María Teresa Ronderos is the president of the Colombian Foundation for Freedom of the Press (FLIP) and a teacher at the Foundation for the Ibero American New Journalism (FNPI). She is also a consulting editor for Semana, a prestigious economic and political magazine, which reported on the illegal wire- tapping of politicians and journalists between 2004 and 2009, carried out by the Colombian government’s national intelligence agency (DAS).

Ronderos answers questions from IPI about press freedom under the government of former President Álvaro Uribe, and comments on her expectations about his successor, President Juan Manuel Santos.

What is the main enemy of press freedom in Colombia?

Drug trafficking and politicians associated with this crime are still the main enemy. On one side, we find these politicians trying to cover up their alliances with drug traffickers, and on the other, journalists uncovering these links. As politicians have to preserve their power and names, journalists must be silenced. In addition, a very damaging phenomenon has emerged in Colombia that affects democracy: illegal wire- tapping and threats by agents of the state, particularly the DAS, towards judges and journalists.

Was the DAS wire-tapping case unique in the region? Had it been seen before?

It had been seen before in many countries. The difference is that now it happened under a democratic regime, and we have been able to find out about it in detail. It is not the first time that this has occurred in Colombia. In fact, there have been complaints since the 1980s about state agents intimidating or persecuting journalists, but these had never been confirmed through official state documents. This time the scandal was so great, and the work of the press was so accurate, that everything was uncovered.

How do you evaluate the investigation?

It is advancing, and there have been some sanctions, but I think it’s going slowly. The Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office are only going to determine the responsibility of some public officials, but what is unclear, and what will be very difficult to know, is whether President Álvaro Uribe ordered or knew about the illegal interceptions, because the president can only be judged by a special Congress’ Commission. He has the political responsibility, because he was the head of state when it happened, but it is difficult to determine criminal liability. He has continually denied it. The commission opened an investigation, but these investigations are notoriously unreliable because they have a huge political bias, since the commission is all made up of Uribe’s supporters.

Do you think Uribe favored security over freedom of the press?

I don’t see it that way. Uribe’s government pacified the country. As the levels of violence from armed groups significantly dropped, the violence against journalists also decreased. I believe that government spying did not have to do with fighting the FARC. I think it had more to do with the government’s attempt to control the opposition. Uribe’s government became extremely paranoid and started to consider everyone as an enemy.

President Santos was a journalist, but still very close to the previous government. What do you think will be his position regarding freedom of expression?

I think Santos is very different. I never heard a harsh statement against journalists, the media or the courts. The DAS director has given the Prosecutor all documents needed for the investigations. Santos has a more liberal approach; he has been a journalist all his life, and his brother was president of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA). I do not see history repeating itself. The dangers to the press have to do with violence, and some local politicians, but I don’t see Santos beginning a massive phone-tapping campaign.

How do you read the Radio Caracol car bomb incident, only five days after President Santos took office?

It is very difficult to know who planted the bomb. Some e-mails apparently referred to it and said it was a plan conducted by the FARC. I think that’s still unclear. If the goal was to silence Radio Caracol, then the objective was lost because Caracol and the media did not feel intimidated by it.

Cambio magazine was closed this year, supposedly for economic reasons. How is Semana surviving; what is its strategy?

Cambio was part of El Tiempo newspaper, which had taken a pro-governmental editorial stance. Cambio had been uncovering scandals about government corruption, so it was becoming uncomfortable. Besides, it wasn’t producing money, so they decided to close it. The case of Semana is different because it does not belong to any economic group and that gives it greater independence. Of course, it has been under pressure, some journalists have been monitored, but Semana has been toughened, it has remained independent.

What are the differences between journalists from the Colombian capital Bogotá and those from regional media?

Always in Colombia, the great sacrifices for press freedom have been made by regional reporters. They are the ones who have to deal with very brutal powers; many journalists have been silenced. Those from Bogotá are better protected.

Are the media publishing the stories they want, or are they under government pressure?

The only pressure is that the regional media depends on local government advertising and if they don’t have it, they die. In many cases, the governors or mayors remove advertising when the media is being very critical. Some local governments have been closely linked with corruption, drug trafficking or paramilitaries, and the brutal threat they constitute causes self-censorship. Journalists are afraid to publish the truth because they know that the paramilitaries or the guerrillas are capable of serious retaliation. The pressure is always official, but I don’t think the national government will directly pressure regional or local media.

After the DAS scandal, what was the reaction of the population regarding freedom of expression?

I think that in Colombia freedom of expression is well established. People were shocked and critical about the government abusing its power. However, often people do not understand that freedom of expression is the counterpart of their right to be informed. If there was a serious attack against a respected media outlet in Colombia, I’m sure there would be great solidarity.

When was the last serious attack?

The major attacks took place in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when drug terrorism was taking place. The director of El Espectador was murdered, car bombs destroyed El Espectador and Vanguardia Liberal… Still, in recent years there have been attacks. There have been national news media executives who have been forced into exile by threats, like columnist and news director Daniel Coronell.

What would your recommendations be?

1. Definitely, impunity has to be eliminated. Almost all crimes against journalists remain unsolved, except those in which there were confessions made by paramilitaries. FLIP and CPJ have been pushing for efforts to tackle impunity.
2. The state has to be much more transparent and open with information allegedly implicating journalists in criminal acts.
3. It is essential to promote public awareness of the importance of freedom of expression.
4. Another problem is the role of the police in demonstrations covered by journalists – whom they sometimes attack.
5. The state, in Latin America in general, should establish clear guidelines on how to distribute the official budget, so that it doesn’t become a way of silencing or pressuring the media. The rapporteur is designing parameters to avoid this problem. That’s another big challenge in Latin America; if we win, the freedom of expression profile in the region will change.