Léster Juárez is a new friend, a La Prensa reporter who covers national politics. He is 31 years old, single and a lifelong Sandinista. He's also mature enough to not take himself too seriously — and last week handed in his resignation to the editors — leaving me in a comfortable position to criticize and question everything under his byline.
He responded well to the ink I scrawled across and around his three articles in yesterday's paper. I should preamble this by saying that journalists here are overworked and underpaid. On average, Léster puts works 70-hour weeks. Six-day weeks, several articles a day. He goes to law school on his day off and has lived in the same teeny US$40/month room for the past nine years.
Everything in this country is highly politicized in a way I am barely beginning to grasp. Parties mean everything here, and every new administration basically cleans house and replaces most government employees with party members. This explains why it takes so long for things to get done here. If the people running government agencies are new to their jobs or have been chosen mostly for their allegiance, there will be delays and ineptitude, if not straight-up corruption.
He wrote one story titled "Bonilla 'explodes' against Montealegre" about a Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance congresswoman at odds with her party's leader, Eduardo Montealegre. Now, nobody he interviewed described Jamileth Bonilla as "exploding" against Montealegre, but there — in the headline — the word is in quotes. It's nowhere else in the story. As a (U.S.) reader, I automatically believe that the reporter/editor chose to use quotation marks because somebody interviewed used the term. Quotation marks imply somebody that does not represent the newspaper is speaking. This sort of helps editors defend themselves against claims of bias.
But, Léster tells me, although that's what he understands the use of quotation marks to mean, it wasn't the case here. His editor liked the word and put it in quotes in order to make it stand out. End of story.
Well, not quite. Remember that I was talking about how political things are. Montealegre is La Prensa's man. By choosing language that makes one of his opponents — albeit someone from within his own party — look bad, the paper is doing its job.
Looking past its headline, I ask questions about the actual story. Like, why does this matter? Facts that to me would appear key — like that Bonilla had once switched to the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance after a fall-out with her original party's leader — were simply not mentioned or alluded to. You're just supposed to know these things as a reader.
Understandable, perhaps. On to another story: "Supreme Court justices could be challenged." Basically the story gives space to the opinion of one "constitutional rights expert." I wrote last week about a movement here to change to a parliamentary system of government here. It seems some of the drafters of the proposed changes to constitution sit on Nicaragua's Supreme Court. The "constitutional rights expert" makes logical arguments against allowing justices to both judge and take part in cases.
I have a few problems with this. First, why does this guy's opinion matter, and couldn't the reporter — my friend — have learned whether this stuff is ethical or proper on his own? I mean, the expert uses the law to back up his argument, so couldn't Léster have quoted the law before the expert? Would that have given the story more credibility?
Later in the story you realize that the expert's main gripe isn't about ethics, but against the proposal itself. He is anti-Sandinista, and that is the main detail that qualifies his opinion for the editors at La Prensa.
Léster explains to me that his editors have a list of "experts" to call for this kind of story. Because they agree with La Prensa's political leanings, whenever they say anything it gets quoted and turned into a story.
Does this grant them a sort of legitimacy they might not necessarily deserve? And does that legitimacy translate into the ability to sway readers toward some political leaning?
I think so, and Léster agrees. But here in Nicaragua you know what you're getting into when you buy a newspaper. That's why he's quitting his job. Instead of doing journalism that questions in order to amplify discussion or urge solutions, he's just stabbing a party for the sake of stabbing.
So what's next for Mr. Juárez? A public relations job — in government.








