, an extract, it would sign no problems (going to say I could have written but it should have the same talent):
What is in the media on the Media Law? Basically, misinformation.
is much talk, too. Little is said, nothing.
We suspect, if we really care what happens and what can happen around us, the missing information, which is ungrudgingly, is censored or not published in the media. But much more still we - and not just because it's easier - to suspect that he suddenly begins to flow like a ceaseless barrage, as a deaf Buzz given to Pavot handle without further argument or doomsday scenarios, too, promises colorful Edens and charms. There is no worse misinformation and subject me tooth and nail to my own opinion, that the excess of information is useless. (...)
Just as it is legitimate to hold that talk and talk about something as necessary corals and so steep, it is also legitimate to question, to suspect (I like "suspect" because mine is not blind faith) about what is spoken and what is said and what he believes. In short: what is the service value of all reporting on the project.
What is bringing out in the discussion of the Media Law is, in my opinion, a kind of discursive script scheduled diametrically varies according to the "camp" where actors militate each other, depending on who pays salary or bonus, depending on where it rains the advertising or the gift of the day. Here's the problem with most of the important political issues - and the media law is like no other, an important issue - which televised debate on democracy, this sort of naval battle whose coordinates are verbs and symbols: the problem is that we end up in arms and eyes around significant wild, empty and pointless (such as "freedom of speech," "human rights" "democracy," "dictatorship", "plurality of voices", "K ") but no one (or few) happens to read verbatim a poor section of law to air and discuss in depth - for days and under many lights - its implications, its possible outcomes, justice or injustice, something that makes "education" of the listener, the so called "ordinary people" who, because he has no other, always talking goose mouth. The goose is the media. (...)
bombarded with institutional Clarín self-pitying and put sockets in TN on "Media Law K" (the "K" kills you.) Your employees (almost pulling rather to "wallpaper") refer to "gag" journalism, the encroachments of the "free speech" and the imminent threat of the "acquired rights." Solá Morales speculated from the plain and from his column in The Nation with the creation of a media holding company owned by Kirchner to come to replace one monopoly for another, while denouncing the scrapping of existing media groups with the non-holy target to subject journalists to topical and "K authoritarian style." When the project does not compare with the policies of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales (vile demons), people like Vila do nothing less than the last military dictatorship. Cobos Macri and wear the shirt and accuse the government of trampling the sanction of the law with a Congress that "it is chosen by the people in the last election" not hesitate to speak of "improvisation" when the law gets changes one of the cameras and accusing certain blocks of members (such as Socialism) to "sell" and "betraying their voters" when, after getting some changes explicitly requested by them, vote for the law. None of these spectacular accusations, conspiracies and apocalyptic scenarios appear never backed the appointment of an article Specifically, with number, section and paragraph of the letter of the law. No article appears to show either the gag or the attack on freedom of expression, or bribe or anything of the submissions.
Across the rhetoric is not necessarily more helpful. National Radio, ATC and Page 12 (scenarios of a more militant speeches - that's the word - in favor of the law) it is assumed that the new project is nothing short of a panacea simply because the current law is a decree issued by a genocidal dictatorship (ignoring the fact that some of the major shortcomings of the current regulations were introduced in democracy). Faced with opposition charges are limited to mock Macri or Cobos (easy target if any), talk about fascism, it's all a lie and you have to take it as who comes, that is, Grupo Clarín. None of these celebrations of joy and hope exalted displayed solved by any citation of the law to clear doubts. Both sides claim to be faithful convinced gallery, leaving key and useful information that could convince many more floating on a cloud.
In essence, we have a duel of symbols in the middle of a problem than symbolic - will incur a somewhat orthodox Marxism - has little or nothing (always big chop chop chop girl and not behind). The law is democratic or not democratic. The law encourages freedom of speech, or threatens it. The law monopolies dismantled or replaced by other even more sinister. The law is made in the image and likeness of the European powers or the image of Venezuela and Cuba. The law is of a people or nefastísimos "K". And so on. Who was able to read the bill and a minimum of technical knowledge on the issues are resolved it with the elements, with effort, to overcome these misleading dichotomies and decide with some knowledge of the facts on which side is the reason, Who will create more and who less (which personally I did). But the aforementioned "Average citizen" who never will read the whole law but ironically is who will compete over everything that is at stake, there is nothing clear and no one says anything. Instead, offer attractively marketed slogans as he goes door to door selling. Thus, there has to be grasped beyond the sympathetic or the degree of identification that PRODUZIR Mirtha Legrand or Sandra Russo, Joaquín Morales Solá or Victor Hugo Morales (each with their moral, let me in time of bad joke) or Cristina Macri , Merkel and Chavez. (...)
