Priceless: This Is The Start Of The Anti Corruption

[EdRooney]

Ed is anti-american, pro-K, go easy on him Amigo Artistico (PS I am not American).

Of course. The last resort of the McCarthyite. It's a shame to see this low ad-hominem has spread outside the US.

 

[notebook.fix]

you control the government with your vote!!

With all the hidden changes to the election laws favoring the KKs in the last few weeks THERE WILL BE NO CHANCE OF VOTING THIS GROUP OF CRIMINALS OUT. It's HYPOCRITICAL to say the least.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

you control the government with your vote!!

With all respect, your statement seems naive.

CFK got elected with XX% of the popular vote. I think I heard it was 65%. You vote for a President thinking they will take certain measures and go in a particular direction.

The latest polls show CFK's support at about 25% of the population. That must mean that between the time she was elected and now that about 50% of the people who originally voted for her think she is going in the wrong direction. I think that if Argentines knew exactly what she was going to do the election might have been very different.

Your statement would be true if the population got to vote on every measure that the President decides to do. You really only get "control" about once every 4 years.

 

[syngirl]

However, there is one major difference. 678 recognizes that it is an ultra-K program. Jorge Lanata, on the other hand, calls himself an "independent journalist," just like the rest of the folks at TN.

Actually the folks at 678 also tout themselves as independent journalists. The entire panel of talking heads consists of people that list themselves as independent journalists. 678 is not their only job, they work for radio stations, newspapers, etc.

The other thing is, I don't know how many people on the board have been outside of Capital that often. Lanata's programme is blocked in a lot of places in this country, so is TN. My husband has to travel out to some pretty remote places and he will tell you that in an awful lot of communities, the only option is television publica and approved pro-K programming.

 

[AmigoArtistico]

The real definition of a monopoly:

mo·nop·o·ly

/məˈnäpəlē/


Noun

• The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
  
• The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

Ed's definition of monopoly:

"Clarín owns well over half of the cable market, and its control of Papel Prensa (see below) makes utterly dominant in print. Then there's its huge radio presence."

Ed, not only do you clearly not understand what a monopoly is, but saying that Clarín owns well over half the cable market (what percentage is it, Ed?), even if that should be true, does not make it a monopoly, which you would understand if you knew what a monopoly was. Moreover, your argument is disingenuous, because in this changing technological world of ours, cable is not the only game it town. Far from it. Did you forget about Telefonica, Telecom, and DirecTV?

I'm not going to debate the wrongness of everything else you said, for the same reason I won't waste my time debating Bajo Cero.

We are not talking about opinions here, we're talking about facts, and you simply don't know and don't understand the facts (or you do, but the facts aren't convenient for your argument, so you ignore them, change them, or change the subject). And I have neither the time nor the patience to try to explain them to you further. (Oh, good one, by the way. "Because I'm on the road right now, I don't have time to look up links, but this is something you may want to look into." So, you had time to write a detailed (and seriously flawed) response to my post, but you don't have time to post evidence to support your unsupportable claims. Right. I get it. I should just use Google. You shouldn't have to explain every little detail. My mistake.)

As far as me "looking up the facts," read my posts. I don't write posts unless I have a reasonably clear and fairly detailed understanding of the facts (which causes me to remain silent many times when I disagree strongly with other posters). I know that goes against the general rule for comments in internet forums, but that's just me.

So, as you put it, whatever.

And good luck trying to convince the people here of your wacky ideas (other than Bajo Cero and Matias, of course).

Goodbye, Ed.

 

[jp]

There's a dictionary definition, and then there's a legal definition.

Many countries have anti-trust, monopoly and competition laws in place to prevent any one company dominating a market. There are lots of fairly obvious reasons why you don't want one media bloc dominating a nation's media.

Over in the UK, there was controversy when Murdoch bypassed the Monopoly Commission when he wanted to add another title to his evil empire. The concern was that he would distort the media landscape if he owned too much of it. Fortunately for him, his pro-Thatcher leanings earned him the blessing of the Thatcher government and he was able to expand.

You can describe Clarin as a monopoly if you are aware of the legal concept of a monopoly.

 

[dennisr]

Off the topic some, a stellar example of what this country needs: honest down to Earth President:
Mujica sobre la suba del dólar: "No tengo la más puta idea de qué pasó"
http://www.iprofesional.com/notas/162037-Mujica-sobre-la-suba-del-dlar-No-tengo-la-ms-puta-idea-de-qu-pas

 

[AmigoArtistico]

Lanata says that Boudou went to Caramelo on a Friday with two big bags for a few hours and came back. No one even questions it. But when 678 shows that Boudou was actually welcoming Lula at some ceremony at the same time that Lanata implied he was laundering money in Caramelo, it's automatically considered some piece of government propaganda.

...

You're probably asking yourselves: Who is Hernán Arbizu? Evidently, the dueños de la verdad have never told you, and they have no interest in you finding out either.

Of course people in the press slant the story the way they want, stretch the truth, and even make mistakes -- maybe some of them even on purpose. We all know that.

It's interesting that you brought up that bit where Lanata was talking about Boudou bringing those bags to Uruguay. I mentioned to my wife while we were watching the show that that specific thing was pretty shaky journalism. (By the way, you're using 678 as Boudou's alibi? If that's your only source, he doesn't have an alibi.)

However, about Lanata on Boudou: you're cherry picking. That was one small, nearly irrelevant tidbit plucked from a huge, detailed and compelling story. You don't think virtually everything else that they dug up on Boudou is worth further investigation? The various shell companies? The money trail? Come on.

Regarding the media and the truth, you're making a fallacious argument of the type: A doesn't always tell the truth; B doesn't always tell the truth; therefore, A equals B. Sorry. The situation is much more like: The media not in the government's control lies sometimes; The media within the government's control lies most of the time. In Argentina, A certainly does not equal B. (Not even considering how heinous -- how truly evil -- the lies of the government and it's media machine are.)

Regarding corruption and investigations, I agree that all credible allegations of corruption (of all crime, for that matter) should be investigated, and equally, without interference. However, your complaint (criticism, observation, experiment, or whatever it is) that Báez' case is much talked about here, and that of Arbizu is not, is without merit. This is a free and open forum. The users themselves decide by their participation (or lack thereof) what will and will not be discussed.

If you believe the Arbizu nonsense that the government is spewing from its propaganda machine, make a new thread and "enlighten" us. If you have some good, reliable information about how Clarín is "pressuring" a judge and a prosecutor (whatever that means), I'd love to see it. Coincidentally, the prosecutor allegedly being "pressured" by Clarín is Marijuan. As far as I know, the only threats Marijuan has received -- on his life and the lives of his children -- have been because of his involvement in the Báez case.

But of course, if you have details that I'm not aware of, please share them.

 

[AmigoArtistico]

There's a dictionary definition, and then there's a legal definition.

Many countries have anti-trust, monopoly and competition laws in place to prevent any one company dominating a market. There are lots of fairly obvious reasons why you don't want one media bloc dominating a nation's media.

Over in the UK, there was controversy when Murdoch bypassed the Monopoly Commission when he wanted to add another title to his evil empire. The concern was that he would distort the media landscape if he owned too much of it. Fortunately for him, his pro-Thatcher leanings earned him the blessing of the Thatcher government and he was able to expand.

You can describe Clarin as a monopoly if you are aware of the legal concept of a monopoly.

Ok, I'll buy all of that except the last part (I might even buy that if you can convince me).

I'd like to hear your case for Clarín being a monopoly in the media landscape of Argentina in the present moment. I don't see it.

 

[jp]

Where exactly has Clarin egregiously lied?

"El organismo estatal dice que la canasta básica para una familia tipo cuesta $ 688,37 mensuales o 23 pesos diarios"
http://www.ieco.clarin.com/economia/Estadisticas-polemicas_0_754724538.html

The government never suggested that a typical family lives of 6 pesos a day. They calculated that a family spending less than $688 would be malnourished, based on the absolute minimum cost of the cheapest calories available. All anyone had to do to confirm this was to go the same source Clarin was taking their information from.

This was an anti-government PR campaign masquerading as news, and it was based on wilful misprepresentation. For me, this constituted an egregious lie. It was cynical and manipulative.

Thing is though - they are entitled to be cynical and manipulative. They have no charter to tell the truth, or serve the public. Whilst the story was irresponsible and unethical, I'd still defend their right to print anti government propaganda. I just don't think they shoudl have the right to own so much of the nation's media. Under ordinary circumstances, in a healthy media landscape they would have been rightly called out on their lie. Instead, it just got repeated by on every Clarin group channel until everyone assumed it was fact.