journalists should do their job sometimes force unattainable requirements that journalists living and working in hybrid regimes cannot simply comply with. However, these journalists want to fit into the journalistic community and repeat the normative
“western” discourse but find themselves contradicted when they realize their praxis becomes divergent from this model. Conflicts, especially conflicts with ethical roots such as democratization processes in hybrid regimes, tend to pose a dynamic challenge to the concepts of journalism in which journalists in such contexts frame their craft.
The research conducted is still elementary, and the role perceptions of Nicaraguan journalists, and journalists working in democratization conflicts, should be studied more deeply. It would be interesting to see what journalists in exile have to say about their role perceptions. Another aspect that should be further researched is the role of emotions in how journalists perceive their work. In this thesis it was made clear that there is an emotional aspect in the journalistic work that is not necessarily related to the outcome of the work (the product) or the audience.
In conclusion, we can say journalism in times of conflict it’s a difficult job for the ones who endure it, but it’s also a tremendous opportunity to debate about the boundaries of the journalistic community taking in account journalists choices and ideas can have a tremendous impact in the developments of society.
References
Álvarez, C. F. (2018, November 30). Así se vivió y se derrotó el golpe de Estado en Nicaragua. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/titulo:85748-asi-se-vivio-y-se-derroto-el-golpe-de-estado-en-nicaragua
Arenhövel, M. (2008). Democratization and Transitional Justice. Democratization, 15(3), 570–587.
Arias, E., & Goldstein, D. (2010). Violent Democracies in Latin America. Duke University Press.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boudana, S. (2011). A definition of journalistic objectivity as a performance. Media, Culture &
Society, 33(3), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710394899
Cassidy, W. P. (2005). Variations on a Theme: The Professional Role Conceptions of Print and Online Newspaper Journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 264– 280. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200203
Chamorro, Carlos Fernando. (2001) El turno de los medios: el periodismo centroamericano frente a la agenda de la democratización. Inter-American Dialogue.
Christians, C. G., Glasser, T., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R. (2009). Normative
Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. University of Illinois Press.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Committee to Protect Journalists (2018, April 24). Journalist killed while covering protests in eastern Nicaragua. Retrieved from https://cpj.org/data/people/angel-eduardo-gahona/
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1), 3-21.
Dahl R. A. (1973) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
David, M., and Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research. An introduction. Second Edition. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC: Sage.
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism?: Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 6(4), 442–464.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884905056815
Diamond, L. (2002). Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of
Democracy 13(2), 21-35. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025.
Donsbach, W. (2012). Journalists’ Role Perception. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International
Encyclopedia of Communication, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecj010.pub2
Ferree, M., Gamson, W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four Models of the Public Sphere in Modern Democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289-324. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/658129
Gaitán, L., & Sánchez, M. (2019, April). Libertad de Expresión en tiempos de represión Nicaragua 2018-2019. Retrieved from https://cinco.org.ni/archive/608.pdf?fbclid=IwAR32eVd22- FyMwXUU-sjtEZcJqED7N8E8JbdDYLdD10GtYoaSXg37DdNCh6k
Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI) (2018, December 21). Report on the violent events that took place in Nicaragua between April 18th and May 30th. Retrieved from
https://gieinicaragua.org/gieicontent/uploads/2019/01/GIEI_NICARAGUA_EXECUTIVE_ SUMMARY_eng.pdf
Goddard, P., Robinson, P., & Parry, K. (2008). Patriotism meets plurality: Reporting the 2003 Iraq War in the British press. Media, War & Conflict, 1(1), 9–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635207087623
Hanitzsch, T. (2011). Populist disseminators, detached watchdogs, critical change agents and opportunist facilitators: Professional milieus, the journalistic field and autonomy in 18 countries. International Communication Gazette, 73(6), 477–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048511412279
Hanitzsch, T., & Vos, T. P. (2017). Journalistic Roles and the Struggle Over Institutional Identity: The Discursive Constitution of Journalism: Journalistic Roles and Institutional Identity.
Communication Theory, 27(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12112
Higuera, S. (2016, April 1). Un gobierno cerrado a los medios: en Nicaragua no hay declaraciones públicas ni acceso a la información. Retrieved June 7, 2020, from
https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/es/blog/00-16860-un-gobierno-cerrado-los-medios-en-nicaragua-no-hay-declaraciones-publicas-ni-acceso-la
Hughes, S., & Vorobyeva, Y. (2019). Explaining the killing of journalists in the contemporary era: The importance of hybrid regimes and subnational variations. Journalism,1-19. doi:
10.1177/1464884919885588
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (2018) “Gross Human Rights Violations in the Context of Social Protests in Nicaragua.”,
Johnstone, J., Slawski, E., & Bowman, W. (1976). The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work. London: University of Illinois Press.
Kumar, N. P. (2016). Journalistic objectivity in Media risk debates: Challenges & opportunities.
The Clarion- International Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 91.
https://doi.org/10.5958/2277-937X.2016.00013.7
Lohner, J., Banjac, S., & Neverla, I. (2016). Journalistic practices, role perceptions and ethics in democratization conflicts: Empirical findings from interviews with journalists in Egypt, Kenya, Serbia and South Africa. Media, Conflict and Democratisation (MeCoDEM). ISSN 2057-4002
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
Montenegro, S. (2007). Los periodistas, los medios y el poder: Los Medios de Comunicación como actores políticos en Nicaragua. CINCO.