Go, read, think and be sure again that more than read to continue the cycle, hopefully more productive than others.
the cordial invitation to the next session of Political and Social Monitoring 2010, which will address the issue of climate change, counting with the participation of:
Carolina Fuentes (Director of Climate Change SEMARNAT),
Beatriz del Valle (Project Leader address climate change in the SMA-GDF), Julio Bracho
Carpizo (IIS) and
Andrés Ávila (FCPyS).
The session will be on Thursday 24 September at 18:00 hours in the lounge Leopoldo Zea. look forward to your presence.
In the comments two posts ago, citing the Federal Educational Policy owner and Communication Planning, Guillermo Mastrini:
A much heard argument is that it is not a law dictatorship since they have made nearly 200 correct it in a democracy. This information has two falsehoods: the first is that the substantive amendments do not exceed the ten (the others are formalities that have no impact), the second is that the repressive nature of the doctrine of national security, the presence of armed forces in directory COMFER subsidiarity of the state, and a centralization of decisions in the executive branch, make a huge force of the law today. Any of these statements do not apply, does not mean that in force or that an agent can not apply.
Another "error" appellant is stating that the enforcement authority every two years may revoke broadcasting licenses. Nowhere stated that possibility. Article 40 of the bill says only that it be reviewed every two years, the maximum number of licenses for a single person or company may have. The distance between this and the other is great.
More confusion has been made in relation the enforcement authority. Throughout the history of broadcasting COMFER Argentina today has depended directly from the Executive. The bill provides that two of its five directors are appointed by political minorities. Instead of incorporating unpublished note is greater pluralism in the enforcement authority, noted their dependence on the executive branch, hiding the current situation, and that most of the projects proposed laws presented by the opposition are less pluralistic than the Executive . No doubt the bill can be improved in relation to the integration of the enforcement authority and powers, but from incorrect information not conducive to walking in that direction.
A fourth "slip" is when it is mentioned that the spectrum would be divided into thirds between the state, private commercial and nonprofit entities. The bill only one third of the spectrum reserved for non-commercial, because otherwise their right to freedom of expression would become abstract by their inability to compete on equal terms with the commercial sector. No specifies that the state should have a third of the spectrum, beyond that you reserve some positions. Yes it is worth mentioning that the president's speech helped to feed the slip, to reiterate this information inaccurate.
I would say with respect to the first point is a law of the dictatorship that has only managed to worsen with the changes that were made in a democracy.
Regarding the third point, Mariano López Parada add a comment below:
Meto a perlite: Yesterday we were in America 24 Daniel Sabsay Mastrini and discussion on the subject. When Sabsay threw it in the enforcement authority, he retorted with this Mastrini you write it up, what the lawyer (the only constitutionalist in the agenda of producers) said, "but the BBC is independent of political power ..." "Do not mistake implementing authority by public transport," he answered our teacher. In short: bullshit few say when you ask for examples of what they are saying.
And on the second, I add: UCR yesterday explained the reasons for his opposition to the law. Among them mentioned ... the old theme of the review every two years, explained that does not mean that they can get licenses but also of what he says Mastrini, is made for the media do not end up taking up more room in which spectrum could occupy, removing to new signals when technological advances allow more than one place where there are now one. And worst of all is that, to leave no doubt this, the wording of the article was changed on request!
round up what he says in another note Mastrini:
One of the positive aspects of the debate that has been installed is that the arguments against the broadcasting law have left the caves. It seems that the untiring no longer enough to move from the big media lobbyists in the halls of Congress, or even direct calls to legislators when voting or commission offices, as has happened regularly since 1983. In front of the debate and the social consciousness of the importance of democratic control of information, the enemies of the broadcasting law have had no forced to deploy a battery of public arguments against its passage.
