President of Argentina Under Fire For Breaking Up Fox-Like Media Group: Clarin

Clarin claims that the government has set out to gag the media, to shut them up on account of unwanted criticism. However, Sen. Nicolas Fernandez, a supporter of the bill (and no relation to the president) pointed out that nothing in the new bill regulates content.

(PATAGONIA, Argentina) - If you think Barack Obama has trouble with Fox News, President Cristina Fernandez of Argentina has more trouble with Clarin, the biggest media group in Argentina. Like Fox in the US, Clarin has taken its role as watchdog very seriously.

Clarin has used its numerous TV and radio and newspaper outlets to toss charges of corruption and stupidity at a government that it is bitterly ideologically opposed to.

The relationship between the Argentine media giant and its government may be oddly similar to the current Fox /Obama debate, but the government’s response in Argentina is quite different. Rather than politely criticizing oppositional media as biased, President Fernandez has played hardball.

Everyone knows that what makes media criticism effective is size. With enough stations and newspapers pounding away at the same themes round the clock, the public tends to believe the country is being run straight to hell by a gang of idiots.

The Argentine government’s solution to that problem has been to cut the big media giants down to size. Thus, the Argentine senate just passed a law that reduces the number of outlets that one media corporation can control and re-allocates broadcast licenses to a broader variety of groups, both public and private.

Is this government control or democratization of the media? It depends on who you ask.

Clarin can still claim that the government is corrupt and illegitimate without fear of censorship. What Clarin cannot do, Fernandez advised, is speak as loudly as it did before. Since its number of licenses will be reduced, the Clarin message will no longer dominate the public airwaves.

The government plans to set up a commission something like the FCC in the US that will allocate and renew broadcast rights on a proportional basis. So many will be alloted to private media groups, so many to public interest organizations and the rest to local community radio and TV. The folks at many local public interest organizations see this as a democratization of the media.

The old law, they say, came about during the military dictatorship in the 70’s and simply allowed the government to sell off licenses to the higest bidder. This free market approach had put the media in the hands of those with the free cash to buy it and government intervention now could return the airwaves to the people.

Foreign media groups like Bloomberg and Reuters have characterized Argentina’s new law as anti-business. Clarin and Uno, Argentina’s other big media group, will have to divest under the new law.

Radio and TV outlets and newspapers will have to be sold and the only legal buyers will be community groups who lack the cash to pay a fair price. Foreign media groups are prohibited under this law from buying up Argentine airwaves. Clarin and Uno will not only be quieter but will be a lot poorer.

This new law was pushed through a lame-duck congress that is due to be replaced by a new more conservative body in January. Media giants opposed to it have vowed to get the next congress to rescind the law before this change can get off the ground.

Should that effort fail, they will take the issue to the courts before giving up their rights to the public airwaves. They face an uphill battle to reverse this new law, especially the provision that establishes the FCC-like commission.

Putting control of communications media in the hands of a government agency has great democratic potential. When the elected representatives of the people are handing out the keys, the process can be fair and equitable.

The US experience, however, has shown that government watchdogs like the FCC can be just as overly-friendly to giant media moguls as the Argentine dictators were when they helped set up Clarin and Uno back in the 70’s.

The Bush administration used the FCC effectively in the last decade to promote and strengthen big media groups like Fox and Clear Channel. Barack Obama’s response to the loud Fox News criticisms could extend to how the FCC manages the licensing of Fox and the other big corporations or he could just stick to politely criticizing the lords of the airwaves.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Engle October 29, 2009 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

