El Ciudadano
Original article: Radio Bío Bío apelará, pero el fallo sostiene que sus reportajes pusieron en duda la autoridad espiritual de la machi Millaray Huichalaf
Radio Bío Bío announced it will appeal to the Court of Appeals to contest the ruling from the Civil and Guarantee Court of Río Bueno, which upheld a claim of arbitrary discrimination filed by Machi Millaray Huichalaf.
In its statement, the media outlet argues that the ruling fails to sufficiently explain why the reports were deemed permissible while certain editorial choices, like the use of quotation marks, were considered discriminatory.
However, a thorough reading of the ruling reveals that the court’s reasoning extends well beyond the use of quotation marks. The ruling concludes that a series of editorial decisions ultimately crafted a representation of Machi Millaray Huichalaf that undermined her spiritual authority within the Mapuche community, constituting an act of arbitrary discrimination. This thesis underpins the resolution and explains the measures ordered by the court.
What Does the Ruling Actually State?
The ruling begins with a premise that is crucial for understanding the rest of the argumentation.
By identifying the plaintiff, the ruling classifies her as «Machi (traditional spiritual authority of the Mapuche-Williche People),» a characterization that provides context for examining whether the coverage publicly questioned that status.
From this perspective, the judicial analysis does not revolve around whether an individual can be investigated by a media outlet.
On the contrary, the ruling establishes that the exercise of journalism and the investigation of matters of public interest are part of the freedom to inform. The issue at hand is whether the way in which the reports were constructed ultimately impacted rights protected under the Zamudio Law.
In other words, the court distinguishes between informational content and the manner in which that content was presented to the public.
Why Did the Court Conclude Discrimination Occurred?
The ruling maintains that the issue was not a single word or punctuation mark, but rather the cumulative effect of the journalistic coverage.
Here are the main reasons outlined in the ruling:
- Did not analyze only the quotation marks. The court examined headlines, subheadings, labels, language, and graphic resources used in the reports as a whole.
- The form also communicates. According to the ruling, the manner in which information is presented can influence public perception, particularly regarding a spiritual authority.
- The focus was on the constructed representation. The ruling concluded that a series of editorial decisions cast doubt on the spiritual authority of Machi Millaray Huichalaf.
- No proven intention to discriminate. The judge dismissed any evidence of deliberate discriminatory conduct by Radio Bío Bío.
- A discriminatory outcome was evident. For the court, the effects of that representation were sufficient to constitute arbitrary discrimination under the terms of the Zamudio Law.
It Wasn’t Just the Quotation Marks
In its statement, Radio Bío Bío questioned one central aspect of the ruling. It cited a passage where the judge remarked: «In this case, the continuous use of quotation marks becomes discriminatory when used excessively throughout the text of the publications by the defendant.»
It also included another excerpt where the magistrate asserted that such usage «discourages the plaintiff’s participation in public life through the path she has chosen as a life option.»
From this, the media outlet contended that, although the judge dismissed the presence of any discriminatory intent, he still concluded that there was a «discriminatory outcome,» «without clearly explaining why the content of the reports would be permissible but the graphic representation is not.»
However, a complete reading of the ruling reveals that this reasoning does not end with the use of quotation marks.
Before reaching that conclusion, the court dedicated several points to explaining that language, emphasis, intonation, and graphic resources are integral to journalistic messaging and can also have effects on the fundamental rights of individuals. In the judge’s words:
«It is imperative that the language used, the intonation, the emphases applied in the text, and even graphic elements that are increasingly important today (…) must also respect the fundamental freedoms of individuals and ensure that no arbitrary limitation arises in the exercise of a fundamental right.»
From this premise, the ruling does not examine quotation marks alone. It analyzes the entirety of the resources used in the reports, including the label «the machi of sacrifices,» the repetitive use of quotation marks to describe her role as machi, and the caption «A Lost Woman.»
On this matter, the ruling asserts: «This judge believes that this level of care has not been adequately applied in these publications, primarily by using quotation marks so extensively when referring to the Machi, but also by selecting subheadings that continue the reports, such as calling her ‘a lost woman’ (…). A language and communication expert knows that a phrase like that, highlighted and repeated, can be sufficiently ambiguous to create a psychological effect of questioning in the reader.»
In other words, the ruling does not claim that a graphic sign is discriminatory by itself. It analyzes whether the cumulative editorial decisions resulted in a representation that questioned Machi Millaray Huichalaf’s spiritual authority and produced a discriminatory outcome.
This is likely the most significant difference between Radio Bío Bío’s statement and the court’s reasoning. The ruling does not uphold that a graphic sign is discriminatory in isolation. Rather, it reviews whether a succession of editorial choices culminated in a representation that challenged Millaray Huichalaf’s legitimacy as a machi and spiritual authority.
Therefore, the measures ordered by the court are not limited to removing the quotation marks.
The court also mandates replacing the nickname «the machi of sacrifices» with «Machi Millaray Huichalaf,» altering the contested caption, adding an explanatory note in the publications, communicating the imposed fine, and ensuring that 90% of the journalistic team undergoes training on the rulings’ principles, including a practical writing exercise.
These comprehensive measures further clarify the true intent of the ruling: to correct a representation deemed discriminatory by the court, rather than to sanction a specific graphic resource.
A Ruling That Sparks a Debate on Editorial Representation
Beyond the appeal that Radio Bío Bío will file, the ruling raises discussions that will likely continue to unfold both in courts and newsrooms.
The ruling explicitly acknowledges the freedom to inform and does not challenge journalistic investigations into an ancestral authority. Instead, it explores another facet of journalistic work: the capacity of language, headlines, subheadings, labels, and graphic resources to craft a public representation of an individual.
In this framework, the court does not assert that a word, a quotation, or a graphic symbol is discriminatory on its own. It assesses the cumulative effect of a succession of editorial decisions that, when combined, ultimately questioned Machi Millaray Huichalaf’s spiritual authority.
It will be up to the Court of Appeals to determine whether this legal interpretation aligns with the law. However, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the ruling has already triggered a discussion that transcends this case: to what extent can the narrative style influence the public representation of an individual and, eventually, affect the exercise of their fundamental rights?
La entrada Radio Bío Bío to Appeal Ruling Challenging Spiritual Authority of Machi Millaray Huichalaf se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.
🔥 Ver noticia completa en ElCiudadano.cl 🔥
