Poor media coverage of violence is harmful to Guatemalan democracy

A few years ago I used to constantly harp on what I considered the poor coverage of violence in Guatemala. Specifically, it really annoyed me when reporters would use improving murder rates as evidence that murder and violence were getting worse. There were lots of other problems but I remained focused. Here are some of those thoughts from last year.

I also rejected candidate Otto Perez Molina's campaign rhetoric that told everyone that Guatemala was suffering twenty-five murders each day when the actual murder rate appeared to be between 16-18.

Obviously one reason to care is simply that we want our media and politicians to describe whatever it is that they are describing as accurately as possible. However, I'd also say that how they cover and report on violence, specifically in Central America, has serious consequences for how citizens evaluate their government. In order to present himself as the mano dura candidate, Perez Molina went around the country telling people that the murder rate was approximately one-third higher than it actually was. The media would lead with a story claiming that twelve people died across the country on another bloody Saturday somehow forgetting the fact that 16-18 people on average were being murdered every day.

People lose confidence in the police, the media, their elected officials, and, perhaps, democracy if their political systems appears to be incapable of resolving their country's most pressing problems.

Fortunately, Krystin Krause looks at some of these issues in a new article on Supporting the Iron Fist: Crime News, Public Opinion, and Authoritarian Crime Control in Guatemala in Latin American Politics and Society.

Authoritarian responses to rising violent crime rates have become a serious problem in Central America. Inspired by theories of agenda setting and media framing, this article examines the influence of news media coverage of crime on attitudes toward crime control. Using an original survey experiment, it tests the relationship between crime news, fear of crime, trust in government institutions, and support for authoritarian crime control measures in Guatemala.

It finds that crime news influences support for authoritarian crime control via its effect on lowering citizen trust in government institutions. Exposure to crime news also affects self-reported victimization rates and levels of support for a presidential candidate promoting iron fist policies. These findings not only give insight into the relationship between crime news and political attitudes but also have implications for the rule of law and the politics of crime in new or fragile democracies.

Guatemala remains a very dangerous country to live and work in. However, the media's tendency to sensationalize violence (I'm looking at you Nuestro Diario) appears to decrease citizen trust in government, to increase citizen support for vigilantism, and to lead citizens to support mano dura policies executed by the very people, the State, in which they are losing trust. The results were (only) produced using an experiment so there are concerns about the external validity of the findings. However, Krystin's findings should trouble people and lead to additional research on the relationship between media coverage, violence, and support for democracy and democratic policies and procedures in Central America.