[ad_1]
In a statement, these journalism organizations rejected the order that a judge gave to investigate whether Vicky Dávila and Jairo Lozano violated the summary reservation in the Álvaro Uribe case, and for Semana to eliminate conversations that Juan Guillermo Monsalve had with the family, recordings that are part of the file.
La Flip, Asomedios and AMI indicated that the ruling “ignores the fundamental nucleus of freedom of expression”, censors journalists and “it endangers the freedom of the press”, since the information released by Semana TV, the digital space of the magazine directed by Dávila, is part of “one of the most important judicial cases in the history of the country.”
“Freedom of the press must prevail in order to materialize the general interest to know the truth and make it accessible to society and, with this, promote public debate and oversight before public authorities,” the statement read.
They add that they pretend that journalists do not use information reserved by a State server and that they also have to reveal their sources “creates obstacles to the fulfillment of the role of the media and blurs its nature“.
In the same sense, El Espectador spoke in its editorial this Friday, which pointed out that the togado used a “strange logic” to make that ruling, also rejected by Uribismo.
The newspaper assures that the judge’s decision is a “direct attack on freedom of expression” that threatens the exercise of communicators: “It seems rather that what the judge wants is a country of quiet people and journalists without criticism ”.
“How many times has the country learned about important matters for public life thanks to the disclosure of information from judicial processes? Countless. How many times has the public debate been nurtured thanks to the journalism that reveals what is usually locked up in the files of the courts and the Prosecutor’s Office? Of course, it is of high public relevance that the country knows all the details of the process against Álvaro Uribe Vélez. Without that transparency, how are people going to make informed decisions? ”Adds the newspaper.
Journalists such as Luis Carlos Vélez and Gustavo Gómez had a similar vision, who expressed their solidarity with Semana, Lozano and Dávila.
She, in an interview with Caracol Radio, stated that the ruling was “atrocious” for the press: “This leaves a very dangerous jurisprudence established, very complicated for professional practice in a democracy like Colombia.”
It is precisely for this reason that the magazine will take resources so that the decision, made on a guardianship that Monsalve’s sister filed because – according to her – her right to privacy was violated, is without effect.
[ad_2]
