Campaign Watch

[germano]

It takes all kinds to make a world. Debating is not for the timid

What does this have to do with timid?

 

[ElQueso]

While we have different opinions on the topic discussed here - I would never go so far an tell somebody who does not agree with me that they do not understand the role of the media in a democracy or any other political system.

Man, I wasn't trying to insult you. I didn't say you didn't understand the role of media, I expressed my opinion that you didn't based on public statements made by yourself that seem in contra to what I was raised to think of as the role of media in a democracy. I expressed my opinion in a polite, thoughtful manner, consistent with a debate of ideas. I do have strong opinions, and though sometimes I slip or get excited, I try not to insult.

I simply don't know many people who think that the role of the free press should be constrained in how they present factual reports, as part of their role in a democracy. Therefore your definition of such would run in the opposite direction of what I feel is the majority thinking on the role of a free press in a democracy.

Maybe I'm not in the majority on this. Maybe we could have a poll to see if the press should be required to (be it by law or a self-run "governing body"):

1. Report something the minute they know it
2. Not report something in a critical moment, if it was something that happened in the past and the particular entity knew it previously.

I can see a lot of issues with implementing either of those ethical desires that are going to play hell with the concept of freedom of speech. Am I in the minority?

However, if you say that ethically, both sides should be reporting news when it happens (once it's been confirmed as best as possible to be fact) and to report it fully, I'm in agreement.

The problem is, you can define ethics, but you can't completely enforce them sometimes (in this particular case, related to this particular situation, and all in my opinion) without (probably) trampling on some important rights. If you do enforce this particular ethic definition, you are limiting freedom of speech (and when to speak).

In a healthy press climate, you have enough competition that it makes it counter-productive to limit the freedom to speak (and when to speak) for the relatively small number of truly damaging cases (due to the fact that it's really harder to keep a secret the bigger that secret is) that do come out in this manner. By not enforcing that ethic you are not limiting speech either, which is more important - always be careful imposing too strict of definitions when trying to define rights. Better to err on the cautious side and allow a bit of miscreancy. Again, in a healthy press climate.

In the sort of climate that we see here (this isn't about any other country right now), it doesn't really doesn't matter. By enforcing that particular ethic, what you would really be doing is enforcing it for the opposition to the government only, as we all know that anyone who has the government's sanction will be happily allowed to report the news any time it's deemed that it will do the most good for the government and the worst to the opposition of the government. so you will only succeed in restriction the opposition.

And you have to count Argentina as a true democracy, which I have a hard time doing given the amount of corruption and patronage/client-ism that exists.

More clearly, I think you are confusing the role of the free press in a democracy with the ethics thereof. I know you mentioned ethics and I know you understand what would be ethical. That's what I meant by my statement, and certainly not an insult.

I've had people tell me I don't understand economics half so well as I think I do (and I don't even think I really understand economics all that well!). I certainly didn't feel insulted (unless insult was intended), and often I found, when it was delivered politely, that I had missed something in m thinking and felt edified.

 

[trennod]

Thanks to 'Fred Flinstone', Kabandie has been exposed ! ha ha ha! Now Cristina's only hope at the elections has also been exposed 'with his pants down' for korruption with a capital K.
Just to clarify, 11.30am yesterday I first posted the video link (same video link posted by RBound today) about this growing scandal that involved MArtin Insaurralde, and here's the main points to consider.