Nicaragua criminalizes the right to protest. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/ latest/news/2018/10/nicaragua-continua-represion-criminaliza-derecho-a-manifesterse/
Nicaragua: Human rights crisis demands action and accountability – UN report. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?
NewsID=23481&LangID=E
O’Donnell G, Schmitter PC and Whitehead L (eds) (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule:
Comparative Perspectives, Vol. 3. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Parameswaran, R. (2006) “Military Metaphors, Masculine Modes, and Critical Commentary: Deconstructing Journalists’ Inner Tales of September 11.” Journal of Communication
Partlow, J. (2018, August 24). From rebel to strongman: How Daniel Ortega became the thing he
fought against.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/from-rebel-to- strongman-how-daniel-ortega-became-the-thing-he-fought-against/2018/08/24/117d000a-97fe-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html
Rocha, J. L. (2014). Daniel Ortega now: El retorno de sí mismo. Iberoamericana, Vol. 9, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.18441/IBAM.9.2009.33.173-178
Romero, E. (2018, November 6) “420 Ataques Al Periodismo En Nicaragua En Seis Meses.” www.laprensa.com.ni/2018/11/06/nacionales/2492893-420-ataques-al-periodis-
mo-en-nicaragua-en-seis-meses.
RSF. (2019, April 26). Clasificación Mundial de la Libertad de Prensa 2019: La mecánica del miedo. Retrieved from https://rsf.org/es/clasificacion-mundial-de-la-libertad-de-prensa-2019-la- mecanica-del-miedo
Shoemaker, P &. Reese, S (2014). Mediating the Message: A Media Sociology Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Zelizer, Barbie. (1993) “Journalists as Interpretive Communities.” Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, vol. 10, no. 3, Sept. 1993 doi:10.1080/15295039309366865.
Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345.
Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1991). The American journalist: A portrait of US news people and their work. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Vilchez, D. (2019, July 16). Locked in 'small graves': Nicaraguan journalists Mora and Pineda describe their ordeal. Retrieved from https://cpj.org/blog/2019/07/nicaragua-journalists-miguel-mora-lucia- pineda-jailed-ipfa.php
Vilchez, D. (2020). Medios de comunicación en Nicaragua: Un análisis autocrítico y una nueva perspectiva hacia la transición democrática. In Anhelos de un nuevo horizonte: Aportes para una Nicaragua democrática (pp. 657–670). Flacso Costa Rica.
Voltmer, K and Kraetzschmar, H (2015) Investigating the Media and Democratisation Conflicts: Research Design and Methodology of Media, Conflict and Democratisation (MeCoDEM). Working Paper. MeCoDEM. ISSN 2057-4002 (Unpublished)
Appendices Appendix A
Interviewee Age Position/Media Date of
Interview
Duration of Interview
Interview Format Journalist 1 28 Reporter/News website 24/2/2020 30 minutes In person
Journalist 2 26 Reporter/Newspaper 27/2/2020 28 minutes In person
Journalist 3 25 Reporter/News website 25/2/2020 30 minutes In person
Journalist 4 30 Reporter/News website 21/1/2020 32 minutes In person
Journalist 5 38 Reporter/News Agency 18/2/2020 34 minutes In person
Journalist 6 34 Editor/News website 17/2/2020 36 minutes In person
Journalist 7 64 Director/News website/Tv Program
14/2/2020 32 minutes In person
Journalist 8 20 Reporter/News website 12/2/2020 25 minutes In person
Journalist 9 35 Director/News website 12/2/2020 35 minutes In person
Journalist 10 61 Reporter/News website 25/2/2020 31 minutes In person
Journalist 11 34 Reporter/News website 1/2/2020 37 minutes In person
Appendix B
The following are the interview questions for the study:
Intro from researcher:
here, so please open up as much as possible. The purpose of this research is to document the experiences of journalists covering the crisis and to understand why they do the work that they do.
Introductory questions :
Name
Age
Type of media
Studies:
Questions for research:
1. What do you think is the role of journalists in the society?
2. As a journalist, what role do you play in the media helping achieve this broader role?
3. Do you feel that this role has changed over the two years? If so, what has changed? What factors have triggered this change?
4. What do you think was your role as journalist while reporting the crisis?
5. Has that changed now, compared to when the repression has changed tactics?
6. How do you define democracy?
7. What do you think is the role of journalist in a democracy?
8. What role do you think journalists play in this transition path towards democracy, considering that’s the ideal the conflict is seeking?
9. What are the barriers and facilitators of reporting accurately in the current political and media landscape?
10. There have been many attacks to journalists, why do you continue reporting in Nicaragua?
11. What do you think are the elements a society needs in order for journalism to have an environment to grow and develop?
12. Do you believe you were objective in reporting the crisis and why?
13. What guidelines do you follow when covering cases where the media become the story?
14. What makes a good story? What do you think are they key values a journalist should follow when reporting a story? In writing or pursuing a story, do you consider accuracy as a priority value in your report?
10. How do you, as a journalist, ensure that the information you publish or air is devoid of inaccuracies?
