The BBC reports that Chilean families are upset at the military for the deaths of their children in the recent blizzard. Reuters also has an update on the search.
Larry Rohter over at the New York Times reports on the military families, then links it to Pinochet. Why Larry? Over 40 Chilean soldiers just died on a military exercise. Why feel the need to report on Pinochet and human rights abuses of a past decade at a time of tragedy like this? What does it add to the story? Are you simply incapable of reporting about Chile without mentioning Pinochet?
The Chilean media aren't reporting the Pinochet angle because they understand this tragedy goes beyond those politics. It's a shame some US reporters can't understand it from that same perspective.
2 comments:
Gotta disagree with you to some extent and it is primarily this one: although there is change afoot in this area, Chile's military still operates with little civilian oversight. Lagos cannot replace the commanders, so the only accountability will be up to the military.
That's part of Pinochet's legacy.
Understanding that is part of Pinochet's legacy, it has little to do with the current tragedy.
If you don't believe me, do a google news search in either English or Spanish. You'll quickly see that Rohter was the almost the only journalist to cover this angle. Everyone else is covering the tragedy and the complaints of the families. Either Rohter is ahead of the curve by predicting how this story will play out or he's behind it, incapable of viewing any story about the Chilean military without bringing up the past. I'm arguing the second.
Post a Comment