• On a Friday night in May this year (I forgot the exact month), Abandie get's stopped in a routine traffic inspection & is caught on video verbally abusing a 22yr old traffic inspector named Belen..
• The 22 yr old traffic inspector is fired on the 1 of Aug.
• Before Sunday night's Lanata's PPT, Abandie, in the video, is seen & heard making a mobile tel call asking for a 'Martin', for the purpose of punishing the young 22yr old traffic officer.
• Abandie continues to deny that he was contacting Martin Insurralde in his first round of interviews prior to Sunday night.
• On Lanata's Sunday night PPT program another part of the same video SURFACES but in this other section of the same original video Cabandie is heard saying MArtin Insaurraldes' full name..this is where the plot thickens. This is the significant moment where we see that not only was Cabandie lying about not calling MArtin Insaurralde, but that Insaurralde, Cristina's star presidential candidate, 'COULD BE' involved .
• Insaurralde first attempts to DENY his involvement but after a few hours he is finally forced to admit that he actually SACKED the young officer, but that he only had her dismissed for other reasons and NOT cause of CAbandie's request. Apparently it is alleged that Belen took time off to have coffee in a service station.. but it is not clear why, it appears that at the time of Cabandie's phone request he was fishing for some excuse to have her fired.
• The very next day straight after the Cabandie was stopped (a Saturday) the young traffic officer received a call from the Insaurralde's office asking & fishing to find out the names of the person/s involved in the incident who originally filmed the controversial video but Belen doesn't give up any names or clues.
• Today the opposition has filed papers in the courts, charging both Cabandie & Martin Insaurralde with "abuse of Authority", but here's the usual stumbling block...the Judge who's been assigned the case is a K judge! It will be shelved....ARRRGGGGHHH!!!

So that's a rough outline so far..it's growing by the hour, yesterday was a perfect day for a scandal....everyone was relaxing & had time to chat & ponder..now we can sit back and watch how this sad comedy unravels.

And now Insaurraulde has met with Belen, made a scapegoat of the Director of Transport (sacking him) and offered Belen her job back! Apparently Cabandie is trying to get hold of her to apologise too!!

 

[Gringoboy]

Isn't it comical to watch them throw their toys out of the pram, then realise how inconvenient that is, then scrabble around to put them back in.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Well it might be ok for you if the media only publishes what is good for their political allies - and then schedules the release to have the biggest impact on the elections - but it is not for me. I guess you just have a different opinion on the role of the media in a democracy and media ethics.

Lets not be naive. It has never been any different in this country. I suppose if this was Macri Pagina 12 or canal 7 would behave differently?

Please.

Back to the real story here.

Corruption and abuse of power by FpV deputies, enough of this nonsense.

 

[John.St]

And now Insaurraulde has met with Belen, made a scapegoat of the Director of Transport (sacking him) and offered Belen her job back! Apparently Cabandie is trying to get hold of her to apologise too!!

You couldn't make it up. If one did, nobody would believe it.

 

[John.St]

Well it might be ok for you if the media only publishes what is good for their political allies - and then schedules the release to have the biggest impact on the elections - but it is not for me. I guess you just have a different opinion on the role of the media in a democracy and media ethics.

I get a feeling we are moving along quite different lines, where you have the impression that I (and others, for whom I cannot speak expressly) think it is OK for the media only publishes what is good for their political allies, etc.

In an ideal world the media would be strictly moral and follow the purest ethics rules, but that is not how the world is, like it or not. Attempts to change this has so far led to restrictions in freedom of exp<b></b>ression.

 

[John.St]

I would criticize that as well. Though who takes Pagina 12 and the canal publico serious?

Well, since you asked: http://baexpats.org/...1/#entry226781I

 

[notebook.fix]

And now Insaurraulde has met with Belen, made a scapegoat of the Director of Transport (sacking him) and offered Belen her job back! Apparently Cabandie is trying to get hold of her to apologise too!!

Yes,...interesting huh? Why would Insaurralde feel the need to apologize for sacking her if only just yesterday he said to the press that he fired her for OTHER legit reasons & nothing to do with Cabandie's reprimand request? In other words, indirectly he is admitting that he fired her cause of Cabandie. What utter hypocrites. Making it up as they go.

It is sheer extacy watching them hang themselves..who needs a political opposition now? Ha ha ha!

 

[germano]

Man, I wasn't trying to insult you. I didn't say you didn't understand the role of media, I expressed my opinion that you didn't based on public statements made by yourself that seem in contra to what I was raised to think of as the role of media in a democracy. I expressed my opinion in a polite, thoughtful manner, consistent with a debate of ideas. I do have strong opinions, and though sometimes I slip or get excited, I try not to insult.

