Media Law

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

35% limit ownership of the market seems reasonable.

Yes, but there are many more clauses which restrict it to much less, geographical restrictions etc.

Are their guarantees in the law to create independent media?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Carrió: "Lorenzetti entregó la ley de medios a cambio de la caja del Poder Judicial" -All the corruptos and their supporters to the plaza de mayo to celebrate!

Bla. It is the same Court that put a limit to the goverment with the changes in the Court system remember?
If you enligh your self about freedom of speach in the interamerican human righ law, you will discover that the law is constitucional because those international treatries are a part of the constitution.

 

[ItsyBits]

The part of the media law that conerns Clarin is sadly not really needed. I talked to my mother in law who works for poder judicial and she explained that even though the anti-trust laws in Argentina are a bit outdated they should have prevented Clarin from having all those licenses in the first place. It was the Nestor government that let that happened. The only way not to loose face over this after the fight with el campo 2008 was to create a whole new law to fix a problem that they themselves were responsible for.

The better part of the law if i remember correct is that Canal Publica will have a board of directors from more political parties. This is similar to how the public tv here in Sweden works.

 

[scotttswan]

The better part of the law if i remember correct is that Canal Publica will have a board of directors from more political parties. This is similar to how the public tv here in Sweden works.

This is interesting is it proportional?


edit: it wont help much with all the other channels that act as government mouthpieces.

 

[ItsyBits]

This is interesting is it proportional?

I dont remember exactly how it is planned to work in Argentina, but if remember correct it was not exactly as in Sweden but with an extra chair for the ruling party.

 

[notebook.fix]

Bla. It is the same Court that put a limit to the goverment with the changes in the Court system remember?
If you enligh your self about freedom of speach in the interamerican human righ law, you will discover that the law is constitucional because those international treatries are a part of the constitution.

It's unconstitutional to cut the licences before they run their time. The only objective here is to silence any opposition voices.

Lets say it like it is...after Jorge Lanata & the network that supports him. There is no other opposition left.

Not even Venezuela ventured to do what has been done today in Argentina , and that is, with this court decision, the Ks intend to shut down Clarin IMMEDIATELY and in the process, violate all prior constitutional media licence agreements before they are allowed to run their due course...PUTTING CRISTOBAL LOPEZ IN FULL CONTROL of TN canal 13, Clarin etc etc. Cristobal Lopez (K) is now going to be allowed to fully monopolize all the news media networks in Argentina in line with the Kirchner master plan, the total decimation of the independent press.

Like I've said it before, in another country like Australia I actually voted for the deconcentration of the news media there, BUT NOT HERE IN ARGENTINA...not with Cristina Baez de Kirchner at the controls...you have to be more than gullible & naive to believe the fairy tale that they are trying to sell about the principles of freedom of exp<b></b>ression....actually, you (not you Bajo) have to be either part of the criminal network that siphons off public funds in collusion with the K government mafia or you have to be mentally handicapped to swallow the press freedom argument.

NO wonder Argentina is always on the brink of a disaster, there are more 'not so intelligent' people than smart ones voting. Simple.

 

[Rich One]

The Clarin stock stop treding today , here and in Wall St.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Nootebook.fix. the judges of the Supreme Court decided regarding if the media law is constitutional or not. They cannot decide if this is good or wrong because in that case, they were going to replace the Congress.

So, Argentina has added to its constitution some Human Right International Treaties like this one:

Article 13 - American Convention on Human Rights

3. The right of exp<b></b>ression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.

Some years ago I made a class action for discrimination at the Tango Contest organized by Macri. Only Telam (official media agency) published the news but nobody used it (Telam is like Routers but local, its a source for newspapers).

Many small newspapers from the countryside published the news.

Clarin didn t publish the scandal because they were protecting Macri and attacking the government. Sorry, this is not free media.

Only after the WSJ published the story, La Nacion and pagina 12 published it.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303661904576456210544473444

Macri had to change the law to cover the scandal. I realized that the independent media is very small. The official one almost doesn[t exist> El Argentino newspaper and what else? nothing. Because it was perfect for whoever wanted to attack Macri but it was clear thet there were no big media that were impartial.

Sorry, but in a country were the President was elected by 53% of the votes, there is a lot of people who want to listen something different than hate against the government,

As I said, the law is clearly constitutional. If the solutions provided can be better, well, the Congress voted it after a long debate, so, that's the law.

However, the Supreme Court also said that Clarin has to be compensated for those licenses that is going to lose.

 

[germano]

Clarin didn t publish the scandal because they were protecting Macri and attacking the government. Sorry, this is not free media.

Some people seem to think that is ok if a media conglomerate dominates the media landscape as long as it represents views they can agree with or supports the political candidates they think are best. But they overlook that those things can change rapidly. The same dominating media giant can switch sides if it is opportune for the owners - as it has happened in the past.

 

[ghost]

The point of corporations is they are anti-competitive and destroy free markets.

I can see that you have never run a corporation.