Palabras como gatillos

“Las palabras son como gatillos que ayudan a las personas a negociar significados a través de la lente de creencias y visiones culturales.”
Erving Goffman, Antropólogo

Palabras como gatillos. He estado pensando en esta frase desde que la leí y me di cuenta de que me gusta tanto la frase porque es verdad que tenemos que utilizar las palabras como si fueran gatillos, pero en el buen sentido. Palabras como gatillos no para enmarcar una historia ni condicionarla dándole un sentido que en realidad no tiene. Palabras como gatillos que abren los ojos.

Sé que hay razones culturales por las que siento que los medios de comunicación protegen mucho al público en Estados Unidos. Siento que los medios esconden fotografías e imágenes para no herir la sensiblidad del público. Y no hay mejor manera de alejar a la audiencia de la realidad.

Me sorprendió, por ejemplo, cuánta gente no había visto aquí imágenes de las torturas en la carcel de Abu Ghraib en Irak y tuvieron que esperar a ver la versión de Botero. Me sorprendió lo infrecuente que es ver imágenes violentas o incluso sangre en las noticias, cuando las películas aquí tienen más contenido violento que en ninguna otra parte. Por eso no entiendo la idea de “proteger” al público mientras hay fuentes de violencia al alcance de cualquiera.

Creo que esta es parte de las razones por las que Estados Unidos parece tan lejos del resto del mundo, mientras el resto del mundo mira hacia Estados Unidos. Y es parte también de por qué la gente aquí no mira a los demás, por qué todo el mundo está centrado en uno mismo y lejos de los demás. Como si nada más importase.

Bueno, una cosa sí, el sentido de libertad que mantiene a este país unido. Aquí todo el mundo, sin importar de dónde vengan, cuanto tiempo lleven aquí, o las condiciones en las que viven, valoran su libertad como si no hubiera otro lugar en el mundo donde puedas ser libre y, a través de ese ideal, todas las mentes americanas parecen permanecer conectadas. Pero no veo esa conexión entre la gente, no veo que sean capaces de ver los problemas de los demás.

A veces me siento triste porque en mi país no existe ese ideal común. Nuestras mentes no están conectadas así, incluso decir que te sientes “español” todavía tiene malas connotaciones para algunos. Pero siento que una mayoría es capaz de ver al resto de la gente, no hay necesidad de proteger al público de nada, porque la realidad es eso, real. Y la podemos ver. Y no hay oportunidad mejor que dejar al público que vea las cosas como son, lo que no significa que se nos dé bien solucionar los problemas, porque esa es una historia aparte. ..

El año pasado leí una historia en el periódico sobre un hombre que murió en el metro de Nueva York y su cadáver estuvo viajando en el tren durante más de ocho horas hasta que alguien se dio cuenta de que estaba muerto.

No me puedo apostar nada a que esto no pasaría en otro país, pero si creo que aquí hay muchas más posibilidades de que pase. Porque aquí todo está más lejos, porque nadie mira a nadie, porque existe ese “espacio personal” donde no puede entrar nadie, y mucho menos los problemas de otro.

Igual que el día que me di cuenta de esto, mis sueños se chocaron con la realidad, con mis frustraciones, durante la discusión con el Prof. Nisbet sobre cómo se enmarcan y contextualizar las noticias sobre pobreza.

El sueño de que simplemente escribir historias sobre pobreza, no sobre gente pobre, nos hará a todos más conscientes de lo grande que es el problema. Pero la realidad es que se necesita mucho más que palabras para conseguir esto.

Siempre he pensado que cambios pequeños pueden llevar a uno grande. Puede que sea una utopía. Puede que sea una forma de decirme a mí misma que sí puedo cambiar algunas cosas que no me gustan: algo tan sencillo y complejo al mismo tiempo como el hecho de que alguna gente tiene muchas cosas mientras sus vecinos no tienen nada.

Mientras escribo, siento que voy puerta por puerta, dejando una historia que leer y quizás la semilla en la mente de otra persona para empezar el cambio. Me gusta simplificar las cosas, sí, hay alguna otra manera de conseguirlo?

 Words like triggers

“Words are like triggers that help individuals negotiate meaning through the lens of existing cultural beliefs and worldviews.”
Erving Goffman, Anthropologist

Words like triggers. I’ve been thinking about this since I read Prof. Nisbet paper and realized that I like the sentence so much because we do have to use words like triggers, but in the good sense of it. Words like triggers not to frame a story and lead to a meaning that is not the core issue we should be talking about. But words like triggers of reality. Words like triggers that open your eyes.

