The promulgation of the repressive silence throughout the Argentine press in the years under control of the military dictatorship took place using a host of techniques, which led to a widespread sentiment of silence as consent. Although the regime oftentimes resorted to outright violence, the methods that will be discussed are those that took a non-violent form, even if an omnipresent violent threat lay beneath the surface. A notice issued by the military press director at the outset of the regime demonstrates the dominance of a reliance on censorship, or rather, auto-censorship, as a means to promote silence. It reads: “As of today [April 17, 1976], it is forbidden to inform, comment or make reference to the death of subversive elements and/or the armed and security forces in these incidents, unless reported by a responsible official source” (Knudson, p. 101). At first glance, it
…show more content…
Some, like La Nación or La Prensa, openly chose the latter, connecting many of its articles to the benefits of “order,” “the fight against antisubversives,” and “terrorism.” La Clarín followed a more nuanced approach through minor criticism, in which it pointed out the “cracks” in the dictatorial discourse, including critiquing political and economic policy, but it largely exalted the nationalist efforts of the dictatorship. At its most extreme, newspapers including Gente, Somos, and La Razón remained under control or were directly influenced by the military and sectors of the Army Intelligence (Franco, p. 3-4). They were left no choice but to tightly adhere to military propaganda. Thus, aside from the latter three newspapers that for whom an alternative was not possible, auto-censorship played a leading role in the silence of discourse in the
Some, like La Nación or La Prensa, openly chose the latter, connecting many of its articles to the benefits of “order,” “the fight against antisubversives,” and “terrorism.” La Clarín followed a more nuanced approach through minor criticism, in which it pointed out the “cracks” in the dictatorial discourse, including critiquing political and economic policy, but it largely exalted the nationalist efforts of the dictatorship. At its most extreme, newspapers including Gente, Somos, and La Razón remained under control or were directly influenced by the military and sectors of the Army Intelligence (Franco, p. 3-4). They were left no choice but to tightly adhere to military propaganda. Thus, aside from the latter three newspapers that for whom an alternative was not possible, auto-censorship played a leading role in the silence of discourse in the