Media Law Having missed a few days after the initial approval of the Media Law by the House of Representatives, I am now more poised to write about it. (At first I could not react very rationally.)
level of abstract principles, the law has two serious issues: the supervisory authority of licensing and content control.
Under this law, an "enforcement authority", advised by a Federal Council will decide on the licensing of media, both organizations are strongly political and governing party's majority. It is unacceptable for the control of the granting of licenses for media in the hands of the government (of either) or institutions partly or wholly controlled by state officials.
is also unacceptable to make ideological demands on the type of content that may or may not be issued. The power to decide who can communicate and do things can communicate should not be under any pretext the scope of the current government or any political official. The temptation, even if honest government committed to free expression would be too strong.
The law, as formulated, requires the media to submit your review programming with vague criteria such as "plurality", which by its nature can be used as instruments of censorship. Freedom of expression is just an empty phrase if it refers only to one's own freedom, if freedom is worth something, should be to others, including freedom of the views that one finds repugnant. You should only be a barrier to the case of content which openly calls for discrimination or violence.
addition to the above, faced mandatory percentages of domestic production for the media, which (in my opinion) is an anachronistic approach, typical of a late patriotism, and discriminatory, since it tacitly puts the national as necessarily better than foreign. (If you want to promote national cultural production, there are other ways, not compulsive, do so.)
The law does not go much better at the practical level. It has been said, and it is true, that this law did not leave the head of Nestor Kirchner, the president-but that was created with input a multitude of organizations, political movements, thinkers and academics. However, the intention to introduce this bill to the Parliament at this time is clear, and has been heralded with clarity and self-confidence by pro-government organizations for more than a year: its primary purpose is to break the monopoly of multimedia Clarín, and create a new array of governmental and parastatal resources with fellow entrepreneurs share of political power and state-subsidized NGOs.
problematic articles of the law that were not part of the original nucleus (the notion of an antitrust law to ensure the plurality of communications) only one was deleted: the possibility of acquiring licenses from the phone, or rather the only business group in a position to meet the requirements, Telefonica. And only one was amended in part, and unsatisfactorily, the implementing agency for the license, which went from a clear majority executive automatic a circumstance most likely more scattered.
The process of law was also of dubious quality. The ruling party rushed public hearings, severely limited the discussion in the committees of the House of Representatives, and is preparing to do the same, in a legal maneuver, but rather crude, in the Senate. The draft law had to be read in a few hours, and modifications made to trial. The ruling party used its numerical majority to adamantly deny most of the proposals. The law that determines the fate of media and information in Argentina for years or decades Deputies approved within days.
What about the future of media? Fragmentation does not guarantee the plurality. It is true (and you can easily check by reading the front pages of most newspapers) that there is no plurality or shadings information from existing media groups: all resort to sensationalism, to the maximum scenario ideas and conspiracy to warn the public of the alleged disaster will fall upon the freedom of expression if the bill is passed. Will this change break multimedia? Maybe. But the media hype was not the object of the law, but the plurality of information. The possibility of access to a portion of the radio spectrum or a market segment currently occupied by a large business group does not imply real access.
monopolies exist because there are economies of scale. That does not mean that monopolies are good or tolerable, but puts limits on the chances of a real media pluralism. A small NGO can hardly mount a TV channel with its own funds and keep them with advertising. Even if you do it is difficult to be extended to be an important voice, if he must compete with other media. Inevitably must rely upon the State to solicit funds. The State, moreover, must first enable it to deliver its programming, after review for compliance with the requirements diffuse (and therefore susceptible to arbitrary interpretation and abuse) that raises the law. The State, therefore, granted permission to operate and finance radio and TV, and print media of various small organizations, who will now have a sword of Damocles constantly on their heads.
The State, or rather, the license enforcement authority in fact controlled by the government in charge of the State is not required "plurality." How can we demand? Every government has a particular ideology, explicitly or not, and their representatives in the inspection body will respond, surely it. What is today celebrated by the center, tomorrow may be your nightmare. (Who writes this is considered left and is well aware that right, as Peronist-populist, almost certainly win the next election, due largely to discredit the Kirchner has brought progressive ideas.)
If the reader
it will mean to disqualify a law because it was driven by a corrupt and authoritarian as that of Kirchner, try to think so: a law, especially a law as fundamental as this, can not be temporary, should be applicable to all conceivable circumstances immediately . If a law allows, under the worst-case scenario (the advent of a neo-fascist party in power, say), censorship and closure of opposition media outlets, then it is a bad law. Even dictatorships, if not from a revolution, prefer to work with the established legal mechanisms, "bending" the law. This law of media is notorious for weak points where any government can "fold." A law that explicitly adhere scrupulously and democratic principles does not guarantee that these principles are met, but a botched law with loopholes that raise legitimate questions is an invitation to the violation of those principles.
Step one last comment more personal. At first I was angry because the Socialists (the party they come from voting in local and national level for years) stamped their approval vote of the law. It is true that it was mainly the socialists who pushed for and helped change the two key points of the law those who had qualified his affirmative vote. Seen this way, else did what they said they would do. I understand the reasons and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, not believe for a moment on allegations of a pact between Kirchner and the socialist government of Hermes Binner in Santa Fe, launched by Carlos Reutemann and seconded by Jorge Obeid. (Little can be understood in ideological coherence Reutemann, who have no known political ideas became the first neoliberal Menem, Kirchner then, after a server field, and now, as it always was-only reutemista, or Obeid, who accompany Menem came to embrace Fidel Castro, Kirchner campaigned happy with and now is, and claims never to have been another thing-a loyal Peronist therefore reutemista, and rabidly anti-Kirchner.)
Ultimately, if the Socialists voted and voted, it was because they saw the glass half full of the Media Act, which others see as half empty or even less. The problem is that the law is not a homogeneous fluid, containing separate parts that could be renovated or removed without damage, if a sensible but firm opposition to do its job. Note that I am speaking on this potential, not past, the law must still pass the Senate. Perhaps there can begin to correct this fiasco that has been long awaited but very little thought media law.