La situación de la Prensa en América Latina

Publicación: Sábado 25 de septiembre de 2010 O Estado do São Paulo, Brasil Leer versión digital »

...............................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................

Journalism in Latin America: Who Should Pay the Bill?

Fecha: 02/02/2010

...............................................................................................................................................................................

Latin American countries need good quality journalism to protect, consolidate, and strengthen democracy. Historically associated to investigative journalists working for newspapers, good quality journalism is expensive and now faces serious challenges due to the unprecedented financial crisis affecting newspapers worldwide. If we agree that democracies need good journalism, somebody needs to pay the bill. The only realistic -- and unfortunately very risky -- means for newspapers' survival is to receive help from the state. None of the other options, including that readers pay for their papers, private advertisement, and revenues from an endowment, will work in Latin America. There has been an increase in the circulation of paid newspapers in several countries. Almost 2 billion people around the world read paid newspapers every day. However, revenues coming from subscriptions or daily payments are not enough to ensure papers' financial sustainability. Private advertisement has been falling dramatically. According to the World Association of Newspapers, only from 2008 to 2009, newspaper advertisement revenues dropped 21% in North America, 16% in Western Europe, and 6% in Latin America. This trend, which began some years ago, will continue while newspaper advertisement moves to the Internet, and the numbers of web advertisement continue to increase. The idea to transform newspaper companies into some sort of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that would be supported by the revenues from a wealthy endowment will not work in Latin America. Such structure is possible in countries where a substantial group of people is willing to donate funds for this sort of projects, and where there are clear and predictable legal frameworks that allow for secure investments in a financial system such as a stock market. It is unlikely that this combination would exist in Latin America. But even if it did, the recent world financial crisis shows that this model is very risky. Many Latin American newspapers have been historically supported by state funds, specifically through public advertisements. But when a state pays for public advertisement, it is not promoting a public policy to ensure independent journalism -- it is simply paying the media to publish information that it believes should be in the public domain. In addition, a major problem with public advertisement, in practice, is that public officials in Latin America have typically allocated it in a discriminatory fashion, as an indirect sanction to papers with an editorial line critical of the government. So how should Latin American governments pay the bill? The focus should not be on allocating public advertisement, even if it is done in a transparent and non-discriminatory way. Governments must adopt clear public policies to strengthen democracies by, for example, granting subsidies and tax benefits in favor of newspapers. Clearly, the experience regarding how Latin American states have allocated public advertisement should serve as a model -- of what should not be done when drafting and implementing these new, necessary policies.

Venezuelans harshly punished if they insult Chávez

The Miami Herlad Posted on Tue, Sep. 26, 2006 Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez called President Bush ''the devil'' during his speech before the U.N. General Assembly -- a statement that was quickly disseminated by the media. But this is not the first time that Chávez talks about a foreign president or a foreign presidential candidate in this sort of way. He also referred to Alan García, the current president of Peru, as an ''irresponsible demagogue and thief;'' accused former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, of being ''subordinate'' to U.S. interests; and called Mexican President Vicente Fox a ''lapdog'' of U.S. imperialism. Chávez's words were correctly criticized from a diplomatic point of view, and many -- including I -- consider his conduct at the United Nations inappropriate. However, Chávez has a right to express himself as he did. But his double standard is worrying. According to the new criminal code, if someone makes similar comments about him in Venezuela, this person could be subject to criminal prosecution. Chávez should be able to make statements as those mentioned above if he considers that other individuals don't agree with his own political views. In democracy, political dissent is not only necessary but essential. It is also very common, and in many cases includes harsh criticisms. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the protection of freedom of expression applies 'not only to `information' or 'ideas' that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no 'democratic society.' '' The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also recently reiterated that a greater margin of tolerance should exist in the case of statements and opinions related to matters of public interest. In Venezuela, however, the criminal code reformed during the Chávez administration says, in its article 147, that, ``Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other way does not respect the president of the republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and 30 months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight. The punishment shall be increased by one-third if the offense was made publicly.'' The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights considered that this article is not in accordance with international standards. It argued that the threat of criminal liability for issuing a value judgment or an opinion related to a public official's work can be used as a method to suppress criticism and political adversaries. This does not change even if the expression is considered offensive. Under the Venezuelan Constitution, the president may ''ask the National Assembly to amend any of the provisions of the law or rescind its approval of part or all of it.'' When the Venezuelan National Assembly sent Chávez the law reforming the criminal code, he asked to amend some of the provisions of the law but not article 147. If Chávez understands that he may refer to other presidents in the way that he did, why didn't he veto article 147? When he launches these attacks, Chávez either considers himself exempt from the repressive rules that he applies to his own critics, or he is not even aware of any inconsistency. It is difficult to decide which is worse. Furthermore, enacting this kind of legislation does not contribute to Venezuelan democracy because the fear of criminal sanctions necessarily discourages people from voicing their opinions on issues of public concern.

---

© 2006 MiamiHerald.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miami.com