Eddie regarding your comment "Remember that it is the "market" that has given us the housing bubble, unemployment, debt peonage and Wall Street fat cats at the public trough." That is also incorrect and the primary evidence I offer you in regards to what caused the "housing bubble" to be created is to go look at what the state of the "commercial real estate industry" was during the time of that bubble and for a while after it burst. Keep in mind that government, not the market, compelled banks and other mortgage outfits to extend loans to those with horrible credit and it was well known that an economic downturn would devastate the housing real estate market. This relaxation of good business priciples began in the 90's at the urging of Sec. of Treasury Rubin and the head of HUD, plus a few other congressman still around who are about to cause another housing decline, in my opinion. Contrast the commercial real estate market which maintained sound business loan practice (it continued to thrive), with the housing market, until after the economy continued to tank it has now finally started to tumble. Comparing the two markets provides irrefutable proof on how goverment caused the housing catastrophe, not the market. Also Eddie, are you familiar with what happens when a government is in the process of taking control of the economy? They must also exercise control over the people. This can only be done by force, and it will begin by demonizing those that challenge the government in this take over attempt. Think "astro-turf, "nazis" and other namecalling of the protesters. Expect things to pick up, possibly getting extreme. If you start seeing a new type of internal government force developing to take on other duties that law enforcement usually does, or the state guard units, then prepare for some real change you won't believe in. By the way Eddie we fought a Revolutionary War to cast off a strong central government. The free market is fine as long as government minimizes it's intrusion, just don't ask Barney Frank or Chris Dodd to explain it to you.

Vic October 29, 2009 1:30 pm (Pacific time)

Actually gp, I believe Tim is right on...I really appreciate your posts and your appreciation of life down South..I did not mean to sound hostile. I agree 100% that equality and power sharing is the cats meow, and what should be the standard. Unfortunately, it isnt..That is why I embrace the concept of anarchism...all of us equal, our opinions of equal weight and consideration, and no one lording over another, controlling or having power over another....male, female, black, white, brown, gay, straight, whatever. All people judged by their deeds, not by their boobs, money, good or bad looks,political persuasion, religion...nothing. Will this ever happen? No, but wouldnt it be nice?

gp October 29, 2009 12:26 pm (Pacific time)

PS Vic,it is not about power over,women don't want power over,that is an outdated paternalist way of seeing things. It is about power sharing or horizantilism which is what many southern hemispheric countries are now experimenting with.

gp October 29, 2009 12:23 pm (Pacific time)

My dear old caveman, Vic. I would guess you have not read any feminist philosophy at all. Perhaps a penis bearing human out there can advise you in a more generous way than a woman who is just sick and tired of you backlashing, scared to death old sexists who can't get over having to look at your own ugly sins and refuse to see feminism as a human rights issue with many ramifications. There has long been a debate aobut if racism or sexism has more importance for turning thoughts from world peace. I vote the later since more than half of us are female. But to be frank they go hand in glove and most racists don't get it that they have to admit to their racism prior to overcoming it. Likewise with sexism.

Tim King: For what it's worth, I think you two are way more similar than it might seem, and that if you were able to communicate in a more fluent language than comments, that you would actually find a lot of common ground. Love you all- Tim.

Vic October 29, 2009 6:18 am (Pacific time)

" This is not the forum for women to spoon feed you men on these principles but perhaps we can augument your reading list." Wow...that sounds very arrogant. Sexist even...It implies that you women have to spoon feed (like babies) us men as we are so reluctant to learn and embrace new ideas. Maybe this is not the forum for us men to spoon feed you women the idea that the whole world does not revolve around your womanhood and many of us men are smart enought to judge or evaluate people by their deeds, not looks. You imply that men are ignorant which is a trademark of the Vagi-Supremists. Accuse the men of being sexist, ignorant, animalistic...whatever supports the "Women-Are-Smarter-Better-and-More-Valuable" premise. Then put on make-up, do your hair and get a cute dress, then scowl and mutter under your breath when a man takes notice or even compliments you. Get over yourselves...we are all human...even us penis-packing cave men.

