The media law IS the problem. An expected court ruling puts at the center of the scene an absurd and misleading argument. Naturally accepted the existence of a media law assuming that freedom of expression must be regulated under the idea that their protagonists mother are ineffective, evil and abusive. The political situation settled this timely smokescreen to hide and delay top concerns. Without doubt, a determination as this sets a trend and constitutes a dangerous precedent, but has merely confirmed a suspicion, endorsing a course of action and not the ruling party in power, but a way of thinking about this plot. Political parties who voted reference law think similarly, have identical ideological view on the matter. Lawmakers discussed only nuances of the regulations and the need for the standard. That massive political position is not coincidence. Voting in Congress parliamentary treatment opportunity and public posture of the parties, it is only the reflection of what citizenship undersigned, with different arguments, sometimes ideological and other practical, claims to legislate putting limits on freedom of expression. The discussion then goes only by the magnitude of the regulation, its scope and any interests they pursue each other. Many reasonable people repeated with conviction that journalism is a public service to be truthful, objective and independent and under the umbrella of argument holds that a law must ensure that aspiration. The supposed disadvantages of a full press freedom, described more vehemently than intellectual honesty are only emerging from a process of which the company is the protagonist. The quality of the content, the concentration of media owners and the power that derives from that fact, are a matter of second order. But even if you assume the relevance of these issues and that they should be addressed, these tools driving law are inadequate. It is in the context of increased competition schedules evolve and improve the content. People choose what they want to hear, see or read and nothing else. The quality of the content does not depend on the offer, but rather in demand. The bad products if the term applies, are the result of a public that consumes it. The concentration of the media is the expected result of current policies, a state granting Permissions favoring the friends of power. No licenses, market owners and exhibit more diversity, and competing is that captivate consumers preferences. This concession scheme only finds justification in the greed of the power groups that technical limitations. No ruling, neither this, nor above, nor those to come, seek diversity of opinion. Abundant evidence. With the current rule did not appear more voices. In any case a few new but to say more of the same. It is contradictory that people ask for regulations to prevent media concentration opponents, while silent on the growing number of clappers of the hegemonic discourse. The most novel that has put on the table the latest verdict, is the authoritative position of the rulers and the tribune fawning supporters, when they claim that a judgment becomes an immutable law which must be observed and obeyed without protest. It is a matter of opinion. One could argue, so demagogic and positivist law that if you have to comply. Respect is something else. A cold letter, does not become morally right just being law. The majority vote of the legislators, their overwhelming popular support and the judicial confirmation, does not make it perfect or kind. Examples abound in the past and present to show their relativity. What underlies these claims is the will to subdue the other, to impose rules. The brand new court decision, the rule and its application, and all the political present context are far from achieving crush freedom of expression as a value, even if they try and get the factual restrict and limit its scope. Freedom is part of the human essence that today includes a multitude of tools to help avoid the creative and long list of pitfalls that governments propose. It seeks to legitimize the dispute against the media group, citing the unethical attitude he has shown in the past, playing power, with a repeatedly denied involvement. That behavior may be reprehensible, but building a rule to the extent of the battle ruling does not appear to be less objectionable. Although everyone knows that the controversy is just another excuse to achieve the goal of aligning the speeches, silence dissent and intimidate those who think differently. The Courts decision is bad news only for what it means to signal and confirmation of course, but not the substance. The media law IS the problem. SOURCE: INFOBAE opinion.infobae/alberto-medina-mendez/2013/11/03/la-ley-de-medios-es-el-problema/ Alberto Medina Mendez albertomedinamendez@gmail skype: amedinamendez albertomedinamendez 54 - 0379-154602694 Facebook: facebook/albertoemilianomedinamendez Twitter: @amedinamendez
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:48:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015