(...) Now that the arguments of the enemies of public law are more interesting to analyze how their lines of argument have varied between governments and political situations. In what has not changed is its constant opposition to punish democratic regulatory framework, which impedes the discretion of the enforcement authority and private agreements with the authorities.
will take two cases as examples. The bill is audio visual services for the mainstream media, the law "K" to control the media. Rarely, no in the Clarin group, is given the floor to those in favor of revising the legal framework. All social groups, unions, academics and politicians who support the project are labeled as ultra K unqualified. But it is not new. During the government of Raul Alfonsin highly respected today, the Council for the Consolidation of Democracy (COCODE), developed at the request of the president a bill. The arguments of the media employers grouped in the Business of Independent Media (CEMCI) stigmatized the project as an attack on freedom of expression and lobby congressmen and senators to avoid penalty. The CEMCI is incubated and maintained suprapatronal by the Clarin group. The COCODE was a multi-party agency were represented the major political forces of the moment. Yesterday in front of a draft consensus emerged today at a breast of civil society and drafted by the government, the enemies of the broadcasting law reform argue that the dictatorship of law is an attack on freedom of expression.
Another argument is recurrently screams convenience of waiting for the new parliament, which would be the true representatives of the people and hence the greater legitimacy to legislate. Exhaust the efforts of several days of investigation outlining the hundreds of laws passed since 1983 in the time lag between elections and the inauguration of the new parliament. Of these we will mention one, which radically transformed the Argentine media system. In August 1989, after the fall of Alfonsin, but before I assume the elected members, parliament passed emergency laws and Economic Reform, known as Dromi laws. In one of his articles are removed the impediment to the owners of print media may be licensees of broadcast media. Since this change could become the Clarín Group. In this way, it would be risky to note that enacted the Audiovisual Communication Services would have the same legitimacy home to all media groups that exist in Argentina. Unless you use a criterion when the process favors and another as a disadvantage. The enemies of the broadcasting law does not seem to have noticed such detail.
Like any project or any law, the Audiovisual Communication Services can and should be improved. That should be the task of parliament. The project presented is an appropriate basis for discussion with hitherto unknown elements in broadcasting Argentina as the presence of political minorities on the boards of the enforcement authority and the national system of public transport. Its design is based on criteria of freedom of expression rights settled in human, far exceeding the authoritarian tendencies of the law of the current dictatorship. Which the enemies of the broadcasting law seek to maintain.
Let's start with some videos of the debate was in college when he showed up, some months ago, the draft Law on Audiovisual Communication Services to see some of the comments, support and had raised objections at the time and get a perspective on how the process evolved:
Levenberg:
Mangone:
Aguiar:
Pereyra:
Almost all are interesting and important points . Do not miss the moment, as suggested by Levenberg. Nor why, says Mangone, accept that to decentralize half has to focus one on behalf of the plurality, or believe that the ruling party suddenly turned into what has never been, and that the critical mass that has been generated these themes is careful not to stay in declaiming of the law but rather know that for what it claims is effected objective factors are necessary. To welcome the initiative but concentrate on the articles and to improve laburar specifically, as does Aguiar. And to be clear, as Pritchard says, that the adoption of this law will not ensure that media content into something very different from what we know.
few months later, I think we are in a position to say that the project has improved in some way presented here, especially from the deletion of text allowed to enter the triple play of telephone, without which I think reasonably, taking into account that the antitrust law is declared and decentralized, and yet here was the other way, "many were reluctant to support what was as it was. (Although the argument that with this resolution avoids the problem of how to adapt the regulatory framework in this new technology, which may be true)
This post was being written a couple of days, saying that if the ruling flexible enough to some key points would ensure the approval of the project-a project that would become and arguably better than the law that governs today, in both chambers. Cited, but not completely coincide, since in fact is someone with whom I disagree on a few things, something Roberto said on his blog Gargarella :
in 2005, culminating Mastrini the book, saying: "The story covered in this book demonstrates that if a number of sectors of civil society (...) do not start the debate by forcing those responsible politicians to assume it will be very difficult for this process arises by mere will of the people they purport to represent in the Congress of the Nation. "
Today, that pressure and installation process of the debate seems to have ended, at least for the members of the Coalition by 21 points. However, and as consistent as representatives from different sectors and Sanchez Donda, the law shows serious inconsistencies with 21P.
I want to point out three of these inconsistencies related to section 3 (regardless of media), point 6 (no concentration) and section 12 (public media organizations). I invite you to read the original draft of the executive, which contains an interesting foundation that includes the list of the 21 points and a brief explanation of how the law would meet. The unprejudiced reader will find, I think, that the official responses to the points mentioned are weak.
Point 3 and point 12 may be treated simultaneously. The bill creates enforcement authorities and directors of public media are the sole executive orbit, which means (without any control of Congress) to the majority of its members. The Government argues that the principle 3 which requires 'independence' is satisfied with a picture of control, such as the Public Defender. Does an independent enforcement authority, with varied composition and within the scope of Congress it would be better to ensure the independence of the media than just a monitoring body? The Government also fails to mention one of the claims of principle 3: the arbitrary official with publishers and subsidies. If the law does not regulate this area, the top 3 is not satisfied.
economic relations the state and the media (which go far beyond advertising) are the main source of pressure from the state to small and medium media, the majority in much of the interior. It is in these economic relations where lies the greatest violation of the right to information of citizens: the challenge is to make the State and the media are left to scratch their backs, and this law does not.
Of course, no law can force a medium to be independent and practice journalism seriously. But at least we can create incentives to do so and remove disincentives. The law, as it is, it creates no incentive to exercise independent journalism, but on the contrary, maintains the existing disincentives. Think of an owner of a Buenos Aires daily either a city: Is it fair to criticize the authorities if they can be punished with the withdrawal of funds that allow you to survive? The obvious response disclaims me explicit.
With regard to point 6, which calls to avoid the concentration, the project is also poor. Why is it necessary to allow the entry of the telephone? Can not bind to the telephone networks to other providers not mega millionaires as they can provide triple play services and compete with cable? It opens the door and they set limits, but why is it opens the door first? If you like, as they say, prevent monopolies or mergers, why input is given to two companies that are behind two (Telefónica) and three (Telecom) times wider than the Clarín Group? Do these companies will be less of a threat to small cable operators in the interior than it was a group Clarin unleashed by every president since Charles M. to Nestor K.?
I want the ruling party explain why it is necessary to open the game to the phone. I am most interested in hearing the justification for antitrust arguments. I hope sitting, eating popcorn. These
considerations lead me to the last point, related to the Government's intention. Victoria Donda disagreed and deemed unnecessary to analyze the government's intentions because she is not a psychologist, you have to read the law, period. Sanchez did not think to look to those intentions is to get the view of elefantazo there in the room (ie: the prompt sale of Telecom, the acquisition of Telecom by businessmen friends who can go shopping at shopping juicy remaining media after the devolution process that the proposed law).
think I'm interested in the position where, because I think it is that many members left, some well-meaning pro-government and the Coalition 21P. Today the law is punishable closer than ever: who knows the history of broadcasting in Argentina knows, however, may fail. The scenario posed is of type 'now or never. "
I understand the fear but do not agree: if the law is debated adequately without haste and earnestly acted, the ruling will collect many adheciones much of the opposition.
I say "much of the opposition" is an exaggeration, but perhaps could be corrected in a way that does not change too much the conclusion, saying that "the ruling would collect sufficient adherence to the law is approved." I also believe that the law could be approved after December, but do not see why not do it now and save the risk of change in the composition of the chamber and recess until April (at 7 months, the stars are aligned today -and make the FPV want this law almost evenly and also have to take the initiative to do so "may well become misaligned), this is drawers.
If this happens for next year, the law would be discussed at a conference with the following numbers:
(figures taken from here and here )
Deputies:
PJ / FPV and allies : 118 Opposition : 128
Sabatella / Solanas / Lozano / SI: 10
Senators:
PJ / FPV and allies: 36
Opposition: 36
anyone see these figures and say there is a tie in the two cameras! Once again law breaker Cobos and bounces!
Not so.
The key here is that as "opposition" has a very diverse group, including a few potential allies, for this law, with those changes, would vote with the government.
enumerate:
"The two senators from Tierra del Fuego, also owe all the graces necessary to ruling until the approval of the modification of electronic import tariffs to encourage industry to Tierra del Fuego. With the members of this force is the same.
