Antipress Violence and the Crisis of the State

Although it is an issue of immediate interest to reporters and press organizations, antipress violence has not elicited a great deal of scholarly attention. While in the context of developed democracies, studies have concluded that violence against the press has significantly diminished in the twentieth century, the situation is markedly different elsewhere. This gap is not surprising considering that the literature on press and democracy has been largely produced in the West and has largely reflected the absence of antipress violence in Western nations. The persistence of attacks against journalists outside the West, however, makes it necessary to put it at the center to analyze the situation of journalistic labor and the prospects for the press in historically weak democracies. This article analyzes antipress violence by focusing on the Latin American case. The argument is that in postauthoritarian situations, the breakdown of the state accounts for why the press, particularly investigative reporters and publications, is the target of violence. Antipress violence reflects the impossibility of the state’s fulfilling its mission to monopolize the legitimate use of violence and the lack of accountability of those responsible for the attacks. Because it is a central arena in the battle for public expression, the press becomes a prominent target when naked violence replaces the rule of law. The fate of the press is intrinsically linked to the fate of the democratic state. There cannot be a democratic press as long as the state does not secure minimal institutional conditions that democracy demands.