Talk:September 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina

Split

I propose to set apart the articles on the 8N and the September protest. They are different ones. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree --190.105.63.205 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are no opposes to the article split, I will arrange the change by tomorrow Cambalachero (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"According to local newspaper's Clarín y la Nación.." OR "Nearly.."

We should be discussing this instead of engaging in WP:Edit war.--Neo139 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See the reference 20, a source that is not even from Argentina, and let me cite: "Now the use of law is seen as a further act of intimidation to keep media in line, even if, according to different international reports, 80% of audiovisual Argentine media are directly or indirectly controlled by the government". Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also "It is estimated the the Kirchner government now has direct or indirect control of 80% of the Argentine media." (from The Guardian). It's hardly to get more reliable than The Guardian. Maybe we should change the word "Nearly" for "It's estimated that" or "Around". "Nearly" implies that 'is just a bit less', and the source indicates the the number is 'around 80%', so it could be 80, less or more. --Neo139 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have found this one, from Global Editors Network. It says "Now the use of law is seen as a further act of intimidation to keep media in line, even if – according to different international reports – 80 percent of audiovisual Argentinian media are directly or indirectly controlled by the government.". It would be interesting if the find which international reports is the article referring to.--Neo139 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The "80% pro-gov media" statement is blatantly FALSE

Forum-like discussion

The statement that 80% of the media are under control of the Argentine gov is FALSE: as in other countries in Latin America which have progresist/populist/socialist/Pink tide/leftist/Bolivarian/rebel governments, the economic establishment control the most important mass media. Clarin Group is to Argentina what Marinho (o Globo) Group is to Brazil, or what Cisneros Group is to Venezuela: in these countries, the hegemonic mass media play the role of the opposition parties, since the political opposition is fragmented, disorganized and leaderless, and therefore unable to win presidential elections. If we limit our discussion to Argentina:

- Clarín is the owner of Cablevisión+Multicanal cable system, which has such a dominant penetration that it gives cable TV services to much more Argentine families than all other cable systems together (we must aggree that there is no discussion on whether Cablevisión-Multicanal is clearly dominant in the cable market). With this control of the cable services, the corporation is able to influence the flow of information released to the public by, for example, locating Todo Noticias (an openly anti-gov signal) between the two most important TV channels in the grid, and at the same time sending the pro-gov or government-controlled signals to the Siberia of the grid, or transmitting these signals only to the clients who buy the digital service and not to those who buy the basic service, or directly censoring them. This is the kind of harrassment that some pro-gov or state owned TV signals had to endure: Canal 7, CN23 and Telesur, among others.

- The opposing corporations control the first and second most sold newspapers (Clarín and La Nación); there are two pro-gov newspapers as well (Página/12 and Tiempo Argentino), but the latter are much less influential than the former.

- Out of the two most important open TV channels, Canal 13 belongs to Clarín, while Canal 11 (Telefé) is neutral. The only open TV channel which is controlled by the goverment is the state-owned Canal 7, which has considerably lower audiences.

- I don't know which are the most popular radio stations, but out of those that ussualy engage in political discussions (by contrast to those specialized in music or entertaining), Mitre and Continental are among the most important, and both are clearly sided with the opposition (even Mitre directly belongs to Clarín corporation).

- Clarín group also owns TN, the most important cable news network in Argentina. There is also a pro-gov cable news network, CN23, but, again, it is much less influential.

In short, it is evident for anyone living in Argentina that the opposition media are much more powerful than the pro-gov media. I insist that this fact is evident for anyone living in Argentina: the usual citizen is much more likely to receive information, either true or false, either biased or not, from the opposition media than from the media controlled by the government, and for too many Argentine citizens, the dominant opposition media are virtually the only source of information. That's why the Clarín Group and its allies (La Nación, Perfil Group) are ussually called "medios hegemónicos" (hegemonic media) or "medios dominantes" (dominant media). Sebasbronzini (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There was already a thread discussing this, you did not need to open a new one. The 80% of the media is about the number of media, not about the ammount of people watching them. That victimism of "the helpless government vs. the all-powerful press" speech is useless. Anywhere in the world, democracies accept, respect and defend the freedom of the press, only dictators and cuasi-dictators have made such speeches, and there's no reason to believe that Argentina is a new and special case in that sense. As for the rest of your post... we can basically read that, although the government controls the 80% of all media, the highest audience ratings are for the 20% that remains independent. And this is the "threat" to the government you spoke of when you began?

