It is not the role of any president to judge which journalism is good or bad
FLIP director Jonathan Bock argues it is dangerous for any president to judge which journalism is good or bad, risking media criminalization and self-censorship. While violence against journalists in remote regions remains the gravest threat, Petro's rhetoric fuels false narratives that media are coordinated against his government.
- Three journalists killed in Colombia in seven months; Luis Gabriel Pereira murdered the week before this article
- FLIP issued second warning in six months about Petro's Twitter attacks on media
- Pattern mirrors Trump, Bolsonaro, López Obrador, and Correa—presidents positioning themselves as sole communicators
- Violence against journalists persists in Arauca, Nariño, and Putumayo regions
Colombia's press freedom foundation warns that President Petro's persistent Twitter attacks on media outlets threaten journalism and public debate, while acknowledging media must improve ethical standards.
Colombia's press freedom foundation has issued a second warning in six months about President Gustavo Petro's relationship with the media, arguing that his persistent criticism of news outlets on Twitter threatens the foundation of democratic debate in the country. Jonathan Bock, director of the Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa (FLIP), acknowledges that news organizations should examine their own practices and ethical standards, but draws a sharp line: it is not the role of any sitting president to serve as arbiter of which journalism is acceptable and which is not.
The tension between Petro and Colombia's press has become impossible to ignore. In recent weeks, the president has used his Twitter account to challenge coverage he views as hostile, citing the constitutional obligation of journalists to report with accuracy and impartiality. FLIP's response has been direct. The foundation warns that such messages undermine public confidence in journalism itself and create an opening for the criminalization of news organizations and individual reporters. More insidiously, Bock suggests, the presidential criticism risks causing journalists to self-censor, pulling back from stories they might otherwise pursue out of fear of becoming targets.
The stakes are real and multifaceted. Three journalists have been killed in Colombia over the past seven months, with Luis Gabriel Pereira murdered just days before this warning. The deadliest threat to press freedom remains the violence perpetrated by armed groups in remote regions like Arauca, Nariño, and Putumayo, where reporting is nearly impossible. Yet the current political moment has shifted public attention elsewhere—to the escalating war of words between the presidential palace and newsrooms. Petro has suggested, in broad strokes, that a coordinated media establishment opposes his government and his agenda for change, attributing this resistance to narrow economic interests rather than legitimate journalistic inquiry.
Bock rejects this framing as both false and dangerous. When a president repeatedly signals that the press is working against him as a unified bloc, he argues, it feeds a corrosive narrative among citizens that journalism itself is compromised. This matters not only for the health of democratic institutions but for the safety of reporters on the ground. As local elections approach, Bock warns, the current trajectory could translate digital confrontation into real-world violence against journalists.
The FLIP director also notes a pattern that extends beyond Colombia's borders. The dynamic between Petro and the media echoes conflicts in other countries—from Trump and Bolsonaro to López Obrador and Correa—where presidents have positioned themselves as the sole legitimate communicators, dismissing all contrary reporting as coordinated opposition. In each case, the constant presidential criticism of the press has corroded the quality of public discourse itself. Bock emphasizes that while media organizations must be responsive to accuracy and must renew their social contract with audiences, the solution cannot come from the executive branch.
FLIP has attempted formal engagement with the government. In February, after issuing its first alert about Petro's Twitter use, the foundation proposed two meetings to discuss establishing a protocol for presidential use of social media as a public information channel. The president did not attend, though some ministers participated. The conversation stalled. Now, as the confrontation intensifies, Bock is asking a fundamental question: What is the president's actual intention? If it is to elevate journalistic standards and transparency, there are more appropriate channels than public denunciations. If it is something else—a consolidation of communicative power, a delegitimization of independent scrutiny—then the implications for Colombian democracy are grave.
Notable Quotes
His messages undermine credibility in journalism and open the door to criminalizing the press— FLIP statement on Petro's media criticism
The constant presidential criticism of the press ends up deteriorating public debate— Jonathan Bock, FLIP director
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
You say the president has a right to defend himself against what he sees as unfair coverage. Many people agree with him. Why shouldn't he be able to call out what he views as bias?
He can call it out. The question is how and through what channels. When a president uses the power of his office and his platform to repeatedly signal that the press is his enemy, it doesn't elevate the debate—it poisons it. It tells citizens that journalism itself is corrupt, that reporters are coordinated against him. That's different from a private citizen saying the same thing.
But doesn't the press bear some responsibility here? Some journalists have clearly entered into confrontation with him.
Of course. The media need to look hard at their own role, especially on social media where the lines blur. But that reflection has to come from within newsrooms, from editors and reporters themselves. It can't be imposed from above by the president.
You mentioned the pattern is similar to Trump, Bolsonaro, others. What makes this moment different or the same?
The similarity is the president positioning himself as the sole legitimate voice, dismissing all criticism as coordinated opposition. The difference is context—Colombia's press is already under siege from armed groups killing journalists. When you add presidential delegitimization on top of that, you create a climate where reporters become even more vulnerable.
What would a healthier relationship look like?
One where the government and media are in genuine tension—that's normal and necessary—but where the president doesn't use his office to suggest the entire press corps is conspiring against him. Where both sides are willing to acknowledge mistakes and improve. That requires restraint from the executive.
And if Petro doesn't show that restraint?
Then we're likely to see the confrontation move from Twitter into the streets, especially as local elections approach. And journalists in vulnerable regions will pay the price.