New Media Law

[gouchobob]

A couple of people here seem convinced the media law is a good thing and that the governments motives are completely benign. What nobody seems able to explain is the new presidential decree restricting distribution of newspapers through their union allies(in reality a bunch of thugs). What is the purpose here other than to control what is available for the public to read? It's an obvious attempt by the government to limit press freedom. Why would they do such a thing? Gee, maybe they plan on staying in office and maybe this is an early step and sign that the government is becoming more authoritarian?

Maybe in the coming months there will be selected and unexplained power outages at radio and tv outlets that are critical of the government or perhaps they will find they can't get their broadcast licenses renewed for obscure reasons.

 

[jp]

This is what the opposition argument hinges upon. Any attempts to break up a media monopoly, no matter what the intention or how legitimate the aims - the attempt itself is about limiting press freedom and must therefore be a sign of encroaching authoritarianism.

Sad state of affairs when you can't break up monopolies for fear of being accused of being authoritarian.

 

[gouchobob]

This is what the opposition argument hinges upon. Any attempts to break up a media monopoly, no matter what the intention or how legitimate the aims - the attempt itself is about limiting press freedom and must therefore be a sign of encroaching authoritarianism.

Sad state of affairs when you can't break up monopolies for fear of being accused of being authoritarian.

You keep missing the point for some reason, I'm not a supporter of media concentration either. However, one common element of all authoritarian governments is control of the press. Do you believe control of distribution of newspapers by their union cronies signifies a threat to freedom of the press in Argentina? If not what is the purpose of the new presidential decree?

 

[jp]

I don't believe breaking up media monopolies constitutes "control of the press". Quite the opposite - by breaking up media into a number of holdings, you reduce control of the press by one body.

All the arguments against the move are based on "fear over what might happen". Most modern media markets are highly regulated and tightly controlled. The US and most of europe are no different in this respect - press freedoms are largely guaranteed, but there are extensive laws and regulators governing distribution, licensing etc.

I don't think any of what's being proposed constitutes a threat to press freedom. They are implementing the same systems seen the world over, and the main people negatively affected it by it are the holding who have a frankly unhealthy amount of control over the national media scene in the first place.

A monopoly is being broken up. Nothing autocratic about that.

 

[Fettucini]

Taking steps to break up the group, and put different parts of it under different ownership ultimately creates more debate and dialogue.

I read that the Kirchner did something similar in the 1990's when governing Santa Fe, whereby he changed the laws regarding radio, allowing his friends/supporters to buy up radio stations.

 

[gouchobob]

I don't believe breaking up media monopolies constitutes "control of the press". Quite the opposite - by breaking up media into a number of holdings, you reduce control of the press by one body.

All the arguments against the move are based on "fear over what might happen". Most modern media markets are highly regulated and tightly controlled. The US and most of europe are no different in this respect - press freedoms are largely guaranteed, but there are extensive laws and regulators governing distribution, licensing etc.

I don't think any of what's being proposed constitutes a threat to press freedom. They are implementing the same systems seen the world over, and the main people negatively affected it by it are the holding who have a frankly unhealthy amount of control over the national media scene in the first place.

A monopoly is being broken up. Nothing autocratic about that.

Very creative non-answer. For those that don't know the unions that are now authorized for the distribution of newspapers act as kind of a brown-shirt strong arm thugs for the government. They were the ones involved in breaking up the anti-government demonstrations during the farmers strike. Not the kind of people I would want to rely on to guarantee freedom of the press in Argentina.

 

[HenryNisental]

A) It is true that presente law was enacted during a military goverment, but it has been modified many times, so THAT is not the real reason for the new law.
B) it is suspect that the new law was passed AFTER NK received it biggest electoral defeat.
C) In general , authoritarian goverments and the free press are like oil and water, do not get along well.
D) the main reason may be the obvious inability of NK and CFK to improve the lot of the people, and then, if you can not modify the reality, then you modify its reporting.

 

[cabrera]

Henry Nisental your comments about Free Press are absurd . There is no free press anywhere in the western world and to call the Kirchners authoritarian compared to what? The USA, Europe, China , Russia etc etc.

There is more personal freedoms in Argentina than all these countries and I stress this more clearly . Also the war machine aided and supported by your free media has killed millions of people in the Middle East and you call this freedom.

Not to mention the heath care bill passed by the ultimate antithesis of democracy where you must pay an outrageous fee to the Government for your own freedom of health . If you do not you are jailed. This is your freedom that all of you are saying should be applied in Argentina.

 

[Lucas]

Please watch this video in spanglish....

Diego Faur sobre la ley de medios argentina - 20.Nov.2009