Western coverage distorts Argentina’s media law
By Ramiro Funez | NACLA | January 28, 2014
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is currently battling allegations of corruption, and when Argentina’s Supreme Court upheld in October a media law that takes on press monopolies while promoting diversity in media ownership, journalists in the English-speaking North covered it as a blow to press freedom.
The Audiovisual Services Act, originally introduced by Kirchner in 2009, replaced the Radio Broadcasting Law of 1980, put in place by the military regime that ruled the country from 1976 to 1983. The junta used the 1980 law, which promoted the corporatization of news information, to speed up the privatization and monopolization of media in Argentina after independently reported stories undermined military rule, according to the Argentine Information Secretariat’s 1981 report, Argentine Radio: Over 60 Years on the Air
Although the return of constitutional rule in 1983 granted journalists more political freedoms, it largely ignored economic ones. Even after the collapse of the military dictatorship, the 1980 law allowed wealthy business owners, many of whom had been sympathetic to the regime and its pro-market stance, to dominate journalism in Argentina.
Clarín, founded in 1945 and today one of Argentina’s most recognized daily newspapers, fared well throughout the junta’s administration, eventually surpassing the sales of its main competitor, Papel Prensa. In 1999, the newspaper’s publisher reorganized itself as Grupo Clarín, managing to acquire over 200 newspapers and several cable systems across the country to become Argentina’s largest corporate media organization (Reuters, 10/32912). The organization currently has a market share of 47 percent and holds 158 licenses (Financial Times, 10/29/2013).
The Kirchner-backed media law places limits on the size of media conglomerates in an attempt to diversify ownership of news distribution: media companies will now be limited to a maximum of 35 percent of overall market share. The new law also imposes a national limit of 24 broadcast licenses per company, meaning the group will have to sell off dozens of operating licenses or have them auctioned by the state (Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/13).
Many Western reporters covering Argentina, however, dismiss the danger of concentrated corporate control of journalism, instead focusing on the perceived danger that government regulation of media could silence political opposition—echoing claims made by Grupo Clarín and other private conservative organizations.
U.S. news stories covering the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the media law tended to read like press releases for Grupo Clarín, leading with the consequences it will have on the monolithic media conglomerate. That angle was an easy sell to corporate news outlets that have an interest in focusing on governmental limits on journalism without discussing the problems of a privatized, highly concentrated news market.
The Washington Post (11/1/13), for example, headlined its editorial on the topic “In Argentina, a Newspaper Under Siege,” presenting Grupo Clarín as the victim of a governmental attempt to silence opposition. “Sadly, however, Ms. Fernández and her cronies still pose a threat to the country’s democratic institutions,” the Post wrote:
That became clear Tuesday, when the Argentine Supreme Court, under heavy pressure from the president’s office, upheld a law aimed at destroying one of South America’s most important media firms, Grupo Clarín.
The company operates one of Argentina’s biggest newspapers, called Clarín, which has been one of the few media outlets to challenge Ms. Fernández’s policies. The law would force the company to auction off cable television and Internet businesses that provide most of its revenue, thus reducing potential funding for Clarín’s newsroom.
The article victimizes Grupo Clarín, giving readers the impression the Argentine government established the limits with the intentions of “destroying” the group. Yet the Post fails to mention that the United States also has a history of issuing similar outlet restrictions, like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that placed a 35 percent limit on market ownership. Although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) raised that limit to 45 percent in 2003 during a private reevaluation, the agency still has the power to regulate media ownership.
The Post editorial board also linked the media law to Kirchner’s attempts to nationalize major companies in other industries, including travel and energy, saying that she and her late husband, whom she succeeded as president, have sought to “concentrate power in their own hands.”
The Wall Street Journal (11/5/13) chimed in:
In the past few years, the government has shifted nearly all its public advertising money to media outlets that provide it with positive coverage—a move the Supreme Court has condemned, to little effect… Leading newspapers like Clarín and La Nación also say they are suffering from an ad boycott orchestrated by the government—an allegation the government denies.
