Preliminary Report on IAPA mission in Argentina

Three basics issues were tackled by the delegation following the resolution from the IAPA Assembly: A) problems on press freedom stemming from complaints on pressure against journalists and the media, and a communications strategy by the federal government reflected in misleading information affecting one of the basic rights of citizens to know all that is happening and to be able to receive daily updates on the actions of their representatives; B) status of the bill on access to information; and C) problems on press freedom 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), Danilo Arbilla (Uruguay); as well as Roberto Rock (Mexico), and Ricardo Trotti, Press Freedom director, will leave tomorrow to the Patagonian province and will inform on the results of their 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, president of the Supreme Court of Justice, Enrique Petracchi, and 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 directors and journalists of the media: 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 FOPEA, and scholars from academia.  Also, the delegation had working meetings with leaders of the Association of Newspapers from the Interior of Argentina and the NGO, “Poder Ciudadano” (Citizen’s Power).

A) The IAPA representatives, during their visit, were widely received cordially and with respect, 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 targets of 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 also is assumed that the media and journalists are at faults that through self-criticism do not dismiss their own responsibility. 

Continuing on to concrete and more debatable items, the mission has proven that the designation of government advertising is made using criteria that is not objective and does not follow technical or professional standards, creating unfair situations that are described by journalists as discriminatory favoring certain media and punishing others.  Thus, the IAPA sustains that only technical criteria should be used to manage public resources from taxpayers so that government advertising is transparent, avoiding suspicions, and that it is not used as a tool to reward or punish.

The federal government says it uses a fair criteria, that it feels is appropriate and that they claim avoids favoring larger newspapers and, therefore, supporting the small and medium-sized ones.  Although, 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 directly said that the government does not give advertising to certain media by “applying extortion policies” and, if it gives government advertising this way this implies a wrong message that the public would interpret as if the government is paying the media to “shut up.”

Another difference that came to light, on IAPA’s viewpoint and the government’s policy was the Argentine government’s so-called “communications strategy.”  They claim to follow a communications policy coming directly from the President with the citizens: “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 communication between those that govern and those being governed, between the citizens and heir representatives.

The Cabinet chief said that the Government and he, himself, deals with the press and applies a very transparent information policy facilitating access to public information, regulated by a decree from the current administration and all government’s 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 travel and accompany the President on the presidential airplane.  Also, during the past few days, journalists with credentials to enter the Presidential Palace conducted a public protest complaining against the “authoritarian acts” of the Office of the President’s Spokesperson.  Journalists 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 providing information.

The IAPA delegation expressed in the meetings its vision and principles that the institution defends, admitting that it is natural and healthy the conflict between the government and the press as a result of the duty of the government to provide all information to the public so that they know every day how their representatives are handling their matters.  The IAPA delegation appreciated that the media and journalists respect their work and are being responsible and extremely prudent in the information it is reporting on cases of government pressure, result of their own social responsibility, and believes that there are some omissions perhaps stemming from fear and necessity.

B)      On the Bill on Access to Information 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 cover the minimum international guidelines on the matter.  There is an excessive amount of discretion by government officials that instead of following democratic standards on transparency, becomes the owner of the citizen’s information.

There is particular concern on several articles of the bill that in its current version include private entities being obliged subjects of this law, which does not exist in any legislation on this material in the world.  One can interpret in this bill that included in private entities would fall the media, that by not following the restrictive guidelines could be held liable to administrative penalties and even prison. 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 rules that harm citizen’s liberties and promote real rules on transparency and access to public information controlled by the government.

The IAPA’s viewpoint, expressed to legislators, is shared by all 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, promote discussion so that Argentina has an access law that is an example around the world and something of which the Argentines can be proud.

FUENTE: nota.texto7