Daniel October 28, 2009 6:10 pm (Pacific time)

Ryan good for you three pats on the back . Unlike the majority of the population you regulatly exercise and eat a balance diet, in this day of fast food thats great . Unfortunately most do not and the fast foods and excess fat and sugar consumption is taking its toll on young and old . I also bike 10 miles or more a day up elevation and have a resting pulse of 48 . I have not had a major illness from 1969 when i was still in the service . I something get a cold once a year , from all the traveling . I never get congestion with it and it pushes thru the system in a few days , I heal myself with herbs and teas . I never have headaches or allergies , my med cabinet is empty except for a few band aids . When I watch TV and see all the drug ads I wonder who is buying all this stuff , its not me . I never have indigestion , constipation , or any of the myriad of problems I see on TV . In my 39 years of being a vegetarian , now vegan I have never run into a grossly overweight long term Vegan . The USA heart and colon problems are thru the roof , and it is not from the vegans ! When I travel they look at my passport twice I look 15 years younger than my 62 years . Ryan I also own a Mercedes and a van that I use when needed . I listen to jazz on my 78 collection on a empire turntable with a grado wooden cart thru my carver silver seven and jbl studio monitors . I have a massive 78 , 45 , 33 , and cd collection from the teens thru the 80's . I enjoy traveling ,and living in a water front paradise on the Mckenzie . I will be spending the winter in Mexico with close friends near the beach . The most important thing in life is good health . I have it and I work at keeping it . I feel very sorry for those who live in the dark and humorless world of hospitals and illness . My close friends who also follow this super healthy diet also enjoy vibrant health . Ryan its good to know you are not having health problems , against the odds . Some people are fluid in life some are just stuck in the old learned habits . This is a country where 50% of men die prematurely from heart disease , with colon cancer being number two . The proof is in the numbers . Good luck in the future . Give me another post in 15 years and will see how you are doing .

Daniel October 28, 2009 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks for the post Eddie I could not have said it better .

gp October 28, 2009 3:44 pm (Pacific time)

Vic, go to amazon or the library, google feminism and makeup/clothing and you will find a whole pile of books that you may chose a title or two from and inform yourself on basic feminist principles. Makeup, clothing and other beauty customs are fascinating and they are not neutral issues. This is not the forum for women to spoon feed you men on these principles but perhaps we can augument your reading list.

eddie zawaski October 28, 2009 11:54 am (Pacific time)

My dear Engle, Facts are not mis-characterizations, they are, well....facts, what you asked for. Ideologues of both the left and right are routinely inclined to dismiss inconvenient fact as something else. The mis-characterization is your insinuation that I suggested that government sponsored programming be forced on commercial media. It's no wonder that you think that my "argument" failed. For your idea of a successful argument is to set up a straw man (Eddie says the moon is made of cheese) and then attack that. I think this is a methodology that one can easily absorb from listening to political commentators on talk radio. It appears from your comments that you listen to both major brands. The nostrum that you keep tossing out, that the market will find the best answer, is the most deeply flawed "argument" used in support of corporate control. The "market" is not the infallible mysterious invisible hand that so many people mistakenly think it to be. The market is the product of a myriad of financial transactions that are shaped and controlled by those with the cash. The directions that the market takes does not nor never has benefitted everyone but serves only profit. And the profit belongs to an increasingly tiny and increasingly wealthy minority of self-serving and greedy human beings. When the media lies completely in their hands, not only do they get all the profit, but the people tend to believe that giving everything away to them is good for all of us. Remember that it is the "market" that has given us the housing bubble, unemployment, debt peonage and Wall Street fat cats at the public trough. I am sure you can find some commentator on Fox or another big network who will convince you that all this is good for you. The people who control the media, control the minds of the many. Governments with their control over distribution of licensing is the only means that the people have of wresting control of the media away from moneyed interests. This process, government regulation, may have a poor track record and often descends into corruption, but it is all we have. Some people in some parts of the world keep on trying nonetheless.