The Journal ignores the fact that the Kirchner administration continues to direct public advertising to smaller conservative media groups within the Association of Argentine Journalism (CITE); diversified media ownership, rather than ideology or partisan affiliation, is the criterion for government subsidy. Despite the fact that there is an alleged “ad boycott orchestrated by the government,” both Grupo Clarín and La Nación continue to receive more revenue from private advertisers than any other media outlet in Argentina, according to a 2011 report published by the Comisión Nacional de Comunicaciones.
The Associated Press (11/4/13), reporting on Grupo Clarín’s recent decision to break itself up into six parts in order to comply with the law, presented the legislation as little more than a politically motivated attack on one corporation:
The licenses are essential to Clarin’s cable television networks, and synergy between the finances and news content of the group’s TV and radio stations, websites and newspaper are key to its power. Many government supporters want nothing less than Clarín’s defenestration as a viable opponent.
The Associated Press’s framing in the aforementioned article takes the side of Grupo Clarín: They write that Clarín’s unregulated licenses are “key to its power” without airing arguments against the corporate consolidation of public news information. They also make the assumption that Kirchner constituents “want nothing less than Clarín’s defenestration” without providing quotes from pro-media regulation activists in Argentina aside from government officials.
And the Miami Herald (10/23/13) published a column by Roger Noriega of the American Enterprise Institute, formerly of the George W. Bush State Department. Noriega argued that the law was aimed at “silencing the independent media” and that nothing less than “the fate of the free press” was at issue. “Of course, it is all too predictable that these divested media licenses will fall into the hands of compliant Kirchner cronies,” wrote Noriega. “This transparent tactic is lifted from the playbook of leftist caudillos in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and elsewhere.”
A quick sift through Noriega’s column reveals that his definition of “independent media” elides the dependency that media organizations like Grupo Clarín and La Nación have on funding from private corporations that have personal profit-making agendas—a dependency that forces both groups to embrace the political ideologies of their sponsors in order to maintain steady revenue. A truly “independent media” would be free of both government and corporate domination. It is also evident that his notions of a “free press” are founded upon free-market, neoliberal principles, championing corporate domination of political news coverage. His tactic of utilizing the term “free press” in correlation with unregulated, monopolized, and corporatized news media seems to hail straight from the playbook of McCarthyist lexicon, to borrow a few words from his comparison.
Overall, corporate journalistic monopolization and the concentration of news media is more of a threat to press freedom in Argentina than government regulation is. The domination of public discourse by media groups with private, corporate interests is dangerous to readers who are oftentimes unaware of the advertising revenue models of organizations like Grupo Clarín; in its obligations to maximize profits, it has strategic incentive to promote the interests of its commerical sponsors rather than the people of Argentina searching for objective news coverage.
Many Western journalists have painted Kirchner as an authoritarian leader desperate for control over news coverage in order to maintain a positive image, without realizing that in modern times, media ownership is just as influential as government suppression of speech. While many conservative Argentines have blindly sided with groups like Grupo Clarín in criticizing the government’s large advertising presence in news organizations that are friendly with the incumbent administration, they have failed to recognize that there is a difference in advertising intentions and content between the Kirchner administration and private corporations: the former publicizes information about social welfare programs available to citizens, while the latter promotes products whose profits benefit the small percentage of Argentines who have seemingly little at stake in quality social programming.
The Supreme Court of Argentina and the Kirchner administration have recognized that progressive interpretations of freedom of speech include democratic and popular control over mass information and national discourse. They have also recognized the need for public diversity in media ownership that fosters economic freedoms within journalism, allowing any citizen, regardless of ideology and economic background, to have just as amplified of an opinion as a corporate news organization does—all without violating political rights.
Organizations that have claimed otherwise, or that echo the cries of victimization made by Grupo Clarín, fail to analyze alternative qualities of freedom of speech.
Ramiro S. Fúnez is a Honduran-American political journalist and activist earning his master’s degree in politics at New York University. Follow him on Twitter at @RamiroSFunez.
Related article

US Congress calls for sanctions against Argentina over growing Iran ties
Press TV – July 15, 2013
Members of the US Congress have called for the imposition of sanctions against Argentina over its growing ties with Iran and Buenos Aires’ bid for joint investigations with Tehran into the 1994 AMIA Jewish center bombing.
In a letters to US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Attorney General Eric Holder, the Congressmen cited growing economic and diplomatic relations between Iran and Argentina as grounds for slapping sanctions against Buenos Aires.