I know that there are cultural reasons for this but I feel that media protect the public too much here. I feel that media hide photographs and facts to not hurt the audience’s sensitiveness. And there’s no better way to take your audience away from reality.

I was surprised how many people hare hadn’t seen at all the images from Abu Ghraib in Iraq and had to wait for Botero’s version of it. I was surprised how uncommon it is to see blood or harsh images on the news, while movies here carry more violence than anywhere else. I don’t see the point of that idea of “protecting” the public, when they have sources of violence anywhere else.

I think this is part of the reason why the United States feel so far away from everywhere else, while everywhere else people are looking towards the United States. And it’s part of the reason why people don’t look at each other, why everyone is focused on themselves, on getting ahead. And it feels like nothing else matters.

Well, maybe one thing, the principle of Freedom that keeps this country together. Everyone here, no matter where they come from, how long they have been here or their life conditions, value their freedom as if there were no other place where you can be free and, because of that ideal, all the American minds seem to be tied in some way. But I don’t see that connection between people and, without people being able to see each other, there’s no way they are going to see other people’s problems.

Sometimes I feel sad because in my country we don’t have that common ideal. Our minds are not connected. Even saying that you feel “español” still has a bad connotation since the dictatorship. But I feel that a majority is able to see the rest of the people, there’s no need to protect the public from anything because the reality is that, is Real, and there’s a better chance than here that people will see what the real problems are (which doesn’t mean that we are great solving them, that’s another story).
Last year I read a story on the newspaper, a correspondent in New York was telling how a man had died in the subway train and his corpse remained in the seat for more than 8 hours before anyone noticed he wasn’t alive.

I cannot bet that wouldn’t happen outside of this country, but I think there are more chances here. Just because is further away, because they don’t look at each other, because there’s a personal space where no one can enter, and even less someone else’s problems.

And just like the day I realized about this, my dreams crashed with my frustrations, with reality, during the discussion with Prof. Nisbet about framing of news on poverty.

The dream that just by writing about stories of poverty, not about poor people, will make all of us conscious of how big the problem is. But the reality is that it takes much more than words to achieve that.

I’ve always believed that small changes can lead to a big one. It might be a utopia. It might be a way of telling myself I can actually change the things that I don’t like: something as simple and complex at the same time as the fact that some people
have a lot while their neighbour might have nothing.

When writing, I feel like going doorstep by doorstep, leaving a story to read and maybe the seed in someone else’s mind to start making a change. I like simplifying things, but is there any other way?

Una extranjera hablando de Estados Unidos

“No hay nada más divertido que alguien de fuera de Estados Unidos diciendo a los americanos lo que son”.
Prof. Chuang, 23 de Enero de 2008.

El semestre pasado asisití a una clase sobre Comunicación Internacional. Más de un tercio de los estudiantes éramos extranjeros y la profesora nos pidió en varias ocasiones que describiéramos la visión que nuestro país tiene de la postura de Estados Unidos en distintos asuntos. Los estudiantes de ese programa estaban aprendiendo a resolver conflictos de diferentes países y la profesora les aconsejó que aprendieran a comprender su propio país antes de intentar comprender cualquier otro. Y esto significaba escuchar las opiniones de otros países sobre Estados Unidos.

En mi caso, hice el mismo proceso, pero al revés, he aprendido cosas sobre Estados Unidos desde la perspectiva de mi propio país. Ahora lo vuelvo aprender, pero desde aquí dentro. Y siento que vuelvo a empezar porque hay tantas cosas que no conocemos en el extranjero que ahora comprendo las razones por las que algunos problemas siguen sin reslover o por qué la palabra Libertad está por todas partes o por qué las viticmas del Huracán Katrina, por ejemplo, no fueron ayudadas.

Photo by CFPereda
Washington National Monument.

Y después de leer sobre el movimiento por los derechos civiles y pensar en aquello por lo que pasó este país, me pregunto si este es el momento en el que algunos de esos logros se están perdiendo: la disparidad entre clases sociales, la brecha económica, los porcentajes de población en la pobreza o sin seguro médico en el primer país del mundo… estamos realmente hablando de datos del primer país mundial?

Una de las cosas que más escuchas en el extranjero es por qué Estados Unidos no mira más veces hacia dentro de sus fronteras y menos hacia fuera.

La cobertura de las consecuencias del Huracán Katrina fue muy amplia entre los medios de comunicación españoles. El hecho de que el primer país del mundo no lograra ayudar a su propia población en el desastre era uno de los factores que más enfatizaban los periodistas. Fue sólo unos días después de la catástrofe que los periodistas introdujeron el factor de la raza y la probreza en la zona como una de las razones para la falta de ayuda. Lo mismo hicieron los medios españoles.