I may also add that the government-financed media can not be used as a source for articles about politics, because it has a conflict of interest. Bring a source which does not receive such financing and repeats this concept of the leading newspaper being a threat to society, and then we talk. As for Clarín itself, it is not aligned to any political party, and it is not financed by anyone except by their own commercial activities, so there is no reason not to consider them independent. And if all independent media (La Nación and Perfil are not part of the Clarín group, in fact they are competitors) sees the government of Cristina Kirchner in one way, and only the government-financed media tells this conspiracy theories, then WP:UNDUE applies. See also WP:YESPOV, the sentence you added sounds very similar to the "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" example. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If we applied the Godwin's law to this discussion, then you lost the debate. It is partially a joke what I just said, but I'm trying to mean that the Reductio ad Hitlerum in discussions on contemporary Argentine politics is perhaps a sign of fanaticism. Sebasbronzini (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is a copy-paste example taken from the page that explains the neutral point of view. Are you familiar with it? Have in mind that it much more detailed and specific than the essay from Wikipedia in Spanish, which hardly says really anything. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add: the sentence has even two international references. Are you seriously saying that The Guardian is not a reliable source, or that it is allied with Clarín? Cambalachero (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I will also point some lies in the original post. Bronzoni says that government-controlled signals are moved to remote locations in the grid. See here: Encuentro is in channel 6, and channel 7 on 15. Not very far away from Telefe, TN and El Trece (10, 11 and 12). In fact, the grid is organized by themes: first the open channels and news channels, and then groups of music channels, movie channels, children channels, etc. He also says that the evil corporations "control the first and second most sold newspapers". Error: they do not control them, they own them. In fact, they are their reason to be. Saying that Clarín controls Clarín is not only a tautology, but also an acceptance that Clarín is independent, as nobody other than themselves control them. Besides, it is not the most sold newspaper because of some dirty corporate trick: it is the most sold newspaper because most people buy it. Similarily, if the government-financed media has so tiny audiences and credibility, it is not the fault of the leading media, only a conspiracy theorist would accept such crap.