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and Argentina to probe the bombing at the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) was cited as another reason to take action against Buenos Aires.
The July 10 letter to Kerry said the US Congressmen found it “extremely troubling” that Argentina had agreed to a joint effort with Iran to investigate the AMIA bombing, which left 85 people dead.
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and his Argentinean counterpart, Hector Timerman signed the MoU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on January 27.
Under intense political pressure from the US and Israel, Argentina had previously accused Iran of having carried out the bomb attack. The Islamic Republic has categorically denied any involvement in the terrorist bombing.
Earlier in July, Washington reacted fiercely when Argentina prevented AMIA case special prosecutor Alberto Nisman from taking part in a US Congress meeting to level allegations against Iran.
Nisman had collected a 500-page indictment in which he accused the Islamic republic of “infiltrating” regional countries to spread an “intelligence network”.
In a letter personally addressed to Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, American lawmakers expressed disappointment over the veto of Nisman’s visit to the US Congress and questioned the “veracity” of the South American country’s intentions to probe the 1994 AMIA attack through the MoU with Iran.
Related article
Argentina should be self-sufficient in energy in five/six years says YPF
MercoPress | March 18, 2013
Argentina’s energy self-sufficiency can be expected in five to six years said Miguel Galuccio, CEO of YPF, the oil and gas corporation which was nationalized a year ago when the government of President Cristina Fernandez seized a 51% majority from Spain’s Repsol.
CEO Miguel Galuccio is hoping to develop the Vaca Muerta shale deposits CEO Miguel Galuccio is hoping to develop the Vaca Muerta shale deposits
“We can think of recovering self-sufficiency in oil and gas in 5 to 6 years”, said Galuccio who pointed out that “much depends on planning, an investment plan and putting all our energy to substitute all we are purchasing now with local energy which will be far cheaper”.
YPF is planning to invest 5bn dollars in “exploration and production of gas and oil” said Galuccio. “We need to transform those reserve resources so that they become exploitable. In 2013 we are planning to drill 113 wells to generate the sufficient scale production so that it becomes profitable”.
“If we can manage to exploit Vaca Muerta we can think of a 20/25 year horizon in reserves” he added in reference to the non conventional shale oil reserves in the province of Neuquen considered some of the largest in the world.
However despite the long path to self sufficiency that lies ahead, Galuccio said that YPF has managed to stop the decline of production after several years. According to YPF crude production last year was up 2.2% compared to a downfall of 7.6% in 2011, while gas production was down 2.3% compared to a contraction of 10.2% in 2011.
YPF that has announced a long term investment of 7bn dollars annually from 2013 to 2017 is currently under the Argentine government control since las May when Congress approved a bill nationalizing 51% of Repsol shares, which nevertheless retains 12% of the current package.
Argentine president defends AMIA deal with Iran
Tehran Times | March 3, 2013
TEHRAN – Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has defended an agreement between Iran and Argentina to set up an international “truth commission” to investigate the bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) building in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people, the Buenos Aires Herald reported on Friday.
Fernandez has said, “My commitment with this case is to know the truth, not only what happened abroad but what happened here too. I want to know who were the ones to cover up, to hide evidence; I deserve to know it as an Argentinean and the victims and their families deserve it too.”
According to the report, she has also condemned the “complicity” of Jewish community leaders in the AMIA attack.
Argentina’s Congress approved an agreement with Iran to probe the AMIA bombing on Thursday.
The two governments signed a memorandum of understanding in January on how to deal with the attack in which Argentine court authorities have accused a number of Iranians of involvement. Iran has denied any link to the bombing.
The pact signed with Tehran has been criticized by Israel and Jewish groups, who fear it could end up weakening the case against Iran. They also see it as a diplomatic victory for Iran.
The agreement stipulates that a commission – made up of five foreign legal experts – will outline plans for Argentine judicial officials to travel to Tehran to question Iranians accused of having links to the attack.
Commission members will analyze the documents presented by both nations’ judicial authorities and “issue a report containing recommendations on how to proceed with the case” according to the memorandum.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez had previously said it could shed new light on the case after years of deadlock.