En el caso de los medios españoles, comentaron que esto era inaceptable tratándose de Estados Unidos. Las manifestaciones son muy comunes en España y es relativamente fácil encontrar a cientos de miles de personas protestando por una causa. Recuerdo preguntarme cada vez que ví algo relativo al Katrina por qué los Americanos en otras partes del país no salieron a la calle a pedir al gobierno que ayudara a las vítimas.

Puede que sea una razón cultural o histórica que se me escape, pero es muy difícil para mí admitir que la raza, la pobreza de la población o la falta de recursos por la guerra de Irak se puedan aceptar sin más como excusas para dejar a miles de personas atrás. No puedo. Y me gustaría saber también qué detuvo a la gente para no salir a la calle a protestar.

No había visto imágenes del desastre desde el aniversario en Septiembre y me impresionaron tanto como la primera vez. Más que el desastre natural en sí, los miles de personas que se quedaron atrás. Me enfadé otra vez. Pensé que todavía queda algo por arreglar.

El 26 de Agosto de 2005 no pude ir a Nueva Orleans, pero me hubiera gustado ir y ayudar contando la historia. Todavía hoy me encantaría escribir sobre ello. El periodismo nos permite mejorar las cosas donde vivimos, podemos contribuir de tantas formas como contar historias que encontramos. Esta idea se lleva mi enfado y me hace querer empezar una nueva historia. A lo mejor voy a Nueva Orleans.

A non-American talking about America

“There’s nothing funnier than a non-American telling Americans what they are.”
Prof. Chuang. Jan. 23, 2008.

I took a class last semester on International Communication. More than a third of the students were from abroad and the professor asked quite often for any of us to describe how our country saw the United State’s position on different topics. Students were learning how to solve problems involving different countries and the professor asked them to better understand their own country before learning about any other. And this implied listening to other countries’ opinions on the United States.

In my case, I did the same process but backwards: I have learned about the United States from my own country’s perspective. Now I’m re-learning this, but from inside this country. And I feel like starting over because there are so many things that we don’t know abroad that now I understand the reasons why some problems remain unsolved, why the word Freedom is everywhere, why the victims of Hurricane Katrina didn’t get help.

And after reading about the Civil Rights movement and thinking about what the country went through I ask myself if this is a time when some of the movement’s achievements are being lost: the disparities between classes, the economic divide, the poverty rates in the world’s first country, the rates of uninsured… are we really talking about the characteristics of the first country?

One thing you can hear a lot abroad is why the United States doesn’t look more often to the inside and less beyond its borders.

The coverage of Hurricane Katrina’s consequences was very extensive by Spanish news media. The fact that the first world country didn’t manage to help its own people from the disaster was what most reporters emphasized. It was just a few days after the hurricane that media introduced the race and poverty factors as reasons why this happened. So did the international reporters.

In the case of Spanish media, this was reported as unacceptable when talking about the United States. Demonstrations are very common in Spain and it’s quite easy to see one movement gather hundreds of thousands of people to protest. I remember wondering, every time I saw something related to Hurricane Katrina, why the American people in other areas of the country didn’t come out and protest asking the government to help the victims.

It might be a cultural or historical reason that goes beyond my knowledge, but it’s hard for me to admit that race, poverty or the lack of resources due to the war in Iraq can be simply accepted as excuses to leave some people behind. I just can’t. And I would love to know what kept people from protesting in the streets.

I hadn’t seen images from the disaster since the anniversary last September and I was still as shocked as the first time. More than the natural disaster itself, it was the thought of thousands of people left behind. I felt angry again. I thought there’s something that needs to be fixed.

On Aug. 26, 2005, I wasn’t able to go to New Orleans, but I would’ve loved to come and help telling a story. I would still love to write about it today. Journalism allows us to improve life where we live; we can contribute in so many different ways, telling the stories that we find. This idea takes my anger away and makes me want to start a new story. I might go to New Orleans.

Don’t eat the entire world

By Cristina Fernández Pereda 

It’s easy to find salmon; look in any supermarket. It comes to us from Chile, where it is mass-produced. They produce it in the South and we consume it in the North. The same is true of the Argentinean soy, the Columbian flowers or the sugar from Latin American countries.

These four products will be controlled at the retail level by the creators of the project, No Te Comas el Mundo (Don’t eat the Entire world)—an initiative put forth by Veterinaries Without Frontiers, Ecologist Action, and the International Debt Observatory of the United Nations. It aims to raise awareness about the consequences of the consumerism of the countries in the North on the societies and environment of the South.

