100 | nº 27, pp. 99-120 | doxa.comunicación

julio-diciembre de 2018

The process of spectacularization of violence in Colombia. A tool in the construction of fear

ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978

1. Introduction

The following is a historical account from 1948 to 2018 in Colombia, in which violence has played a prominent role. The communication channels used to tell the story, the way the information has been handled and some specific principles such as guilt and responsibility are shown, which can be seen in specific events.

1.1. Trust in the media: the 1940s and 1950s

April 9, 1948, is the starting point for the analysis in this work. On this date the presidential candidate for the Liberal Party, Jorge Eliecer Gaitán was assassinated, triggering a civil war against the Conservative 2 opposition. In this period, pheasants armed themselves in defense against the army, which had taken a political stance. According to authors such as Arturo Alape (1983),3 this phenomenon gave rise to the guerrillas.

The historical period between 1948 and 1953 known as “Violence” had several fronts in the media: the press, mainly in the newspaper El Tiempo, owned by the Santos family, who had a political affiliation to the Liberal Party. Several members of the family were political figures, including several presidents (the most recent being Nobel Peace Prize Winner [2016]) Juan Manuel Santos [2010-2018]). Another was the radio due to its local nature in small cities, which served as an ideological instrument and political proselytism for its owners. A third front which Martín Barbero (1987) refers to was orality through rumor or commentary, and the use of the public square and the streets as stages for forming an opinion. In terms of Habermas’s (1987) theory of communicative action, this was essential for Colombians in this period to form their opinions, myths, and ghosts.

Despite the existence of mass media and their constant communicative connection with individuals, disinformation regarding facts, victims and places of conflict fostered an indifferent response among the population. This indifference is still prevalent even in the 21st century; it is demonstrated in the high numbers of casualties, such as the 220,000 homicides since 1958, or the almost 5 million displaced people between 1985 and 2012 (National Centre for Historical Memory or CNMH in Spanish, 2012). In spite of the internal conflict or extremely cruel acts, including paramilitary massacres since the 90s, victims’ stories have not been able to shake a population that feels uninvolved. Hannah Arendt explains this behaviour from the perspective of responsibility:

“When the person in questions appears in front of their fellow human beings, is set apart in relation to them, in the sense of being responsible only for themself, for this kind of person, any and every inclination that motivates them for good or evil is a temptation that can lead them ‘astray’ in the world and for this reason there is a duty to resist” (2007: 21).

Regarding guilt Arendt explains that unlike the perpetrators of the crimes other actors participated in the acts by remaining silent and tolerant, most of Colombian society falls into this category. However, individuals also avoid being informed about the conflict, they isolate themselves from it and even create far-fetched parallel stories, which the media facilitates.