Campaign Watch

[pauper]

http://en.wikipedia....ity_affiliation

quite a few.

Hoho, the Argentine Nobel myth, oh how I like blowing that one up.

 

[trennod]

I agree the timing is kind of convenient...but who cares??? The media is not elected. We know they are only wanting to sell papers, air time and gain $£€ etc but mps have a higher standard to work to! This guy is just a wannabee elitist like the rest of the Ks. I am the son of a desaparecido, I had to put up with the dictatorship...Seriously what a tool!

 

[trennod]

They would have had the same exposure a few months ago. But the effect on the elections would not have been the same. The job of the media is to inform so people can make their own decisions and not to schedule the release of news in such a way that it impacts elections in favor of their political allies. But unfortunately this is nothing new in latin america. Another good example is Televisa in Mexico. Candidates with Televisa backing have won elections for the past decades, while videos showing the other candidates in an unfavorable way surfaced and got aired aired in the news shortly before the elections.

Hmm no just before a long weekend, just out from the elections...definitely more exposure now. Why does the timing worry some people? Clarin is anti government, pagina12 are pro (and not even making news of this haha)....independent media is just a fantasy all over the world...

But from elected politicians we deserve better. Argentina deserves better.

 

[germano]

Terrible double standards at play here pointing fingers at the media, I can't follow the argument that they should release the story immediately. Why? Under what legal or moral compulsion ? Is it less corrupt of an act because it was a few months ago?

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.

 

[germano]

But from elected politicians we deserve better. Argentina deserves better.

I agree. No question about publishing those stories in general. I am sure they could fill a few weekend editions with just those kind of stories (from all parts of the political spectrum). And this is probably not only an Argentinian or Latin American problem. Legislators of various western democracies have rights similar to diplomatic immunity and police can't do anything. I am sure there are some interesting stories that never got published here (google "congress immunity" to get an idea). So again nothing wrong with publishing it and nothing wrong with selling ads to generate revenue. It is the timing and the ethics that I am concerned about.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Timing - They have an agenda, inflict damage on a government which is trying to attack the Clarin media group. This is not news is it?

Ethics - Well, again, we don't hold these private media groups to the same ethical standards as the government and nor should we. Once they break the law then we can come down on them with the appropriate force.

I think the point here is that the pro govt or left wing folks on the forum don't like the revelation that their ideologues are as corrupt as those they replaced, so we launch into a game of whataboutery which deflects from the scurrilous actions of the privileged politicians.

Sh1t stinks, newspapers hold stories until the best moment and you have to pay the tax man. Thems the breaks.

 

[John.St]

They would have had the same exposure a few months ago. But the effect on the elections would not have been the same. The job of the media is to inform so people can make their own decisions and not to schedule the release of news in such a way that it impacts elections in favor of their political allies. But unfortunately this is nothing new in latin america. Another good example is Televisa in Mexico. Candidates with Televisa backing have won elections for the past decades, while videos showing the other candidates in an unfavorable way surfaced and got aired aired in the news shortly before the elections.

Can you name 1 (one) country in the world with a reasonable level of freedom of the press where this does not happen?

The media cater to a certain - often (read: usually) political - subsection of the population and a socialistic newspaper will expose a conservative candidate and a conservative newspaper a socialistic candidate at the worst possible time for the candidate. Not cricket, but what did happen did happen and no amount of moralising over moral rules can change that.

 

[trennod]

I agree. No question about publishing those stories in general. I am sure they could fill a few weekend editions with just those kind of stories (from all parts of the political spectrum). And this is probably not only an Argentinian or Latin American problem. Legislators of various western democracies have rights similar to diplomatic immunity and police can't do anything. I am sure there are some interesting stories that never got published here (google "congress immunity" to get an idea). So again nothing wrong with publishing it and nothing wrong with selling ads to generate revenue. It is the timing and the ethics that I am concerned about.

Ethics and the media shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Do you really expect the media to place ethics ahead of the dollars? Where in the world would this happen??

On the other hand, this kind of behaviour wouldn't fly from politicians were I am from. I doubt in the US either, although I am not American so could be wrong. Politicians should be held to a higher standard than the media and the general public (even the gendarme that recorded it and sold it, he wasn't exactly 100% ethical but does that concern you? Or anyone else?).

 

[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.

Are you willing to take a bet on whether the kirchnerist media are going to throw mud at the opposition candidates, the more the closer to the election?

 

[ElQueso]

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.

What would you do - create a law that says they have to publish anything they find immediately? How long do they have to do so? What if they aren't ready to publish because they haven't gotten all of the facts together yet and they don't feel like they should publish yet? What if they don't see the importance of a story until something else happens to put it in a more important light? Imagine all of the issues that could come about from a democracy trying to force the press into some kind of time-table and official means of reporting the news to make it "fair"...

I think it is you who are not quite understanding the role of the media in a democracy.

The government should have no control over the media, aside from adjudicating wrongful reporting (i.e., enforcing laws against things like slander and libel and disseminating deliberate misinformation), but that applies to everyone who makes statements in public, not just a group or person who is considered "media". In fact, the media are not an arm of the government, and shouldn't be considered a tool of democracy insofar as it is something written into a government's constitution that a specific group of people will be called "the media" and have a certain responsibility to do anything.

It is THE PEOPLE's responsibility to disseminate information and call the government on crap. THAT's what the media is, a group of people who have dedicated themselves to informing others. There are many kinds of media - there is entertainment, news, sports, education, etc. None of that should be controlled by the government as to what is the content (in my opinion) and certainly shouldn't be telling any of the media outlets when they should be displaying whatever theme they may be involved in. If enough people don't like it, that particular media outlet will have no followers and won't continue.

If you think that the existing media outlets aren't doing a good job, start one yourself and do it the way you think is right! If you can't get enough people to follow your particular output, then it is society itself that is rejecting your way and you cen't ask the government to force people to listen to you.

In a democracy, there should be freedom of the press to the point that there is enough competition between media outlets that they fall over each other to get the news out first. That doesn't happen here for obvious reasons which have been discussed ad infinitum.

However, just the fact that you mention in another post to search for "congress immunity" and expect people to get results that are not covered in mainstream media here, shows that actually the media is not just made up of a few big players here, but that the information is available. Not to mention the fact that very few people here are caught by surprise when they hear of the corruption, even to the extent that everyone knows Cristina has a bunch of money hidden, that she's taken from the people of this country.

It seems to me that many people here (Argentina, not the forum) actually look to the government to control every aspect of life, including one side that wants the media under control (of the government), and another that wants controls on the media to "make things fair" (not sure what the end result's difference would be...). To me, it's a sign of what's wrong with governments (and the people who allow them to continue) who want to make "everything fair for everyone". No one takes responsibility for making sure things are right and fair outside of the government (society), they are too worried about figuring out how to get the government to force other people to do what they want in the name of "fairness".