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 Instead of incorporating unpublished note is greater pluralism in the enforcement authority, noted their dependence on the executive branch, hiding the current situation, and that most of the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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment