(IAPA/IFEX) – The following is a 2 March 2005 IAPA report: Preliminary Report on IAPA mission in Argentina Buenos Aires (March 2, 2005) – At the close of the first part of the mission of the international delegation of the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) to Argentina, following a mandate from its General Assembly, these […]
(IAPA/IFEX) – The following is a 2 March 2005 IAPA report:
Preliminary Report on IAPA mission in Argentina
Buenos Aires (March 2, 2005) – At the close of the first part of the mission of the international delegation of the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) to Argentina, following a mandate from its General Assembly, these are the preliminary results from information gathered thus far.
Three basics issues were tackled by the delegation following the resolution from the IAPA Assembly: A) press freedom problems stemming from complaints about pressure exerted against journalists and the media, and a communications strategy by the federal government reflected in misleading information, which affects citizens’ basic rights to know all that is happening and to receive daily updates on the actions of their representatives; B) status of the bill on access to information; and C) press freedom problems specifically in Neuquen province.
On this last point, the delegation led by IAPA President Alejandro Miró Quesada Cisneros (Peru), and comprised of the chairman of the Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information, Gonzalo Marroquín (Guatemala); former IAPA presidents, Edward Seaton, Robert Cox (USA) and Danilo Arbilla (Uruguay); as well as Roberto Rock (Mexico), and Ricardo Trotti, Press Freedom director, will leave tomorrow for the Patagonian province and will report on the results of the investigation after their stay.
Regarding the Buenos Aires mission, the IAPA delegation met with representatives of the three branches of government, among them the Vice President of the Republic, Daniel Scioli, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, Enrique Petracchi, and the head of the government’s Cabinet, Alberto Fernández, as well as congressional leaders and leaders of the political opposition, such as Elisa Carrió. The delegation also met with media directors and journalists of: La Nación, Clarín, Ambito Financiero, El Día de La Plata, El Diario Popular, Página 12, Editorial Perfil, Infobae, and Canal 9, as well as freelance journalists, columnists, radio and television hosts, professionals from the Argentine Journalism Forum (Foro de Periodismo Argentino, FOPEA) and academics. In addition, the delegation had working meetings with leaders of the Association of Newspapers from the Interior of Argentina and the NGO “Poder Ciudadano” (Citizens’ Power).
A) The IAPA representatives, during their visit, were received cordially, receiving valuable information and allowing for an exchange of ideas and opinions in an environment of tolerance and respect.
On the specific issue of the state of press freedom, the delegation received almost unanimous information that the media and journalists are in a type of relationship with government officials that in the majority of cases is defined by pressure that influences the information that is transmitted to the public. Blame is attributed to this conduct, but it is also felt that the media and journalists are at fault. The journalism community was critical of itself and did not dismiss its own responsibility.
Continuing on to more concrete items, the mission has verified that government advertising is allocated according to criteria that are not objective and do not follow technical or professional standards. Unfair situations are created, which are described by journalists as discriminatory, favoring certain media and punishing others. Thus, the IAPA maintains that only technical criteria should be used to manage public resources so that government advertising is transparent, avoids suspicions, and is not used as a form of reward or punishment.
The federal government says it uses a fair criteria, that it feels is appropriate and that it claims avoids favoring larger newspapers and, therefore, supports the small and medium-sized ones. However, the Office of the President has clearly expressed that this does not mean “saving media.” Publicly, an employee of Comfer admitted that the government supported more than one newspaper and has prevented the shutting down of others. Dr. Alberto Fernández also said that the government does not give advertising to certain media by “applying extortion policies” and, if it were to give government advertising this way, this would send the wrong message to the public, who could interpret it as if the government is paying the media to “shut up.”
Another difference that came to light between IAPA’s viewpoint and the government’s policy, refers to the Argentine government’s so-called “communications strategy.” The government claims to follow a policy of direct communication between the President and the public, since “the President speaks directly to the people” through speeches and public acts. They do not give preferential treatment, stated Fernández, to the involvement of the press and journalists in the act of communicating between those that govern and those being governed, between the citizens and their representatives.
The Cabinet chief said that the government and he, himself, deal with the press and apply a very transparent information policy facilitating access to public information, regulated by a decree from the current administration. According to the Cabinet chief, all government actions are published in the Official Bulletin and web site. In contrast, journalists complain of mistreatment, discrimination, and use of a poor mechanism, via telephone, to handle warnings and complaints. Specifically, certain media, like Noticias, are not allowed to enter the Presidential Palace, and another example of government discrimination is the issuing of passes to media practitioners enabling them to travel and accompany the President on the presidential airplane. In addition, during the past few days, journalists accredited for entry to the Presidential Palace conducted a public protest complaining against the “authoritarian acts” of the Office of the President’s Spokesperson. The journalists who report from the Presidential Palace described restrictions that, if accepted, would mean “staying in a kind of closed room called the Press Room.” Likewise, they complain of serious deficiencies, mostly in the information provided by the government.
The IAPA delegation expressed in the meetings its vision and the principles that the institution defends, stressing that it is natural and healthy to have some conflict between the government and the press as a result of the duty of the latter to provide all information to the public so that they know every day how their representatives are handling their matters. The IAPA delegation appreciated the fact that the media and journalists respect their own work and are acting responsibly. The organisation did note that at times journalists are extremely prudent in their reporting, in some cases because of government pressure, and in other cases as a result of their own “social responsibility”. At other times, ommissions are made by the media, perhaps stemming from fear and necessity.
B) As regards the Bill on Access to Information, currently in the House of Representatives, the IAPA is deeply concerned about weaknesses in this initiative in guarantying the public’s right to know. The IAPA believes that this bill does not meet minimum international guidelines on the matter. An excessive amount of discretionary power is granted to government officials. As a result, instead of following democratic standards on transparency, the government makes itself the owner of information that actually belongs to the country’s citizens.
There is particular concern with respect to several articles of the bill, which stipulate that private entities are subject to this law. Such a stipulation does not exist in any legislation of this kind in the world. One can interpret the bill to mean that media would be included under “private entities” and, as such, if the media do not adhere to certain restrictive guidelines, they could be held liable to administrative penalties and even prison terms. Consequently, this bill represents a threat to freedom of expression and the work of journalists. We urge the Argentine Congress to modify the bill, eliminate clauses that restrict citizens’ liberties and promote real rules on transparency and access to public information that is controlled by the government.
The IAPA’s viewpoint, expressed to legislators, is shared by the press, journalists, scholars, and civic organizations interviewed by the members of this mission. We trust that civil society, academia, and civic groups, along with the media, will promote discussion on this matter so that Argentina reaches the point of having an access to information law that is an example for others around the world and something for which the Argentines can be proud.