He ends saying that "the usual citizen is much more likely to receive information, either true or false, either biased or not, from the opposition media than from the media controlled by the government, and for too many Argentine citizens, the dominant opposition media are virtually the only source of information". Pure nonsense. The usual citizen is not a passive agent exposed to the media, it is an active consumer who chooses which channel to see, which newspaper to buy, which radio to listen. The channels, newspapers and radios mentioned do not have a monopoly: anyone can cease consuming them and select others if so they please. Clarín is not in the leading audiences because they stole it from someone, they lead the audiences because the audiences placed them in there. Anyone is free to create a better product and defeat them, such as when "Graduados" defeated the long-standing leading audiences of the Pol-Ka telenovelas. Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Cambalachero, let me say that you missed the point. The problem with using Clarín as a source is not independence; the problem has to do with neutrality. We can argue on the meaning of the word "independence", and on whether Clarín is independent or not, but nobody in his/her right mind could possibly say that Clarín is neutral. Clarín is non-neutral, The Guardian is non-neutral, Página/12 is non-neutral, Tiempo Argentino is non-neutral... everybody are non-neutral! The Western media are absolutely non-neutral when dealing with Latin American politics, because most of them tend to misunderstand the turn to the left currently ongoing in our region: the only form of democracy they can accept is a Western-style democracy-of-the-markets, and since the dominant form of democracy in South America is of a different style, they consistently frown upon leaders like Chávez or Correa or Cristina who (IMHO) answer to the interests of the common people instead of responding to the guidelines demanded by the corporations. Of course, there are exceptions: a few media such as Le Monde Diplomatique or the VoltaireNet website are biased to the other side (to the left) and are equally non-neutral: they tend to treat Chávez and Correa and Cristina in laudatory terms. Sebasbronzini (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As we can only find non-neutral opinions on this issue, the only solution I can foresee is as follows: let's leave the controversial 80% assertion in place but let's clarify that there are other points of view that disagree with the 80% statement. Sebasbronzini (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read about this in the book of Isabel Sarlo. As the kirchnerist media can not hope to reach the quality of Clarín or La Nación, let alone The Guardian, then the alternative approach is to try to undermine them, and then claim "we are equals, because we have equal bad quality". This speech about the media being controlled by "the corporations", "the right-wing" and other imaginary concepts has a purpose: make their own controlled nature be ignored in the comparison. But the bias and dependence of the kirchnerist media to the government is tangible, documented and clear as water, whereas the dependence of the reliable media is invented. After all, the greatest resource of a news media, more than money or paper, is credibility, something that you can't buy or expropiate from others, and that you certainly won't get by becoming the propaganda outlet of the government. That's why nobody consumes the kirchnerist media, except the fanatics. Someone who voted for Cristina but is not a fanatic is unlikely to follow media with a well earned fame of concealing and twisting the information to make the government look good.

In short: Not with me, Bronzini. The Kirchnerist media does not stand in equal grounds with the independent media. We can't give undue weight to perspectives that are only held by government-financed media, nor treat facts as relative opinions. Cambalachero (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if you list all existent radios, tv shows, newspapers, journals, etc and you make a calculation that is way below or way above from 80%, we can't change the statement because that would be WP:Original_Research.--Neo139 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Some important issues on this 80% statement

First of all, the statement that "nearly the 80% of the Argentine media are controlled by the government" is not hard data. It is not supported by any reliable research by an University, or by an internacional entity.

Secondly, the word controlled is excessive: only the state-owned media are really "controlled" by the government. Many other media receive money from the government in the form of official publicity, but it does not imply that those media are really controlled by the government: in fact, only some of such media have a Kirchnerist stance. If we sum up the state-owned media and the media that receive money in the form of official publicity, "perhaps" (as we don't know any reliable research or hard data) we will reach a figure of nearly 80%, but I insist: receiving money in the form of official publicity is absolutely not the same as being controlled by the state.

Thirdly, the proposal of Cambalachero of rejecting as sources all the media which receive official publicity (read money) from the government is outrageously antidemocratic: indeed, it is a proposal of censorship. If this proposal of censorship is based in the prejudice that every media that publishes official publicity will automatically side with the government and become non-neutral (which is not true, since only some of such media have a pro-gov stance), then, with the same criterion, I may ask: what could be more non-neutral than a media corporation at a total, lenghty and open war against the government?, and consequently I'd be forced to suggest the discarding of all Clarín media as source. Of course, I am not antidemocratic, I am against censorship, and I am NOT proposing to reject Clarín as a source: what I am saying is that it would make more sense to qualify as non-NPOV a media in open war with the government than all media which publish official publicity (and only some of them side with the government). Sebasbronzini (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source where it says something like "Nearly X % of the media is controlled by the government" where X is a number different from 80? --Neo139 (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not, but it does not imply that the 80% figure is valid (read Argument from fallacy). Sebasbronzini (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But is not up to us to determine if a number is valid/truth or not. (read WP:NOTTRUTH). --Neo139 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That the financial support is not being used to punish and reward the media according to their editorial lines is only Bronzoni's assertion, with no relation with reality. More than independent or even foreign media, I can cite this: a sentence of the Supreme Court that acknowledges this and orders the government to end the discrimination towards Perfil. And the government rejected it. I repeat: the government rejected it, rejected to obey a sentence, a direct order, from the Supreme Court of Justice, the highest tribunal of the country. It is a bit crazy that the same government that paints graffitis "Clarín, don't mess with democracy" is the government that rejected to obey a sentence of the Supreme Court (actually, several others as well), an act that would be undreamed at any half-serious democracy, and that it would have led to an impeachment right away.