Fernandez has close ties with other Latin American leaders who are on good terms with Tehran, such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
Her supporters have hailed the memorandum of understanding as a historic opportunity.
Argentina’s Senate also approved the agreement last week.
Related articles
Argentine president “shaken” by AMIA attack warning
Pagina 12* | February 9, 2013
President Cristina Fernández Kirchner said she was “shaken” by the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) President Guillermo Borger’s statement yesterday that the memorandum of understanding which Argentina signed with Iran to bring clarification to the 1994 bombing of the Jewish center “would give rise to a third attack.”
Through Twitter, the president asked “what is it that you know to (make) such a terrible statement?” and she considered that “the people and the Judiciary should and deserve to know what (he) knows.”
Yesterday, when asked about the agreement, which as of Wednesday will be debated by three Senate committees, Borger warned that “to advance in the agreement is to open the door to a third attack, it would be total submission.” The review was in line with the president of the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA), Julio Schlosser, who also rejected the memorandum and considered the official text lacking in the “clarity that the cause deserves.”
In a series of messages on her Twitter account, president Fernández went on to question Borger’s claims and asked: “If a terrorist attack did occur because of Argentina’s agreement with Iran, who would be the intellectual and physical mastermind?”
She added: “It’s clear that it could never be the signatory countries. Could it be those who have rejected the agreement? Countries, people, or intelligence services? Who?”
President Fernández said that she considers Borger to be “a respectable person” but nevertheless said she read his statements “with great concern.” For this reason she said that “the Argentine people in general and the Judiciary in particular should and deserve to know what you know Guillermo Borger,” to have made that warning.
* Translation by Aletho News
Related articles
US State Department condemns Argentine expropriation of YPF Oil Company
Press TV – April 20, 2012
The US has joined Spain and Britain in condemning Argentina’s expropriation of the Spanish-owned oil and gas company, YPF, Press TV reports.
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner condemned Argentina’s nationalization of the oil company, saying his country views the act with negativity.
Toner also warned that the move would ultimately hurt Argentina’s economy.
However, the Argentine government has responded firmly to the criticism, arguing that the decision was taken based on the country’s national interests.
“The project aims at certain states’ rules to lead a strategic company. We do not govern on behalf of the US and the Spanish people,” Argentine Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo said.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has slammed the company for failing to re-invest in local oil and gas production, which forced Buenos Aires to pay more than USD 9 billion to import fuel last year.
On Monday, Fernandez announced the decision to reclaim YPF, which was formerly a state-owned Argentine oil company, at a meeting with her cabinet and provincial governors. She said that Argentina had to take back the oil company since it is the only nation in Latin America “that does not manage its natural resources.”
The move to declare YPF Gas a public utility by taking 51 percent of its shares is an extension of the takeover of YPF Oil Company, the major subsidiary of Repsol.
Repsol President Antonio Brufau said on Tuesday that the company would take legal action against Argentina, seeking compensation of about $10 billion.
Meanwhile, the Spanish government has also criticized the move by claiming that Argentina is taking a risk of becoming “an international pariah” if it takes control of the YPF, in which Repsol has a 57.4 percent stake.
Related articles
- Argentina to nationalize Spanish owned oil firm (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- Argentina seeks Petrobras collaboration in YPF (theglobeandmail.com)
Argentina to nationalize Spanish owned oil firm
Press TV – April 16, 2012
The Argentine government says it will present a bill to the country’s senate for the nationalization of the YPF oil company which is owned by Spanish firm Repsol.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said on Monday that the bill would allow the government to expropriate 51 percent of YPF shares, while the country’s oil producing provinces would get 49 percent.
“This president is not going to answer any threat, is not going to respond to any sharp remark, is not going to echo the disrespectful or insolent things said,” Fernandez said.
YPF has been under heavy pressure from the Argentine government over the past two months for not investing enough in the country’s oil fields.
The move has already been criticized by the Spanish government. Spanish officials say Argentina risks becoming “an international pariah” if it takes control of the YPF, in which Repsol has a 57.4 percent stake.
Spain is Argentina’s largest foreign investor and YPF is Argentina’s biggest oil company.
Related articles
- Repsol YPF ups Argentine shale deposit potential (seattletimes.nwsource.com)