Ryan October 28, 2009 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

I, (an early baby boomer) like the majority of the U.S. population, consume meat products. I exercise regularly, have a well-balanced diet (wife was a Registered Dietican-though my eating and exercise pattern predates my meeting her) and recently had a colonoscopy that cleared me for another ten years. My blood chemistry, which I have checked yearly is in the pink. I still have the same weight as I did in the miltary but I do weigh less than during my college football playing days, a good thing. My wife, children and grandchildren also enjoy good health. One of my vehicles is an SUV which I bought new 5 years ago(less than 9,000 miles). I bought the vehicle, not because some behavioral scientist's manipulated me to do so, but because of logistics, that is the SUV is cost effective when I need a larger vehicle to move more people or a larger load of whatever. I listen to jazz on my sound system. It is true we are having a significant rise in obesity but regardless of how you want to characterize it's cause, free choice is the primary player, one of many variables. I find it humorous when people prattle on how we all should become vegetarians and get rid of our vehicles and use other modes of transportation. I feel very badly for those who chose to live in their dark and humorless worlds.

Vic October 28, 2009 6:49 am (Pacific time)

Julie, I dont understand what is sexist about saying that people..male or female, for the most part like to look nice. I do...am I sexist for wanting to look my best? It is sexist and very narrow minded of you to imply that any woman who alters her looks in any way is somehow catering to the opposite sex. I believe that if there were NO men at all on this planet, women would still use make-up, eye liner and want to have their hair done nicely. And if there was not a single female on this planet, I would still shave every day, use cologne and dress nicely.....sexist? Not every attempt to look nice has to do with sex or exploitation....geez..

Daniel Johnson October 28, 2009 12:58 am (Pacific time)

So, Engle, you think Eddie's argument has failed. But consider your own. You're familiar with the saying "we are what we eat". That's why America today is basically made up of overweight, unhealthy, out-of-shape people. They were never encouraged to eat good food or even sensible portions of bad food. The "free market" was allowed to make a profit on harming the nation's citizens. And you can't retort that people made the choice. They did no such thing when you consider how many hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of psychologists and sociologists were put to work to manipulate people's tastes and motivations. So it is with our minds and our culture. We are what we read (and hear). Fill the mind with simplistic opinions and have speakers ridicule anyone who disagrees and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism and a lower level of public dialog and before long, people start to believe that not only is that the norm, but it's true. So, eat your Big Mac, while driving down the road listening to Rush, in your SUV that you have not the remotest inkling of what your manipulated motivation was for buying it in the first place.

Daniel October 27, 2009 10:56 pm (Pacific time)

There you go again engle with more disinformation about of the FCC under Powell . The more I read your posts the more I am sure you are a hack for the right wing . Attack Attack Attack . but provide no substance just innuendo and a little fake patriotic rah rah . If I was watching you on the tube I am sure you would be doing the palin wink as you spew out your fact-less dribble .

Engle October 27, 2009 12:05 pm (Pacific time)

Eddie you provided a mischaracterization of FCC policies. Would you have felt better if commercial stations were required to carry shows that had no market value that historically advertisers would avoid? This is when you have state sponsored shows taking over, which we see in a number of countries not known for their individual freedoms. We live in a free market capitalist society, so the less government intrusion is the norm for our economy. Air America would like your idea to have government sponsoring shows with taxpayer money I'll bet. Eddie are you familiar with democrat Bob Beckel? He is a hardcore liberal who has presented polls that he purported show approx. 50% of FOX's viewers are democrats and independents. That he talks to more "pursuadable" voters in a one hour show than what would be reached in a week by all the other cable shows combined. So to think that all FOX viewers are mindless sheep is short-sighted. The Nielson Co. reported today that the FOX audience has increased 10% since the Whitehouse declared them persona non-grata. As they say "if you have something people want they will come." Look at viewer audiences in taxpayer ("the people") subsidized programing and then compare the free market audience. Your argument has failed.

gp October 27, 2009 11:49 am (Pacific time)

More interesting commentary on the media can be found at Counterpunch this week. Read--http://www.counterpunch.org/boal10272009.html

Rando October 27, 2009 11:22 am (Pacific time)

Thanks Eddie! Exactly! You'd have to have lived on another planet to not see how Bush empowered Fox. Good job with the info.

