New Media Law

[gouchobob]

Well that in not true either, the fact is that those newspapers you are reading in conjunction with Clarin, La Nacion, Perfil, Ambito, Infobae, etc. Are the ones who control la majority of the media by Radio, TV, CableTV, Satellite's communications etc. etc. etc...resuming they are all for one and one for all with the only difference between them as using a different mask with the same head, a total monopoly with no diversification at all.

gouchobob, if you or anyone else wants more information in deep over this law and why it was implemented, please read the following document, it's long but it's all there, background, monopolies and why it was urgently and necessary to be implemented.

Linkto the document: THE MARKET IN A FEW HANDS - Faculty of Journalism and Social Communication. National University of La Plata, Argentina

About the national concentration, in the newspapers market in Argentina, Clarín Group, by means of the newspaper that bears the same name and through share participation in different media, controls 948.200 issues out of the 1.070.200 which are distributed by the ten best sold newspapers in the country.
Besides, the group controls the manufacturing of paper for newspapers and one of the main news agencies from where papers are informed, as we have previously stated.

You never answer the questions, what is distorted in the Miami Herald article, and what is the purpose of restricting the distribution of newspapers here? My guess this move by the government will be widely condemned around the world in the coming days.

 

[Lucas]

And where are these wonderful new newspapers that are supposed to diversify Clarin's monopoly? Are they going to appear as soon as government shuts Clarin down?

No one is going to shutdown Clarin or anything else, this law is to be implemented in a period of approximately two years from ratified and things will be adjusted as we go along, nobody denies there will be some trouble ahead but it should be sorted out without any major conflicts.

 

[Lucas]

You never answer the questions, what is distorted in the Miami Herald article, and what is the purpose of restricting the distribution of newspapers here? My guess this move by the government will be widely condemned around the world in the coming days.

The "Miami Herald" article have a secret agenda behind which you don't know and is attached particularly to Cuba and the Miami residents, Venezuela and the Caribbean region.

 

[gouchobob]

The "Miami Herald" article have a secret agenda behind which you don't know and is attached particularly to Cuba and the Miami residents, Venezuela and the Caribbean region.

Oh, another conspiracy theory, obviously the Miami Herald has a secret agenda. Funny though, the basically the same story is showing up in papers from around the world, must be be a lot of secret agendas at work.

 

[Lucas]

There you go....

 

[igor]

... it should be sorted out without any major conflicts.

Blocking exits from newspaper printing plant by trade union trucks is not considered a major conflict in Argentina?

Once again if it is anti-monopoly case, show me the other side? Show me another newspaper that is treated badly by bloody monopolists? Does Clarin block distribution of some other newspaper?

If the government itself is the other side, then it is not anti-monopoly case.

 

[gusgutier]

Drugs, free soccer on TV and censorship, all of these are very good news for Argentina

Drugs? Censorship?

 

[gusgutier]

And where are these wonderful new newspapers that are supposed to diversify Clarin's monopoly? Are they going to appear as soon as government shuts Clarin down?

The law doesn´t apply to written media as newspaper, so Clarin wil not be touched.

 

[Lucas]

Blocking exits from newspaper printing plant by trade union trucks is not considered a major conflict in Argentina?

Once again if it is anti-monopoly case, show me the other side? Show me another newspaper that is treated badly by bloody monopolists? Does Clarin block distribution of some other newspaper?

If the government itself is the other side, then it is not anti-monopoly case.

Igor, I think Gusgutier partially answer your question as for the rest please have a look to my anterior post, I modified the link which was pointing to a document, now is a HTML web page.

I will post here again just in case...

Link:

THE MARKET IN A FEW HANDS

- Faculty of Journalism and Social Communication. National University of La Plata, Argentina -

About the national concentration, in the newspapers market in Argentina, Clarín Group, by means of the newspaper that bears the same name and through share participation in different media, controls 948.200 issues out of the 1.070.200 which are distributed by the ten best sold newspapers in the country.
Besides, the group controls the manufacturing of paper for newspapers and one of the main news agencies from where papers are informed, as we have previously stated.

Also...
Not my words but someone commentaries on an article from the today newspaper Critica Digital.

It is a trade union dispute. That the lobbyists on corporate freedom try to pass off as an"attack" to defend their interests $$$$$$. And judging by some of the comments, they are getting just that. The Media Law was a blow to the oligopolies power of the media ... and .. Not surprisingly ----- The Empire Strikes Back ---

Sonia 47 años:
Es un conflicto gremial. Que los lobbystas de la libertad de EMPRESA tratan de hacer pasar como "ataque" para defender sus interese$$$$$$. Y, a juzgar por varios de los comentarios, lo consiguen. La Ley de Medios fue un duro golpe al Poder Oligopólico de los medios: ...y... era de esperarse-----EL IMPERIO CONTRAATACA---

Volvieron a bloquear a Clarín y La Nación

 

[jp]

Having a single monopoly group control an overwhelming percentage of national media is fundamentally bad for the country. When press is effectively owned by one group, it isn't a "free press" its a media monopoly.

Taking steps to break up the group, and put different parts of it under different ownership ultimately creates more debate and dialogue. The role of the press in relation to government is incredibly important, and its crucial that the freedom of the press is preserved but for some strange (and politically motivated reason) freedom of the press has been extended to imply "freedom to privately own all the press".

If Clarin own an overwhelming share of national media they can push any agenda they want for any reason. This isn't in the interests of the country, although its obviously in Clarin's interests to maintain the balance of power in their favour.

Its a good law, being misrepresented by alarmists and the people who directly stand to lose out from it being put into effect. There's no justificatino for having all of private media under the control of a single group.

Break it up, new owners will take the old parts and run them indepenedently. Much healthier media scene that way.