To awaken the consciences of the consumers, this company will follow four real cases from the whole sale production in the South until they arrive to the North. The chronicle will include the production establishments, the work conditions, the influence of multinationals in those countries, and the consequences of the trade for the people and the environment.

Production that targets large markets implies, in the South, the exploitation of many workers who find themselves compelled to surrender before the multinationals. This is not only a question of work. Many have seen how these companies have appropriated the most fertile lands. The first consequence is forced immigration: without land to cultivate, they lose their way of life. Afterwards comes the impoverishment of the people and the destruction of ecosystems.

The campaign, No Te Comas el Mundo (Don’t eat the entire world) links the “social and environmental consequences of these products in the South with our daily life and consumer habits” en the North, said Ferrán Garcia, coordinator of the project. He added, “we are piling up an ecological debt in those countries.”

The concept of ecological debt refers to the unequal exchange between North and South. The debt is based on the fact that the production model that the North imposes on the South has horrible consequences on the environment.

That’s the Chilean Case. The massive production of salmon provokes the degradation of lakes or coastal areas and the communities of traditional fishermen have to relocate. However, the benefits of the sale or exportation of salmon do not remain in Chile. The Chilean workers barely benefit from this business.

One of the proposals of the campaign is to make the consumer more conscious of what he buys. If the consumers of the North demand information about the origin of the products and how they arrive on the market, we would be taking the first step toward equality.

In fact it may be that the systems of production are the same in the North as in the South. The growth of the more developed countries has imposed this on the rest of countries. But, we, consumers are not all equal. Neither are the workers. Equality should also begin with adequate work conditions, safe conditions, and the protection of the environment.

In conditions of equality in the market, the countries o the South would have the opportunity to commercialize their products of their own companies. That way they wouldn’t see how the multinationals carry the resources from the South up North. The South would use those resources for their own benefit, whether they export or not. But, it is the South that would choose the final destination of the products.

The campaign, “No te comas el Mundo,” wants to demonstrate that the first step in this fight is also the consumers’ responsibility. Perhaps when they are done in two years, we will be closer to the moment when the stores in the North no longer offers products that the South can trade but that its people cannot buy.

(En Español)

Man against man – Millennium Objectives (7)

By Cristina Fernandez Pereda 

Guaranteeing environmental sustainability is one of the Millennium Objectives that 189 countries have agreed to reach before 2015. Until now, the agreement of the countries consisted in promoting social and political awareness to better the environment.

The current problem is rooted in the depletion of natural resources. Moreover, soil renewal and the CO2 absorption in the forests have decreased. The earth is no longer able to assimilate our wastes or repair the destruction of its biodiversity.

According to the Live Planet Index, presented by ecological association, World Wide Found, since 1970 the Earth has lost one third of its natural wealth. The main causes of this loss is human actions, especially in industrialized countries where less than 20% of the population consumes more than 80% of the resources.

The less developed countries are more vulnerable to the consequences of the environmental crisis which are manifested in changes in ecological processes, reduction of agricultural productivity, the displacement of populations living in areas with high risk of natural catastrophes and increase in transmission of disease such as malaria.

The changes that man has introduced into the environment are determined by the demographic increase and the utilization of artificial compounds. Urbanization and industrialization increase vapor pressure over the oceans and coastal areas. The emission of gases destroys the ozone layer. As a consequence, plant and animal life suffer and global warming worsens because the earth receives more energy.

The destruction of biodiversity also brings about the depletion of natural resources such as food, medicine or energy. The communities, 1,600 million people, who depend on these resources lose their way of live and their incomes.

There is a reciprocal relationship between poverty and the degradation of the environment. Of the 1,2000 million people who live on less than one dollar per day, about 70% live in rural areas and depend on natural resources to survive. The depletion of natural resources is one of the causes of poverty. Achieving environmental sustainability is one of the ways we can fight against poverty given that the poorest population is the most dependent on the well-being of the ecosystems.

To avoid these consequences and the sufferings of millions of people in the world, the agreement of these countries has three objectives: the development of specific environmental policies, the integration of these measures in production sectors that do the most damage to the environment, and finally, agreement from the international community to create a framework for national measures or the so-called National Strategies for Sustainable Development.

These strategies would help bring clean water to 1,2000 million people. Unfortunately, in 2025, when the Millennium Objectives should be met, more than 3,500 million people will be living without clean water.