I understand. Also I was responding to a post from St.John who brought it up again (and again).

I simply don't know many people who think that the role of the free press should be constrained in how they present factual reports, as part of their role in a democracy. Therefore your definition of such would run in the opposite direction of what I feel is the majority thinking on the role of a free press in a democracy.

Don't get me wrong. I know that media companies and organizations are biased and believe there is nothing wrong with that. They should have the freedom to decide what they publish and how. There is nothing wrong with scheduling it within a certain timeframe because of editorial reasons (for example fits the topic they already have planned for another day) or monetary (publish it in weekend edition for better news paper sales) though most professional media companies have a certain separation between the editorial part and the commercial (head of editorial vs. publisher etc.).

However, if you say that ethically, both sides should be reporting news when it happens (once it's been confirmed as best as possible to be fact) and to report it fully, I'm in agreement.

This is difficult. Not everything is worth publishing - so some news might be picked up by some news outlets while not by others. But in the case of corruption and abuse of power of a public figure it is probably something most professional editors would publish (after verification etc.). Also they should be free to publish their opinion separate from the news (and it should be clear to the reader, viewer, listener that it is an opinion).

The problem is, you can define ethics, but you can't completely enforce them sometimes (in this particular case, related to this particular situation, and all in my opinion) without (probably) trampling on some important rights. If you do enforce this particular ethic definition, you are limiting freedom of speech (and when to speak).

The reason for establishing press or media councils in several countries was to avoid legislature regulating the press/media. So the media companies created such a council and established those self-imposed ethical rules. Probably something that won't happen here for the foreseeable future.

In a healthy press climate, you have enough competition that it makes it counter-productive to limit the freedom to speak (and when to speak) for the relatively small number of truly damaging cases (due to the fact that it's really harder to keep a secret the bigger that secret is) that do come out in this manner. By not enforcing that ethic you are not limiting speech either, which is more important - always be careful imposing too strict of definitions when trying to define rights. Better to err on the cautious side and allow a bit of miscreancy. Again, in a healthy press climate.

Good point. In many western democracies media companies went through a process of competition and although it resulted in a concentration to bigger media companies - there is mostly still some real competition between media companies with different biases (somewhere between center right and center left) with smaller companies and organizations having biases outside that spectrum. In Latin America the concentration process mostly happened through corruption resulting in very few (in some cases only one) media companies dominating the market.

In the sort of climate that we see here (this isn't about any other country right now), it doesn't really doesn't matter. By enforcing that particular ethic, what you would really be doing is enforcing it for the opposition to the government only, as we all know that anyone who has the government's sanction will be happily allowed to report the news any time it's deemed that it will do the most good for the government and the worst to the opposition of the government. so you will only succeed in restriction the opposition.

I never said the ethics should be enforced by a law. The reason why I mentioned the press councils and self imposed ethics rules where a response to people saying the media was doing the same all over the world and asking me for an example where things like the case above do not happen (or better are less likely to happen with professional media outlets).
But aside from the councils and rules - I think it is my right to criticize media companies for not being professional and trying to influence the elections instead of informing the public in a timely manner.

And you have to count Argentina as a true democracy, which I have a hard time doing given the amount of corruption and patronage/client-ism that exists.

More clearly, I think you are confusing the role of the free press in a democracy with the ethics thereof. I know you mentioned ethics and I know you understand what would be ethical. That's what I meant by my statement, and certainly not an insult.

Well this would probably lead to another debate on what is a "true" democracy. But regarding the media issue - I am well aware of the role(s) of the press/media in democracies. I criticized the lack professionalism in the current case and strongly believe it would do Argentina and its political system good if things improved in that aspect. I had done some research on the media in other Latin American countries and things don't look very different there with sometimes very negative effects (incl. one media backed coupe d'état ).

I've had people tell me I don't understand economics half so well as I think I do (and I don't even think I really understand economics all that well!). I certainly didn't feel insulted (unless insult was intended), and often I found, when it was delivered politely, that I had missed something in m thinking and felt edified.

I get your point.