A Tale of Two Stories – part 1
This post is a bit longer than usual, so I broke it up into two parts. To get the full picture it will help to do some homework and read the articles linked below. I’ll start with the Globe story, tomorrow with the Post story.
Two stories, one country. How does the US media look at Colombia? How do you look at Colombia?
From the Boston Globe – “Colombia offers lessons for US aid efforts elsewhere”
From the Washington Post – “Despite Billions in US Aid, Colombia struggles to reduce poverty”
There are certain types of article that you start to recognize when you watch a country closely, as I do now with Colombia.
Stories can be designed to tell you a story, i.e. feed you a narrative, or they can be designed to introduce you to the story, i.e. pull back a curtain for you to see. So consider these two stories with me…
Say a major US newspaper wants to do a story on Colombia, maybe for an upcoming election, or a pending trade deal, whatever. But of course they don’t have a bureau here, so they cough up a ticket and send a reporter down. And that reporter is assigned to go, find sources of info, talk to relevant people, and then write up a story. Some sort of a summary view, for the ‘general US audience,’ who it can be assumed doesn’t know much about a place like Colombia.
So the reporter goes to Colombia, but it it much easier to stay in Bogotá – safer, convenient, and all the government people are there – so you stay and pull together a story from government statements and conversations with other people in the know… They really do seem to have it all together. Heck, you may even make the most of your stay in the Bogotá tourist scene – just to give the story a little texture:
It is a pretty typical scene even for a weeknight. Restaurants and bars are teeming with patrons, the beat of traditional Latin music spilling out on the crowded sidewalks. Stores are packed with evening shoppers and a steady stream of international business executives and tourists are checking in to gleaming new hotels.
But it is a remarkably different setting for Colombia’s capital than a few years ago, when many people rarely left their homes after dark for fear of bombings, homicides, and kidnappings by drug cartels, criminal gangs, and guerrilla fighters.
But here is the deal. You can’t know what is going on in this country, or any country, with a quick visit to the capital city. Even in today’s information packed age, you just can’t gather up the quotes and leave to paint the picture. Our world, and Colombia in particular, is far too complex to make a snap judgment based on government reports and impressive statistics. And really, judging based on hearing a ‘latin beat’ in the streets?
The article tells a story of a country that has undergone a huge turnaround, particularly since 2000-ish starting with two items – Plan Colombia and President Uribe. The story is that due to impressive results, Colombia should now be a model for security and success for other countries. Read the article, but I don’t think this is a bad summary of it’s push.
The question is this – is this what news reporting should be? Is news reporting simply repeating statements and figures by those in charge, and maybe someone with some disagreement, and calling it a story? Or is there something more to reporting? Something more than re-presenting a government’s public relations pitch?
Now, I disagree with the direction of this story (I don’t think that Colombia’s security or economic policies have been all that successful, and I don’t think they should be a model for anyone) but apart from that, it is important to see the way we are being led by the article. And who is doing the leading? It is the same people who are carrying out the security and economic policies. You think they might have an interest in only presenting their best side?
This story does diligently have one voice of dissent, in this case Markus Schultze-Kraft, of the International Crisis Group. It has this in the 25th and last paragraph, and gives only a slight mention to the topics of displacement and extrajudical killings by the government. These topics, along with the nature of a government that is willing to cover them up, would seem to warrant more investigation if we are to export the Colombian model, but not in this story. It doesn’t fit the picture that we are being shown.
The article uses statistics, but aren’t we clear by now that statistics can be skewed which ever way you need them to be? (I take one case here to unpack – coca production – but each of the many figures reported have the same complexity underneath.) The story reports a drop in coca production by half since 2002. We’re winning the war on drugs, right? And Colombia is no longer controlled by drug interests, right?
No. First, the figure of a 50% reduction since 2002: There are certain compelling statistics that show this level of decline. But there are also other compelling statistics that don’t show such a decline. And to point out the obvious, to measure illegal drug production across an area twice the size of Texas is hard!
Click for larger image
Look here for all the most recent statistics concerning coca cultivation, production, eradication, and interdiction from two different bodies – the United States and the United Nations. If you are telling a story, you might want to quote the most impressive drop (or gain) you could find; however showing the story points to the complexity and ambiguity of how the real world operates. (by my look, taking Bender’s 2002-2008 time period, the US statistics show a drop of 18% in coca cultivation, and a drop of 50% in production, while the UN shows a drop of 50% in cultivation and a drop of 26% in production.)
My conclusion – There has been a shift in coca production/cultivation, but the overall picture is still troubling (and far from a resounding success), with parallel increases in other Andean countries. And no one, no one, is arguing that cocaine is less available, less prevalent on the streets (and in the office parks) of the United States. The supply may be shifting a bit, but as any economist would tell you, the demand is where this story really is.
So that’s the cocaine figures, but the article presents many other cases with clarity that, to me, don’t merit the certainty. Guerrilla attacks down, kidnappings down, thousands of armed actors demobilized. And looking at a different set of indicators – GDP is up, one million more kids in school, and 40% more are in health insurance systems (that one seems a little odd, what flack put that before him?)
But in reality, the picture for each of these is much, much muddier. I’m not arguing that his figures are wrong, but that they aren’t the clarion indicators of success that his story presents. The International Red Cross came out yesterday with a report raising concerns about illegal armed groups’ continued strength, Colombian think tank Nuevo Arco Iris reported a couple of months ago about increasing FARC attacks, including kidnappings. GDP tracks the economic output of a nation, but is massively skewed towards those with large economic means; it says very little about the vast majority of the Colombian population. It’s just not that clear cut what is going on in Colombia. (And just today I saw this report where several paramilitary bosses, testifying in Colombian court, described the demobilization process as a fracaso – or screw-up, to put it nicely. )
Tune in tomorrow for another side of the coin…
~~~~~~
Twitter
Facebook
Facebook - MB -
[...] Part 2 – This post was a bit longer than usual, so I broke it up into two parts. Read Part 1 here. [...]