Julie October 27, 2009 11:20 am (Pacific time)

Vic that was still sexist of you to say. Just face it, it doesn't make you bad, it just IS. We women have to put up with it always. If we look good, then we're trying to get attention- and perhaps haven't earned whatever title we own (it was given to her because she's pretty). Shallow. If we don't look good "enough" that's the subject instead. Well in this case, I think she's the right woman for the job, and Clarin better watch their step.

Eddie Zawaski October 27, 2009 10:44 am (Pacific time)

A response to Engle... You ask how the Bush Administration promoted Fox. Perhaps you weren't paying attention when Michael K Powell, Bush's FCC chair granted a waiver to Rupert Murdoch's corporation, allowing Fox to acquire an additional 10 TV stations and a 41% share of the nationwide market despite long-standing FCC rules that limit media corporations to 35%. In the same week, Powell handed out 62 new radio licenses to Clear Channel and Cumulus using the rhetoric that "the market must set the viewer audience." These were Powell's words, not yours, Engle, so I know where you get your ideas and possibly even the very words you use to express them. Also, in case you forgot this too, the Bush FCC's chairman Powell opposed the opening of bandwidth to new microradio voices on grounds that it might dilute audience share (and ad revenue) for commercial stations. Such government largess toward large media corporations was business as usual during the Bush years. The new Obama administration has a long way to go to undo the corporate cronyism of its predecessors. Perhaps, as the Argentine government is planning, Obama's FCC may have to yank some tickets to get democracy and fairness back into the media game. One more thing....about ideological coloring of the news.... Anyone with half a brain can see that Fox's motto, "we report, you decide" is a rhetorical cover for the savagely reactionary spin they put on the news. Despite the disingenuousness of this posturing, I do not begrudge Fox's rightist slant. Rather, I think that all news of any sort needs to be reported with passion and perspective. If we can read the news as reported from a variety of ideological points of view, then we can form our own perspective. A democratic media is not controlled by the so-called "free" market, but by the people. Market control is control by those with money and lots of it. If Fox didn't have all those channels, and all that financial support to shout their words and ideas so loudly, then perhaps they wouldn't have to bear the responsibility for putting their lame ideas into your head.

Vic October 26, 2009 3:33 pm (Pacific time)

Maybe she just likes looking nice..I shave and shower every day even if I am not going to be seen by others.I do it for myself. Cant automatically assume that any woman who puts effort into her looks does it because she feels pressure from the male-dominated society, and that given a choice, all women would shun make-up, razors and having their hair done. I aint buying that.

Engle October 26, 2009 2:03 pm (Pacific time)

Let the market set the viewer audience. Argentina just demonstrates how tyranny can creep into the 4th estate. The American public is pretty darn smart when they get the facts and that is something the msm has been failing to do and the primary reason they have been losing market share. How did Bush use the FCC to promote the Fox Network? That is quite a statement which has no accompanying evidence. Actually I would like to see all our news media act as bloodhounds when they pursue a policy of keeping the public informed. Too often we are seeing ideological perspectives color what is being reported. Seems that some don't like the news when it reflects unfavorably on them or their agenda.

gp October 26, 2009 5:56 am (Pacific time)

Vic,she spends enormous amounts of money to seem beautiful with hair weaves, plastic surgery and a work out guru. We should all be healthy and beautiful but to me it is a pity that women, even women presidents are still compelled to conform to a standard of sexual seductivity in their appearance in order to gain crediblility.

Vic October 25, 2009 4:05 pm (Pacific time)

Id like to be her Chief of Staff....

Daniel October 25, 2009 2:48 pm (Pacific time)

Fox is not a watchdog they are a blood hound and attack dog ! Big difference !

[Return to Top]