This challenge does not only require the reduction of actions that contribute the destruction of environmental resources or the creation of measures that promote respect for nature. At the same time, the agreement should better the living conditions of millions of people—conditions that have worsened due to human action.

(En Español)

An alternative to the Kyoto Protocol

By Cristina Fernandez Pereda 

Buenos Aires just held the tenth Climate Change Summit. Delegations from 189 countries began the meetings with optimism believing that Russia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol and permit its implementation. However, enthusiasm has given way to doubts about whether Kyoto is the best weapon against climate changes.

The international community pushes for the implementation of the Protocol which must be in effect by 2012. Meanwhile, countries like England, Australia and the United States, announce that they will not fulfill the demands of the protocol. They will not adopt the measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or invest in research to that end.

Experts on climate changes gathered in Buenos Aires have assured that a fight against the effects of global warming does not have to start with the implementation of a series of measures that reduce gas emissions into the atmosphere. They feel that this fight should begin with an assault on poverty.

The lack of resources transforms developing countries in the most indefensible against climatic changes. In 1998, the hurricane Mitch killed 10,000 people in Central America. In 2004, another hurricane of equal magnitude hit a residential area in Florida and 20 people died. The wealth of developed countries reduces the harms of any climatic phenomenon.

The high costs of the implementation of the measures approved in Kyoto make many want to rethink them. The most optimistic estimations put the costs between $150,000 and $300,000 million per year. The less developed countries have proposed an alternative to the Protocol. They want to invest aid to the countries most vulnerable to climate changes.

Joke Waller, executive secretary of the conference, noted that there have been advances made towards adapting the poorest countries to climate changes. Her proposal consists in that the less developed countries present their adaptation plans and that the industrialized countries finance them. The delegate of Tanzania, on behalf of the 48 poorest countries of the world, argued in favor of these measures saying that “for us climate change is more catastrophic than terrorism.”

The changes in weather provoke massive floods en coastal areas and in the riversides where many people live. The inundations reduce the amount of cultivable land and thereby hunger spreads. The experts also argue that these changes increase the number of people without access to drinkable water, which increases the risk of disease and reduces the availability of food.

Climate change, natural disasters, poverty, and assaults upon the environment make up a chain that is difficult to break. The investments in the most vulnerable countries could help reduce the catastrophic effects. The help for these nations to protect themselves from the harms that many industrialized countries provoke can prevent more poverty and lost lives when the floods come.

(En Español)

Health: A right for all, a privilege for the few

By Cristina Fernández Pereda

If we want to address the challenges to global health, it is necessary to strength health systems. Without this requisite, we will not be able to give equal health conditions to everyone.

The lessons learned in the past, including aptitudes and strategies developed in the fight against polio and SARS can be used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and to obtain the Millennium Objectives.

The objectives consist good health conditions for everyone a priority, and making equality in health a part of the development of social justice and making the participation of communities in their health programs.

The progress of these goals will not last if the patterns established for health are not followed. This is especially true of the “3 million goal” which consists to reach up to 3 million people with antiretroviral polio therapy against HIV/AIDS in developing countries by the end of 2005. These objectives should reinforce an extensive network of health programs.

Due to the health reforms of the last decades, health systems need to make more improvements. However, new opportunities emerge. Healthcare is a priority in the international development and the impoverished countries to count on funds for health activities.

The health system includes all the organizations, institutions and the resources that come from all initiatives to improve health. A healthcare system is made up of the institutions, the people, the necessary resources to provide attention to the individual. The link between the functions of public health and the attention to patients is one of the most important features of primary care.

The values and practices of primary healthcare adapted to the current situation can become the basis for healthcare systems. The global personal healthcare crisis, the lack of scientific proofs, financial resources and the difficulties to apply politics to healthcare inequalities are the greatest challenges to healthcare systems today.

In the 90s, the OMS evaluated the health care systems and their development. The OMS made equally accessible primary care and the supply of analytical instruments that become such an undertaking in adequate scientific proofs for developing countries. In rich countries the waste of resources in healthcare systems is noteworthy.

Initiatives like the European Observatory of the OMS on healthcare systems bring important facts about the workings and errors.

However, there are still issues to solve. The Observatory broadcast the changes in European systems, the reforms, and analyze its results and why they function in specific contexts. Moreover, the Observatory keep vigil because the experiences within the European system may extend beyond its borders.

The OMS can only offer investigation lines and help the countries find the best optionc to make their healthcare system adequate to the demands of the population, especially in the countries of the South.

The right to healthcare has become a privilege en some parts of the world. The healtcare systems based on primary care could be the first step to bring equal health benefits to every person.

(En Español)