“Tough-on-crime” rhetoric and policies have been a common feature in Latin American political campaigns and are part of a global growth in punitive populism. In this outstanding book, Michelle D. Bonner analyzes the rise of punitive populism in Latin America and the central role the mass media have played in promoting a tough-on-crime approach in Argentina and Chile.

Although the literature associates the rise of punitive populism with right-wing conservative politics, an increase in physical and socioeconomic insecurity, or the diffusion and development of neoliberalism, little attention has been paid to the role mass media play in this development. Bonner argues that the neoliberal reforms of the media system, which include the privatization and deregulation of mass media, have affected journalists’ practices, reduced their ability to question punitive populist rhetoric and policies, and increased the salience of crime and punitive ideas in policy-making. Punitive voices have come to dominate public discourse, encouraging political leaders to adopt a tough-on-crime strategy to win elections (see figure 1.1, p. 8).

Bonner develops a typology of three media systems. In a democratic corporatist model, freedom of the press and access to government information are strongly defended, state regulations and subsidies encourage the use of a diversity of sources, public opinion is presented as complex and heterogeneous, and watchdog journalism is practiced. In neoliberal media systems, such as in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, media are seen as a business, and there is little state funding or regulation. When the state intervenes, it is to promote a sense of national identity, rather than to encourage watchdog journalism and access to a diverse pool of sources. Media conglomerates and media practices are driven by making profits rather than fostering democracy. Finally, Bonner describes a third system called captured neoliberal, which is common in Latin America. This system has the same features as the neoliberal system, but media outlets have been further polarized and politicized, and the number and diversity of sources are limited both by the market and clientelistic interests. Drama and emotions are favored, public opinion is presented as homogeneous, watchdog journalism is discouraged unless it favors patrons’ interests, and there is no time or money for contextualizing and analyzing the root causes of the social phenomena being covered.

Bonner argues that the introduction of neoliberal reforms in Chile and Argentina deeply affected the media system. The privatization and deregulation of media outlets in both countries led to an increase in competition and the need to survive in a complex business environment. Watchdog journalism was undermined by the need to reduce costs and time and by the promotion of drama over analysis. At the same time, commercial media systems were “captured” by political and economic powers, which favored specific editorial lines and used crime coverage as a way of promoting their interests. In the case of Chile, neoliberal reforms that were introduced during the Pinochet dictatorship limited the development of a pluralistic media system when democracy returned. Pinochet’s privatization favored media conglomerates that supported his regime. These conglomerates continued to operate after the regime fell, favoring the criminalization of political opposition and the popular sectors. In the case of Argentina, the late development of neoliberalism favored a more diverse use of sources. However, once neoliberalism was consolidated and the government gave preferences to specific media outlets in a clientelistic manner, the media system was “captured,” reducing the possibility for watchdog journalism and favoring punitive populism instead.

The book begins with a general introduction to the topic, an analysis of alternative explanations regarding the rise of punitive populism, and a conceptualization of penal populism as used by political leaders with tough-on-crime rhetoric and policies to gain popular support and win elections. Chapter 1 examines existing problems regarding the unreliability of crime statistics in Argentina and Chile. The available statistics highlight crimes that produce public panic. In Argentina there is a greater acknowledgment of police violence than in Chile, leading to a greater mistrust of the police in that country. However, the book does not consider that criticism of the police may also advance stricter tough-on-crime proposals (for instance, the use of military as police forces, as is being proposed in Uruguay).

Chapter 2 analyzes the way mass media construct insecurity and the prevalence of drama over analysis, which aligns with punitive populism’s emphasis of emotions over rational thought, contrary to Enlightenment ideas. However, as Emile Durkheim (The Division of Labor in Society, 1984 [1893]) argued, emotions related to punishment play a fundamental role in creating a sense of community and the “us” versus “them” rhetoric prevalent in punitive populism. Although the book acknowledges this point, it would have benefited from a deeper discussion of the role punishment plays in fostering this sense of community and the longing for a mythical past when social hierarchies were clear (Rafael Paternain, “La hegemonia conservadora en el campo de la seguridad: Una interpretación del caso uruguayo,” Crítica Contemporánea. Revista de Teoría Política 2, 2012). Chapter 3 compares the historical evolution of the media systems in Argentina and Chile, as well as the early development of neoliberalism in Chile, which reduced the possibility for alternative media sources that could challenge the hegemonic discourse.

Chapters 4–6 focus on the development of journalistic practices and state and civil society actors’ communication strategies in the context of a captured neoliberal media system. Because of cost and time pressures, journalists tend to abandon their watchdog role, which is fundamental for a democratic regime—giving preference to a reduced number of sources and to drama over analysis. Chapters 5 and 6 describe the increasing role of public relations agencies and agents in state institutions and civil society organizations, as well as journalists’ preferences for working with public relations agents. This communication strategy produces quick and ready-made messages that focus on crime, insecurity, and the call for immediate action, which are easy to use by journalists and easy to consume by the general public, rather than long-term policies. This strategy, Bonner claims, favors the development of punitive populism.

Bonner’s book provides an important contribution to our attempts to understand the rise of punitive populism in Latin America. The literature has rarely addressed the role played by mass media in this process. This book brings the media to the forefront of the debate and examines in greater detail the detrimental effects of neoliberalism and market logics on democracy. Neoliberalism is not only an economic policy, but it is also a way of governing populations (Michel Foucault, “Governmentality,” in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller, eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality 1991; David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2005). Neoliberalism produces a hegemonic discourse that sees social problems as individual failures, attempts to eliminate or reduce state responsibility, and favors the tightening of social control as a way of maintaining the social order. Tough-on-crime policies have been central in enforcing this neoliberal order (David Garland, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, 2001; Jonathan Simon, Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear, 2007). The mass media preference for punitive voices and the dramatization of crime is not only a response to market needs, but it is also part of the construction and maintenance of a hegemonic discourse. This discourse has at its center the promotion of specific policing strategies, such as “Broken Windows,” packaged under the rubric of community policing, which have little community empowerment and too much policing, thereby diminishing the quality of democracy. Although this book could have benefited from a deeper discussion on the construction of this hegemony, Bonner nonetheless makes a very important contribution by showing how legal and institutional guarantees of a free press are not enough if the market and media system promote practices that limit the media’s role in fostering democracy.