The Broadcast Media Law, once the star of the political debate, is absent in the campaign
Kirchnerites celebrate outside Congress after the Broadcast Media Law was declared constitutional in October 2013.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Six years and one day ago the Broadcast Media Law was passed, but the anniversary was hardly mentioned by the leading swords in the country. A star issue during Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) two mandates, it is absent in the current campaign, which represents a symptomatic fact since the implementation of the law will be a matter of the coming government to take office on December 10.
When consulted about the media law, the presidential candidates elude definitions. Daniel Scioli (FpV) states that he will respect the pending decisions in the courts and, only then, he is ready to enforce the legislation. No further details. His main rival, the conservative Mauricio Macri (Let’s Change), considers the media law an authoritative Kirchnerite weapon created “to silence the press.” Throughout these years, the BA City mayor has been in full harmony with the Clarín Group’s — one of the biggest Latin American media conglomerates and the one which will be the most affected if the law is implemented — allegations. However, should he reach the Pink House, Macri will not enjoy a majority in Congress to repeal the law, which could work as a perfect argument for extending the current limbo. A couple of administrative interpretations within the AFSCA media watchdog (whose head, Martín Sabbatella, will leave the office if he is elected BA province vice-governor on October 25) will be enough to keep things in the mess of indefinitions.
Meanwhile, the team of dissident Peronist Sergio Massa (who introduced a draft of the law when he was Cabinet chief to CFK) claims that the Media Law became obsolete even before it came into effect due to the framework imposed by new technologies. No details emerge from the Renewal Front either. Among the other presidential hopefuls, Margarita Stolbizer (Progressives) generally agrees with Macri’s accusations — even though she considers that the media market should be “democratized”— while Trotskyist Nicolás del Caño slams the implementation of a law that otherwise he considers insufficient to end with the concentration.
The text of the law overcame all the challenges in courts only two years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional by six votes to one. Using legislative standards based on the ones from European countries and the United States, Argentina’s Broadcast Media Law is a rarity in Latin America. Neither the status quo that consolidates the media power concentrated in local elites (Brazil, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Colombia) nor a twist that opens the door to some form of state control of the press (Venezuela, Ecuador), the principles included in the law gave the Kirchners an unexpected credit in universities, international institutions (UN, OAS) and NGOs (Reporters Without Borders, journalists’ unions). The dissent mainly focussed on technical aspects or practicalities, but no qualms about the freedom of expression were recorded. Thus, the government of CFK found its main symbolic victory against Clarín, when this group failed to muster the solidarity of any relevance beyond business chambers and its political partners.
The government’s success in the argumentative plane collided with the failed implementation of the the law. On the one hand, the law was fully applicable only from 2013, given Clarín’s successes to force delays in the courts. But the other half of the — so far — failure of the law falls on the national government, which conducted an erratic and arbitrary implementation that took away not only symbolic but also factual authority. Over a year ago, when the countdown to the end of the CFK mandate had already begun, the discussion became bogged down again in the courts.
Last week, Clarín struck back. Taking part in a meeting of media owners in Charleston (USA), the Organization of American States (OAS) special rapporteur for freedom of expression, Edison Lanza, gave the media group an unexpected endorsement. Lanza, an Uruguayan, called for a legislative amendment on the Argentine Media Law because — he said — it was drafted to harm Clarín. In fact, the Argentine law stipulates limits on market share which exist in many advanced democracies, but it is a symptom of the times that the group has managed to break the relative isolation in which it found itself.
Whoever wins, it should not be assumed that the law will be repealed, as Clarín sources admit. Relations between governments and media groups come and go, so it would be a rare case of self-harm if an administration decides to give up a legal tool that could redraw the market.
@sebalacunza