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 .
(as bonus track, is worth mentioning that the man is the driver of a project that seeks to censor internet users , a jewel of democracy communications no doubt)
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment