Right Wing Coup E'tat In Brazil

[Jaredberryman]

While I certainly do not support Cristina's bastardized version of it, the US DOES have its, in my eyes reasonable, "ley de medios". Not sure you have to go to elementary school again but you're welcome to learn more at http://www.fcc.gov/g...ownership-rules : "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast stations (radio and TV) an entity can own, as well as limits on the common ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers".

In no way is this a version of the ley de medios. I completely hate and mistrust the FCC, but the ley de medios makes it so that people in rural areas, for instance, that do not have internet or cable, and listen to radio, may only listen to government radio stations and get government media. It is clearly an attempt at controlling the media so as to stay in power. You cannot possibly compare the ley de medios to any law in the USA. I do not naively believe that the government doesn't try to control the media in the USA, but you must be kidding. The ley de medios is mostly aimed at bringing down Clarin and La Nacion, which are the only papers left basically that will say things against the government (yes they exaggerate, but at least there's another perspective besides Kristina is awesome). The Ley de Medios is a joke. The FCC is a joke too, but the comparison is totally unwarranted.

 

[robwerwe]

A Brazilian "right winger" explains her anger.

Me me me me, its about me and my face! ME ME ME!

 

[sleslie23]

We are taught from elementary school that freedom of the press is a human right and that the ability to criticize governments openly is a necessary curb to the power of governments. If our congress had made such a bone-headed law that restricts the press in any way, we would have people talking about a revolution. Yes, people would be arming themselves to overthrow the government. I am not kidding.

Have you been to the US in the last 10 years or so? No one would do anything. The 4th and 5th amendments have basically tossed aside in the name of national security. The 1st amendment would be as well, except the media doesn't do anything that goes drastically against the government "party" line.

 

[Jaredberryman]

Have you been to the US in the last 10 years or so? No one would do anything. The 4th and 5th amendments have basically tossed aside in the name of national security. The 1st amendment would be as well, except the media doesn't do anything that goes drastically against the government "party" line.

My point is that no one here buys her story. Do you? Look at how much people are up in arms over the NSA. The only way the government could put something in place like the ley de medios is piece by piece, slowly, over time, which is what is happening. Here they shoot the whole thing at once and nothing happens.

 

[PhilipDT]

Honestly Ana, is this a fake thread?

In case you didn't see it the first time, this tread gives a bit of an insight into Ana's world views.

baexpats.org/topic/25852-join-the-transition-team/

Taking that all into account Im pretty sure this is not a fake thread.

 

[sleslie23]

My point is that no one here buys her story. Do you? Look at how much people are up in arms over the NSA. The only way the government could put something in place like the ley de medios is piece by piece, slowly, over time, which is what is happening. Here they shoot the whole thing at once and nothing happens.

I agree with everything you said in this thread except how Americans are taught since elementary school to hold the Bill of Rights sacrosanct. Once upon a time, that was true. Not so much today.

 

[recoleta]

In no way is this a version of the ley de medios. I completely hate and mistrust the FCC, but the ley de medios makes it so that people in rural areas, for instance, that do not have internet or cable, and listen to radio, may only listen to government radio stations and get government media. It is clearly an attempt at controlling the media so as to stay in power. You cannot possibly compare the ley de medios to any law in the USA. I do not naively believe that the government doesn't try to control the media in the USA, but you must be kidding. The ley de medios is mostly aimed at bringing down Clarin and La Nacion, which are the only papers left basically that will say things against the government (yes they exaggerate, but at least there's another perspective besides Kristina is awesome). The Ley de Medios is a joke. The FCC is a joke too, but the comparison is totally unwarranted.

First, as I stated, I agree that Cristina's ley de medios has nothing to do with what happens in the US and I agree that it is a bad joke. You don't have to convince me of that - I have been convinced for a long time. Second, I respect your dislike of the FCC but my post is about facts, not wishful thinking of how the US should be. The intent of this role of the FCC (it has others as well, of course) is not to protect rural areas but rather exactly to limit the power one entity has to control the press in the US. It tries to prevent one person/entity from dictating the media for all. You may support it or not, but it is what it is. Cristina does not have to do with it.

 

[Jaredberryman]

I agree with everything you said in this thread except how Americans are taught since elementary school to hold the Bill of Rights sacrosanct. Once upon a time, that was true. Not so much today.

Well most of us over 30 were taught that. But I doubt anyone who is in their twenties believes her either! I hope what you are saying is not true. People fought and died for the Bill of Rights, it would be sad to have to die again to get it back. I hope that teachers at least give it some lip service.

 

[Jaredberryman]

First, as I stated, I agree that Cristina's ley de medios has nothing to do with what happens in the US and I agree that it is a bad joke. You don't have to convince me of that - I have been convinced for a long time. Second, I respect your dislike of the FCC but my post is about facts, not wishful thinking of how the US should be. The intent of this role of the FCC (it has others as well, of course) is not to protect rural areas but rather exactly to limit the power one entity has to control the press in the US. It tries to prevent one person/entity from dictating the media for all. You may support it or not, but it is what it is. Cristina does not have to do with it.

There are some laws that are necessary, but often the FCC makes absolutely terrible decisions that do not favor the general public and I mistrust the agency. But this is just digression, my point was that someone who support the ley de medios will not win many points with most on this forum.

 

[recoleta]

There are some laws that are necessary, but often the FCC makes absolutely terrible decisions that do not favor the general public and I mistrust the agency. But this is just digression, my point was that someone who support the ley de medios will not win many points with most on this forum.

I agree. However, I think it's important to know that many free liberal democracies, including the US (as mentioned above), do have laws on the books to regulate media concentration. Cristina is pretending to try and join this club in the name of free speech, while in essence she's trying to achieve the opposite. I imagine that in none of these countries gov't media is so biased as here. In fact, in many countries it's the opposite... The public BBC is very often the thorn in the gov't's behind more than any private press organization... and that is what free press is for. Can you imagine TV Publica in Argentina exposing gov't corruption?