I find this idea reflected in the first sentence of the article by Humberto Márquez: "With chilling calm, the killer dismounted from the motorbike, pulled out his gun and shot Ores Sambrano through the head as if it were the most natural thing in the world." I italicize that last phrase for emphasis because it indicates the idea that murder of journalists is now considered so commonplace in Latin America that people have become numb to its affects. According to CPJ, however, "deadly violence against the press is rare in Venezuela...Four journalists have been killed in direct relation to their work since, 1992, the most recent in 2006."
From January to May of last year, I worked for Global Journalist, a magazine published by the University of Missouri that focuses on press freedom issues around the world. I sometimes used to write Death Watch, or a list of journalists who were killed in their line of duty since our last issue. At one of our first meetings our managing editor told us it was the most read section of the magazine, a fact determined by a survey conducted by an MU strategic communications class. I have wondered why that is - is it the stop and stare factor of death, a way to honor fallen colleagues, or frustration for the state of journalism? Or perhaps a combination of all these factors as a reflection of an individual journalist and his relationship to others within this profession. I personally felt frustration that we even had to have such a page in our magazine, as idealistic as it may seem. To have a full page dedicated to death should not be necessary.
There is no doubt that journalism is a dangerous profession, for some more than others, but if journalist's murders are simply dismissed in mainstream news coverage it gives the message that it has become accepted in some parts of the globe, and that is just unacceptable.