"Senator (Giustiniani) and Members of the Socialist Party, who voted in favor of, for example, the nationalization of the AFJPs, is said to have supported measures so-called" progressive "government, and have also said would support this bill with some changes. (The same goes for the South Project, with the difference that the latter also voted for such re-nationalization of airlines)
Augsburger, head of the socialist bloc deputies said: "We we are opposed to the exception in the official bill for the telecommunications companies to acquire licenses for TV. But now let's define what position we will take if the government does not adjust that item. First go to the debate. " Then the PS was decided not to support the project without changes. But with the changes it would do, which supports the thesis Gargarella ...
And we must add two traditional allies Artepolítica's post does not count:
-Mario Jorge Collazo (Federalist Unity, Tierra del Fuego)-voted for the 125, for example, Ana Maria Corradi of Beltrán (Santiago Viable Movement)-ditto-
So we would have 41 senators. 4 most of which are needed. And ensuring a good bill that did not open the door to groups that already have more power than Clarín.
Of course, the problem remains as always: legislators elected by the FPV are perfectly able to stop supporting this (or other) progressive law for various reasons (with Cobos, who makes the need of 36 senators up to 37 at the head). According
Artemio Lopez, were in doubt the two senators from Chubut and the two of San Juan.
Das Neves, governor of Chubut, whose senators voted for the final bill for the government, the extent of the powers delegated to the executive, recently said he saw a component of "revenge" on the project, which is not a very encouraging sign, but this seems to be reversing during the debate in committees, with some changes proposed by the deputies Chubut FPV accept block, which also in theory should vote yes senators Das Neves, and perhaps magically the law to pass the governor's eyes be a sign of bloody revenge seventies and sarasa sarasa an example of democratization of sarasa sarasa voices and otherwise.
De San Juan does not know much, but it is also negotiable issue I have seen a good talking Gioja the idea that there is a new law.
But there are more people of FPV "in doubt": Senator William Jenefes, owner of a TV channel a few FMs AM in Jujuy, also wants some "modification". Guess the reader if they have to do with A) the participation of indigenous peoples B) the level of federal law C) take care of your business ensuring that any restrictions on the concentration of licenses in the same geographical area affecting them .
Five in doubt, but with both of Das Neves favor would lead to 38, and if that's what we add some (not all) of the Civic Coalition could roll over the changes and vote, post approval December -10 seems viable. All this, provided that the FPV accept changes that, in general, sounded reasonable.
Well, yesterday, he took one of them, and here we are. Good thing he did quickly, thereby increasing the chances that the law comes before December, and in general, it comes out.
What is almost guaranteed is that the law will have the initial approval of MPs. Almost all blocks of the center had called for substantial changes, generating anger from the Kirchner calling for bowing to the new project and declared to be in favor of it before discussing it. In this link, for example, you can see some of the alternatives proposed by South Project (public service broadcasting and not merely in the public interest as state property spectrum, definition of "nonprofit entity" to exclude foundations dependent on other entities that are themselves so as not to strain in the third of the spectrum reserved for them, a law enforcement rather than the existence, democratization of decision making and regionalization of communication, similar to what I mentioned Mangone-video in, and mainly what the phone). I think that once I got the phone and some other partial reforms, it is reasonable, while trying to change everything they can until the last moment to vote when the time comes, as it seems they will do, but seems a shame not to get things as foundations in the third of the non-profit (yes, however, ensures that there will not be allowed under other foundations, media and Noble Foundation and Telefónica).
The Senate, it was known, is more complicated. Will have to see how it works Socialist Party Members from these changes, because there we can figure out what will Giustiniani in the Senate. The Chubut, if I have to bet, say they'll vote for, but not safe. What I wonder is whether or not the ruling party should ensure that these votes are agreeing dance changes with them before leaving members (Das Neves suspect that they have done, anyway). In the version of this post I was writing yesterday said that if the ruling party really wanted to leave the law, would have to accept changes such as taking orders for telephone and in any case, leave those who were offside lying to say that these were obstacles to pass the bill. And either because they were not given the numbers or because they found that they numbered in terms of image, made with respect to the main point. If you do nothing, I think, is because the numbers are already out and the law.
We 