As for the government-controlled media, I'm not requesting censorship of kirchnerist media, but of non-independent media. If a newspaper supports the kirchnerist claims without receiving goverment financial support for it, merely relying on the issues sold to readers, that would be an independent media, and we may use it. It is not my fault if there is no such media, and only the government-financed ones dare to repeat the official claims.

Finally, an advise: by saying that Clarín is in an open war against the government, you are only discrediting yourself as a conspiracy theorist. A newspaper at a "total and open war with the government"? Let's be serious. And by comparing Cristina with Chavez (the same Chavez who closed or expropiated all Venezuelan media that is not aligned with him) you are doing her a weak favour. Cambalachero (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I agree with you that the government is doing bad in not respecting a decision by the Supreme Court. We should take into account, anyway, that Clarín does the same, by not respecting the Supreme Court order to sell part of their broadcasting media to comply the anti-monopoly article in the broadcasting legislation, and by charging their cable-TV clients with more money than the amount established by the Justice. And for years, Clarín was the only newspaper which did not allow its workers to have an organized labor union (only a few days ago they accepted to comply with the law and give their employees that Constitutional right). But I agree with you in some of your criticisms against Cristina, for example that the data on inflation are manipulated. Perhaps in Argentina both the powerful political leaders and the powerful corporations feel that they can comply with the Justice only if they want. Sebasbronzini (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I can assert that you are almost completely ignorant in the matter of contemporary Venezuelan politics. Your assertion that "Chávez closed or expropiated all Venezuelan media that is not aligned with him" is a myth, in the sense of a widespread conception which is at odds with real facts despite the problem that many people (or even most people) believe it. I compare this myth on a totalitarian Chávez with the belief that the Stone Age people were contemporary to the dinosaurs, or that in the times of Columbus the people believed in the flatness of Earth and the Admiral demonstrated its roundness. The problem with the Chávez myth is that it has a clear political intention, and that some people (I'm not accusing you) spread it even if they do know that it is false. For example, shortly before the recent Venezuelan presidential elections, it was released a research on Venezuelan radios concluding that there are more radios aligned with the opposition than radios aligned with the government (I still have to find the reference, but it must be somewhere in the Webspace). But there is a more evident and (IMHO) irrefutable proof of the falseness of the assertion that "Chávez closed all media not aligned with him": the unanswerable proof is the existence of the Cisneros Group, which, as I said before in this very same talk page, is the Venezuelan equivalent to our Clarín Group. Mr Gustavo Cisneros is a furious anti-Cahavist and controls a very powerful conglomerate of media; his flagship is Venevisión, the most viewed TV channel in Venezuela, which is 100% owned by him. Many other anti-Chavist TV channels (free or cabled), radios, newspapers and websites, not belonging to the Cisneros Group, exist in Venezuela, and yes, just as in Argentina (and as in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador...) the opposition media in Venezuela are dominant, and they tend to fullfill the vacuum left by the shortcomings of the opposition political parties. Sebasbronzini (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't go off-topic. I brought the sentence of the Supreme Court to point that, contrary to your statements, the money of the government ads is being used as a tool to reward the aligned media and punish the non-aligned one. The issues of Clarin with their workers or the ammount of money that clients have to pay for the cable service has no relation with the discussion about Clarin being an independent source of information or not. Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I aggree, I went off-topic, and excuse me again because I forgot to say one last statement on Venezuela: remember that the Venezuelan electoral system is so unimpeachable that President Jimmy Carter recently said that it is the best electoral system in the World. Sorry, that was the last thing I wanted to say on the "totalitarian Chávez" myth. Sebasbronzini (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)