As of 2020, Chile occupies the 51st place out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders (2020). According to the index, Chilean journalists are “vulnerable”, both regarding the protection of their sources, and when reporting certain issues like corruption cases or the Mapuche conflict. The report adds that in 2019, after the social upheaval, several journalists were attacked while they were covering the protests. The interviewed editors and journalists corroborated that they implemented measures such as reporting with mobile phones instead of microphones and cameras, without identifications linked to their media, and parking their cars away from the events. One journalist stated:
There were a lot of aggressions against us since the protests started. There were colleagues who were grievously upset by this, and as a result, the media offices organised workshops with psychologists. There were cathartic moments in the team chat group. Some of them were very affected by the comments they received in social media.
Reactions to these attacks, whether they happened in person or online, varied (as mentioned in Indicator F8 – Rules and practices on internal gender equality, the same happened with sexual harassment, with decisions to back up journalists depending on employers and higher command positions). Referring to sources calling to criticise their own coverage, a journalist commented, “Many times you do not find out about this, but the editors defend you”. In some media houses, when the work of one journalist is in question, the medium publishes other content backing up the previous work. In other cases, concerning well-known journalists, the organisation would give them space to defend themselves on air or in the paper, may simply not react or, alternatively, the journalist could do it through their personal social media accounts.
One interviewed editor reported that she takes special care to back up her journalists, because when she was a reporter, she experienced being attacked on social media and by sources, at the time feeling she did not receive the support needed: “Other journalists defended me personally”. Another editor, at the command position, considered that support means taking no part in criticising the journalist. Meanwhile, another editor reflected on this and commented: “Maybe we should begin taking care”. Two editors mentioned they saw zero contribution in making available the opportunity to have comments made on their websites, both disabling that section and using the same adjective for them: “vicious”. One said: “We used to have a journalist dedicated to moderating comments, but a few years ago we decided to close comments altogether”. There is also consensus from journalists and editors on their view that the national journalism association, under their current administration, is an entity that attacks rather than protects them.
