Media Law

Dublin2BuenosAires

Registered
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
2,510
Likes
3,104
A good result for the government, Magnetto will not be happy. The Supreme Court, complete with imposing crucifix!, have ruled to crucify Clarin groups monopolistic media interests.

In the interests of keeping informed I have had a go at translating the legal claues/articles ruled on today from La Nacion. Criticism and corrections welcomed openly and begrudgingly ; )

Clarin group where disputing the following 4 clauses of the Media Law enacted in 2009.

Article 161 - In short, anyone covered by this ruling has 1 year to divest there interests in line with the Media Law, Clarin would have 1 year to comply with anti-monopoly ruling.

Article 41 - Licenses for broadcast, print etc are non transferable. There are some exceptions around continuity of service but it reads to me like Clarin can't create another group and dump licenses in there.

Article 45 - Mutiple license restrictions , at a national level if you have a subscription based license for satellite broadcasting you can't hold another license for broadcasting (radio, tv) or printing papers. (Help needed here!...) You can, i think, have up to ten channels if broadcasting not by satellite (or cable i believe) but by radio frequency be that tv or radio. Non digital channels is my limited understanding. You can have 24 licenses (channels I assume??) where they are physically linked. Someone more media tech savvy can explain how the applies.

You cannot in any of those mutiple license (channel) restrictions broadcast to more than 35% of the nation.

There are some local restrictions on broadcasts which follow a similar theme, not particularly significant in my reading.

Article 48 Undue Concentration : Basically you cannot have linked companies, if you are to be awarded a license some due dilligence must take place to ensure your activities aren't already linked to the media.

That's my take, roughly and quickly translated.

In my view, I wouldn't have an issue with this as monopolies are inherently bad for creativity and good business practice in relation to the customer, BUT....

...the strong evidence here is that all new licenses granted will be government mouthpieces. There is nothing in there to create an impartial body to grant licenses and no transparency around how they are awarded and revoked other than to stop big media groups launching channels.

We already know the govt is anti Cablevision and Pro DirecTV. It would be nice to be able to believe that the ultimate goal here isn't propaganda control.

I am a Cablevision customer, more for the sports than anything else. I'd rather not have a dish on the side of my building and I'd like to have one bill for TV and internet. I guess in the end the customer will pay more due to reduced bill consolidation too. I don't really like the Clarin newspaper so won't shed much of a tear should Magnetto decide to bin it. Not likely though.

Have at it...
 
I support the law, 100%.

But I dont forget that those licenses were given (renewed) under Nestor government, when Clarin was a friend. I think Clarin is in many ways illegal (the way they got Papel Prensa, the manouvre they made with AFJP, the monopoly, etc) but if Im not wrong the only thing where they re breaking the law is only with the Cablevision licenses. So technically theres only one company violating the law. The thing is, that that is everything, is the clue of its political power all over the country, they put only anti K channels, dont allow Paka Paka, CN23, etc, and it has a HUGE penetration.
 
I support the law, 100%.

But I dont forget that those licenses were given (renewed) under Nestor government, when Clarin was a friend. I think Clarin is in many ways illegal (the way they got Papel Prensa, the manouvre they made with AFJP, the monopoly, etc) but if Im not wrong the only thing where they re breaking the law is only with the Cablevision licenses. So technically theres only one company violating the law. The thing is, that that is everything, is the clue of its political power all over the country, they put only anti K channels, dont allow Paka Paka, CN23, etc, and it has a HUGE penetration.

I didn't know it was specifically cablevision, it would be a loss to see the network shut down only to be replaced by small government dependent channels. You may not like the message, but lets face it public television and radio is shamelessly pro government, it would look bad for Argentina not to have an opposition media, do you think a pro govt only media would be healthy?
 
I didn't know it was specifically cablevision, it would be a loss to see the network shut down only to be replaced by small government dependent channels. You may not like the message, but lets face it public television and radio is shamelessly pro government, it would look bad for Argentina not to have an opposition media, do you think a pro govt only media would be healthy?

Of course not. The ideal I guess would be half and half. But the anti K half must not be concentrated, if not its insane. I would like independent media, not controlled by governments or with corporations orders, but that does not exist. So, I would like to have the option to choose, I would love to have the option to pick different channels with no dependency on anybody. The oposicion channels are concentrated as well as the government channels, and if we talk of popularity or penetration, Clarin is waaay more powerful than the government. Especially in the interior.

Remember the government media is property of the state, and the citizens have the chance to control that by voting, changing governments, etc, but Clarin and the rest of the media mafia, we cant control them, we cant vote for their directors, and they have the same (or even more) political power as the current government.

This law goes in that direction, putting some control to the media, increasing the offer, increasing variety, fighting against monopoly.
 
Public broadcasting should be an institution of the state, independent and of the current government. Unfortunately that concept does not exist here.

I do not believe this government for one second will allow a non-supportive media group to launch a news channel
 
Remember the government media is property of the state, and the citizens have the chance to control that by voting, changing governments, etc, but Clarin and the rest of the media mafia, we cant control them, we cant vote for their directors, and they have the same (or even more) political power as the current government.

This law goes in that direction, putting some control to the media, increasing the offer, increasing variety, fighting against monopoly.

Really, so the power the citizen has to change channels or to not buy the Clarin newspaper does not count?
 
I've said this before, but the good thing about the law is that in 2 years the Kirchners will be sent packing to wherever it is they came from, but there is no way to vote out Grupo Clarín. Even a concerted effort not to buy their products would be stymied by their strangle hold on cable TV, print and airways. I would rather have a gov't I dislike with some control over the media, than a private dictatorship with near total control. The Media Law is a much more democratic option.

Furthermore, it is foolish of the anti-K's to swallow Magnetto's line on this one. Or then again they can just change their stance as soon as they get into power...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp
Really, so the power the citizen has to change channels or to not buy the Clarin newspaper does not count?

yes, that is indeed a power, but you dont have a big choice, the corporation have the power to manipulate, to lie, to manage your likes. Internet may be changing this, but for some reason exists defensa del consumidor, because people still buy things that dont satisfy their needs. But they still have to buy it. So is very complex, its not like you cant stop consuming Clartin that easily. Of course you can do it, but you re losing a big part of the tv channels, radios, etc. Its like a huge percentage of what you watch.
 
The Old Fxxxs approved the Media Law, Shame Shame Zaffaroni,, All the new Media permits go to Pro K owners without bidding ,,,, well 2 years from now the New Regime will tilt the balance in the opposite direction :cool: Who cares about Paka Paka
 
Public broadcasting should be an institution of the state, independent and of the current government. Unfortunately that concept does not exist here.

I do not believe this government for one second will allow a non-supportive media group to launch a news channel


Agree, we cant have something like the BBC or TVE, a public media, impartial, from no political party, etc. Thats because the media map is very unbalanced with a lot of interests and because of corruption.
 
Back
Top