Journalist Defends Interviewing Dictator Videla, Advocates for Inclusive Journalism

Journalist Ceferino Reato has publicly defended his decision to interview former Argentine dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, sparking a debate on journalistic ethics and the responsibility to include all voices in historical narratives. Reato, author of the book “Disposición Final: La dictadura por dentro y la confesión de Videla sobre los desaparecidos,” faced criticism from fellow journalists who argued that giving a platform to figures like Videla is inappropriate. Reato, however, contends that a core tenet of journalism is to present all sides of a story, allowing readers to form their own informed opinions.

Reato’s book, first published in 2012, gained significant attention not solely for the interviews themselves, but for Videla’s detailed confession regarding the systematic murder and disappearance of individuals deemed “unrecoverable” by the regime. This practice, chillingly referred to as “Disposición Final” within military circles, was meticulously described by the former dictator. The information provided by Videla in the book was later used as crucial evidence in numerous human rights trials against the dictatorship in Argentina.

Challenging the Notion of Worthy Voices

Central to Reato’s argument is the question of who possesses the authority to determine which historical figures are “worthy” of being interviewed. He firmly believes that censoring or excluding voices based on personal or ideological preferences is not only a grave error but also an authoritarian act. Reato criticizes journalists who, in his view, allow their political ideologies to influence their professional judgment, labeling them “militant journalists.” He suggests this phenomenon has been fostered by various political movements and subsequently adopted by politicians across the spectrum.

Reato extends his critique beyond the controversial figure of Videla. He raises a pertinent question about whether leaders of the prominent guerrilla groups of the 1970s, such as Mario Firmenich, Roberto Perdía, and Fernando Vaca Narvaja, should also be excluded from interviews due to their involvement in violent acts, including kidnappings, bombings, and assassinations. Reato asserts that all individuals who participated in the political violence of that era, whether acting on behalf of the state or within armed opposition groups, warrant journalistic attention.

The Value of Comprehensive Historical Records

Reato’s professional philosophy prioritizes providing readers with direct access to the testimonies of all key players involved in significant historical events. He believes that through carefully crafted questions, follow-up inquiries, and the juxtaposition of these accounts with those of other protagonists and authenticated historical documents, readers are empowered to develop their own nuanced understanding of complex events. Consequently, Reato’s published works include interviews with military figures like Videla, as well as with as many members of guerrilla organizations as he could gain access to.

He expresses concern that some journalists may harbor a romanticized view of guerrilla movements, leading them to adopt a selective focus on human rights issues, where concerns are only deemed relevant when the perpetrators are from right-wing factions. Reato argues that such a biased approach distorts the historical record and undermines the foundational principles of objective journalism.

The Role of Journalism in Society

Reato’s stance champions a form of journalism that embraces inclusivity and rigorous factual reporting, even when confronting figures responsible for profound human suffering. He posits that by presenting a full spectrum of perspectives, journalists equip their audience with the necessary tools for critical engagement with history, enabling them to make well-informed judgments. This approach, while undoubtedly contentious, is presented by Reato as indispensable for a robust and democratic press, one that actively resists ideological censorship.

Key Facts from the Discussion

• Book Title: “Disposición Final: La dictadura por dentro y la confesión de Videla sobre los desaparecidos”
• Primary Interviewee: Jorge Rafael Videla, former Argentine dictator
• Central Theme: Videla’s admission of a systematic practice of murder and disappearance of individuals
• Author’s Argument: The importance of interviewing all protagonists in a historical narrative
• Criticisms Addressed: Journalists who censor voices based on ideological grounds

What Remains Unclear

While Reato clearly articulates his journalistic philosophy, the specific reactions and names of the “colleagues” he refers to who criticized his work remain unspecified in the original commentary. Further details on the exact nature of their criticism beyond the general principle of not interviewing Videla would provide a more complete picture of the journalistic debate.

The ethical considerations surrounding interviewing individuals responsible for atrocities are complex and often debated within the field of journalism. Reato’s perspective highlights the tension between the desire to hold perpetrators accountable and the need for comprehensive documentation of historical events. His argument for including all voices, even those of controversial figures, aims to prevent the sanitization of history and to empower readers with a fuller understanding of the past. This approach, he suggests, is vital for a truly informed public discourse and for safeguarding against the selective presentation of facts that can distort collective memory.

Source: Clarin Deportes, https://www.clarin.com/opinion/entreviste-videla_0_atw6EcBmef.html