The serialisation of these aesthetics establishes protocols for the presentation of media products and naturalises them in individuals’ daily life. The Colombian media has capitalised on curiosity, initially local in these new formats, where the raw, bizarre and decadent, are based on true events to win audiences over.

These formats generated an aesthetic that is easily recognisable by Latin American audiences, which has been called “Capitalism gore” by the Mexican Sayak Valencia. In addition to consuming them, she states that Latin Americans relate to them, holding a place in their daily lives, making them a part of popular culture.

“To refer to the reinterpretation given to the hegemonic and –global economy– in (geographically) frontier spaces […] the term gore [comes from] a cinematographic genre that refers to extreme and categorical violence […] to explicit and unjustified bloodshed (as a price for the Third World to pay which clings to the increasingly demanding logic of capitalism)” (Valencia, 2010: 15).

The “new beauties” being produced by the media and winning over audiences with the aesthetic of drug trafficking is not exclusive to Colombia, in Latin American countries such as Brazil, its media has resorted to showing violence in cities, favelas, police abuse of power, and poverty. In Mexico, border problems have even influenced the U.S media industry.

The “new beauty,” which is the aesthetic of the drug trafficking and armed conflict in the media has contributed to creating an “aura” surrounding Colombia and its situation, which is resignifying its image. The conflict in Colombia and its consequences are real, but the experience that most individuals have of it is through television series that narrate it in a fragmented way, in turn, enabling audiences to express their opinions on blogs and fulfill a social demand to be informed about the reality of it.

Lipovetsky asserts that postmodern democracies have spaces where opposing ideas can be expressed. For this author, there is less violence nowadays than at any other time (at least in Europe), what has increased is the sensationalist way that the public is exposed to it. “The modern age was obsessed with production and revolution; the postmodern age is obsessed with information and expression” (Lipovetsky, 1985:14).

Postmodernity, although hedonistic and individualistic, proposes other more diverse ways of socialisation. As a result of the growing volumes of information that circulate, it is impossible to process, causing apathy and collective trivialisation. The private acquires value, the here and the now is presented regardless of their historicity, leading to a collective lesson:

“Social training is no longer carried out by disciplinary imposition or only by sublimation; it is now carried out by self-seduction. Narcissism, a new technology of flexible and self-managed control, socialises by de-socializing, puts individuals in agreement with a pulverised social system while glorifying the realm of the expansión of pure ego…”(Lipovetsky, 1985: 55).

Although Colombia coincides in some points with Lipovetsky’s ideas, the country is far from achieving pacification or being a safe area. Perhaps, what most distances it from this proposal of a postmodern society are the education levels which, despite improvement still do not allow us to speak of a population that is educated with the necessary arguments for criticising its own system, therefore facilitating its manipulation. In 2015, the Index of Ignorance ranked Colombia in the sixth position in a study conducted in 33 countries.