Argentina's Press Under Fire - Wash. Post

[GS_Dirtboy]

Jorge Rendo, director of Grupo Clarín, responds to CFK attack.

Washington Post story: Argentina's Press Under Fire

 

[sesamosinsal]

The government claims that Clarin, whose holdings exceed the limits set by the law, must be immediately stripped of its offending assets.

Selective enforcement against political rivals is eroding the rule of law, with dire implications for freedom of expression.

Mr. Rendo acknowledges that Grupo Clarin is violating the law, but also wants the rule of law to be upheld. Interesting.

The law and its implementation have become just another chapter in an ongoing battle against one of the few independent media outlets remaining in Argentina.

Independent? Was that before it took orders from the Kirchners or after?

 

[nicoenarg]

Mr. Rendo acknowledges that Grupo Clarin is violating the law, but also wants the rule of law to be upheld. Interesting.

Independent? Was that before it took orders from the Kirchners or after?

I think he meant that the government claims that they hold more than what the law permits:

The government claims that Clarin, whose holdings exceed the limits set by the law, must be immediately stripped of its offending assets.​

​

This is immediately followed by:
​

This claim is false.​

​

​

​

​

And then he goes on to explain what the law stipulates:​

​

​

For one thing, the law clearly stipulates a yearlong grace period that doesn’t start until related legal proceedings have ended. And not only have legal proceedings not been exhausted, but several groups in the Argentine media market would be subject to the law, while only Clarin has been singled out for a forced sale of assets.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Secondly, and I might be wrong about this, wasn't the law specifically designed to target Grupo Clarin? Because if that is the case then the question shouldn't be whether Clarin is breaking the law or not but whether the Ks should have gotten away with creating a law specifically designed to weaken the opposing view (that of Clarin's).​

​

​

​

​

I understand that Clarin isn't the "one right" in this country of "wrongs" but I just don't understand how anyone could get behind a law that was created specifically to target an entity that the political powers deemed threatening to their political survival and propaganda.​

​

​

 

[BienTeVeo]

And as we speak the FPV is trying to stack the Consejo de la Magistratura (ejecting two members of the opposition), paving the way for the appointment of a K functionary as judge (the very judge who will decide on the Clarin case).

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1513378-...nsejeros-kirchneristas-por-abuso-de-autoridad

 

[sesamosinsal]

The government's claim is that Grupo Clarin must be "immediately stripped of its offending assets." Grupo Clarin denies that, saying there is a year-long grace period before that happens. The writer, however, is affirming that its holdings vastly exceed the law's limitations -- the commas set that apart from the sentence.

 

[nicoenarg]

The government's claim is that Grupo Clarin must be "immediately stripped of its offending assets." Grupo Clarin denies that, saying there is a year-long grace period before that happens. The writer, however, is affirming that its holdings vastly exceed the law's limitations -- the commas set that apart from the sentence.

I was giving the writer the benefit of the doubt, that maybe his English is not up to speed because it would be pretty stupid to admit that you are breaking the law and then complain about it.

But the article does not suggest that his English capabilities are not up to speed so I am going to assume he is an idiot.

What do you think about my question/comment about the law created solely against Clarin and only because they are politically not in line with the Ks?

 

[sesamosinsal]

I understand that Clarin isn't the "one right" in this country of "wrongs" but I just don't understand how anyone could get behind a law that was created specifically to target an entity that the political powers deemed threatening to their political survival and propaganda.

I agree with you on the motivation for the law. The "official" media always rant about Clarin having ties to the dictatorship. How close they were and what involvement they had is up for debate. I imagine Clarin has had some sort of relationship with all of the previous governments.

For the sake of my argument, let's just assume that Clarin somehow collaborated with Videla. If that were the case, why would Nestor Kirchner work with Clarin in the first place? Why were they buddy-buddy from 2003 until 2007-8? Surely they didn't just discover this information in 2008. It was a "monopoly" back in 2003 as well, so why didn't they pass the legislation then?

And if having a working or distant relationship with Videla is enough to link someone to the dictatorship, what does that say about Nestor Kirchner's sister, who is currently the Minister of Social Development. She worked for the Province of Santa Cruz during the dictatorship.

I think there are lots of good questions about the motivation. At the same time, I do believe Grupo Clarin has a monopolizing effect on information in Argentina. I also think people need to learn how to be more media literate -- especially the students at Harvard.

 

[citygirl]

Bradleyhale - what do you mean by the students needing to be more media literate? What do you think they asked that wasn't appropriate or fact based?

 

[sesamosinsal]

Bradleyhale - what do you mean by the students needing to be more media literate? What do you think they asked that wasn't appropriate or fact based?

I should have said "some students at Harvard." There were two questions that stood out to me as being poor:

One student suggested that the press didn't have freedom here to express itself here. Clarin and La Nacion allege this, but in practice, it's not true. On a weekly basis, both media outlets publish rumors, manipulation, and in some cases blatant lies. (I only mention them because they are the ones alleging such limits on press freedom. "El Tiempo" does a fine job of manipulation as well.) If CFK really wanted to crush press freedom, she wouldn't have proposed and signed a bill into law that decriminalized slander and label in 2009.

The last student to ask a question asked CFK about her saying that everyone should "fear her." It seems he just read the headline at Clarin.com, which said, “Sólo hay que tenerle miedo a Dios... y un poquito a mí." Politicians like Macri and de Narvaez even claimed that she had said it. A few days later, you even had people yelling at the protests, "No tenemos miedo!" If you watch the speech again, she said that her ministers/employees should fear God and her just a bit, and it was said in jest. She never referred to the entire country, and Clarin took her statement completely out of context.

 

[sesamosinsal]

libel* -- can't edit posts.