Pro-government group defends Argentina media law

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Pro-government group defends Argentina media law
By VANESSA HAND ORELLANA, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 10 mins ago

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentine journalists, academics and ruling party lawmakers met Monday to challenge the conclusions of an international media group that Latin American leaders are exerting too much control over the press.

Supporters of a controversial new Argentine media law say it will limit monopolies and maintain a diversity of news outlets regardless of wealth. Critics at the annual meeting of the Inter American Press Association in Buenos Aires say it threatens freedom of expression.

"The best response to this chorus of dinosaurs is to push forth our democratic mechanisms," said Luis Lazzaro of the Federal Counsel of Audiovisuals Communication, a state-sponsored organization that regulates local radio and television stations.

Argentina's law, passed last month, preserves two-thirds of the digital spectrum for noncommercial radio and TV stations and gives political appointees a powerful role in granting licenses and regulating content.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_argentina_counter_media

[WriteDown]

1. The money quote

"...gives political appointees a powerful role in granting licenses and regulating content."

[Judi Lynn]

4. That wouldn't be anything like our own Federal Communications Commission, would it?

Your post:

""The money quote..."gives political appointees a powerful role in granting licenses and regulating content.""

From the FCC website:

FCC Commissioners

The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Name a license revoked under Bush or Obama. Just one.

You can't.

[sasquatch]

6. How about all of the media monopolies they refused to regulate

I'm more worried about that than the over thing.

[whoneedstickets]

2. I wish 2/3 of our spectrum was non-commercial

Right now 2/3 seems to be Clear channel.

[boppers]

3. What would our media look like if 2/3rds was controlled by the government?

Under Bush, I'm guessing I would have been a lot like Clear Channel and Fox News combined.

[sasquatch]

7. Well 95% of radio is at least

[Peace Patriot]

8. Argentina has it right, and we had it right at one time, too--then Reagan happened

and we lost the Fairness Doctrine and other regulation of the PUBLIC airwaves--a set of requirements for licenses to use the PUBLIC airwaves that included equal time for opposing political opinions, fair and balanced presentation of news and a commitment to public service. Other regulations banned communications monopolies--preventing a single corporation from buying up large swaths of a communications market or, for instance, simultaneously owning TV, radio and newspaper businesses in the same market. A third pillar of the Fairness Doctrine was public access to the nation's TV/radio airwaves. These regulations were not perfect and did not go far enough, but they were the bulwark that prevented the country from being saturated with corpo-fascist PROPAGANDA, as we are now. They were also very influential on journalistic ethics even in the print media (which wasn't regulated). The notion that a news corporation's advertising and editorial/news departments should be strictly separated pervaded both print and broadcast media.

Two examples of how the Fairness Doctrine system helped promote U.S. democracy are the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and the simultaneous anti-war movement that arose as a result of the horrors in Vietnam. I remember as a young person seeing news footage of Martin Luther King and civil rights activists being fire-hosed and beaten in Alabama, and it's true that "a picture is worth a thousand words." Soon I--a white, fairly privileged California college kid was heading to Alabama to join MLK's voter registration campaign. I remember thinking, "I will not allow this outrage in MY country--the 'land of the free/home of the brave'--of people not being permitted to vote!" The news footage brought it home. And in the case of the Vietnam War, news organizations provided REAL coverage of that war. Unjust war cannot withstand true journalism. The news organizations felt obligated to provide objective coverage of these news stories--to show the American people what was really happening--despite whatever stake its executives might have had in the "established order" which was perpetrating injustice within our own country--in denial of civil rights to black citizens--and conducting a senseless, war profiteering slaughter in Southeast Asia.

What a contrast this is to the recent war on Iraq--during which all corporate news media in this country became cheerleaders for war--and to the on-going struggle for basic human decency that is occurring Latin America--where, again, all corporate news media present nothing but hostile impressions and bullshit lies about the awesome leftist democracy movement that has swept the region.

If today, every corpo-fascist 'news' monopoly were dismantled and banned from our PUBLIC airwaves, "free speech" would be tremendously enhanced. It's not that we would want to ban the "free speech" of the five billionaire fascist assholes who control virtually all news/opinion in the U.S.; no, they can have the same "free speech" as everybody else. This is yet another 'Big Lie' they tell--that the public putting curbs on their monopolies and regulating the airwaves for balance and a wide spectrum of opinion in the pursuit of democracy is a violation of "free speech." It is not. It would be a positive boon to "free speech" and, combined with getting rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines--owned and controlled now by less than a handful of far rightwing corporate billionaires--would go a long way toward restoring our democracy.