A Tale of Two Stories – part 2

Part 2 – This post was a bit longer than usual, so I broke it up into two parts.  Read Part 1 here.

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”

And now, consider the Washington Post article.  It’s not perfect.  I disagree with parts of it.  But read it, and think about the story it is showing.  Are you being told a story, or are you being introduced to the story?

It shows of picture of people outside of the capital, and has interviews – actual interviews! – with people that are not in the business of policy or persuasion.  The reporter visits Algarrobo, a town up here in the Caribe region (I haven’t been there, but now I’d like to go) and digs a bit into the recent scandal involving the Colombian governement’s direction of funds for small farmers and displaced peoples towards large, connected landowners. (for more on the Agro Ingreso Scandal, visit the original Cambio article here, or an English summary/commentary here.)

The story presents several of the same cases of success listed above (GDP, foreign investment, defeated guerrilla movement), but it also speaks of  “the other Colombia,” a counter narrative that gets full voice in this story.  There are multiple sources, from professors to think tank types, and actual people affected by the policies discussed. Information in this story is presented as lines in a web, rather than as building blocks to the forgone conclusion.

In this story, we are left to ponder what success looks like in Colombia, knowing the official reports of increased security, but also hearing of ideas about economic disparities and government corruption.  Through this investigation, we begin to see connection between the economic conditions of the population and the security conditions.

Clearly, I am much more inclined to agree with the Post story versus the Globe story.  I think the topic of economic conditions, as opposed to military achievement, are of far further reach in today’s world.  But the point is not that I like the second article.  It is that in the first article, I am led to agreement, while in the second I am presented a picture, and from that picture, a choice is to be made.  What is my connection to this picture?  Do I support my own government’s connection to this picture?  Do I want this system of security and economic development spread further?  What is right and good in light of my faith?

Now I’m a pastor, and maybe its just because these posts have gone on longer than most of my sermons, so I’m tempted to look at my scriptural tradition for some clarity on what is right and good.  And to be clear my faith tradition does offer many resources on what is right and good in the eyes of God, for which I am deeply thankful.  But the questions of how we read the news, of how we think of and interact with people around this world – they are not questions that are to be simplified into black and white.  They are the gray that is our world, the gray that permeates each of our lives.  All of us, those a part of faith traditions and those not, have to struggle with this complexity of our world.

I am the first to say these are not easy questions with tidy answers.  Don’t listen to anyone who says they are.  And watch how you read, because if you are not asking these types of questions, you aren’t really thinking…

(In looking for information for this entry, I found this post from my friend Adam Isacson.  Either we think just alike, or I read his volley at this type of journalism last year and it stuck, and I copied it when another obvious example came up.  Clearly the later – credit where credit is due.  And reporters – stop with these stories so we don’t have to debunk them any more!)