What is this thing they call press freedom?

The mass media in Argentina is simmering close to the boiling point due to growing criticism of its domination of the news market and to charges that news organizations and journalists backed or were apologetic to the military dictatorship, which ruled the country with an iron and unconstitutional fist from 1976 to 1983. Yesterday a little more heat went up a notch more with an “ethical trial” in Buenos Aires’ historic Plaza de Mayo of those considered to have backed the dictatorship or closed their eyes to gross human rights abuses.

 

This has led to an interesting discussion concerning what is at stake in the phrase “freedom of the press.” What is the role of the mass media in supporting or opposing a government of its liking or disliking? In forming public opinion on key social and economic issues? What are the rights of the citizens to information which might bear a crucial influence in shaping their lives? Are journalists free to investigate abuses and express their opinions when many of the same powerful groups that pull the social and economic strings in society finance the media for which they work?

 

It is well known that most of the mass media--in Argentina and around the world--is in the hands of a very tiny group of business interests, in turn key players in the economic and social life of society. In Buenos Aires, for example, the vast majority of news coverage is concentrated in the “Clarín” group--which also controls the only evening paper, several TV stations and the transmission of most cable TV signals. Then there is the traditionally conservative “La Nación,” and “La Prensa,” likewise conservative, and an unending number of mass circulation magazines of similar sympathies. In a word, there is a clear monopoly of information in the hands of status quo interests.

The most clear exception in Buenos Aires is “Página 12,” generally sympathetic to civil rights causes and the Peronist government of President Cristina Kirchner, however, its circulation is insignificant compared to establishment media.

 

Any journalist who has worked for any one of the establishment news organizations knows that there are areas where it is better not to go too far. Although the ethics of newsgathering demands that both sides of an issue be considered with equal fairness, it is clear that what happens in practice is quite different. Investigating a scandal involving an economic group financing the newspaper or TV channels, for example, might either lead to the non-publication of the information or a mild or not so mild reprimand for the journalist involved in the investigation.

 

On the other hand, when the media wants to pull the strings against a government this desire is expressed in subjective headlines, the excessive stress given to sensitive subjects such as public safety, campaigns attempting to discredit their opponents, the non-publication of data favorable to the government they oppose or a efforts such as those now being carried on in Argentina designed to prove the existence of restriction of press freedom.

 

Under the dictatorship in Argentina, numerous journalists were whisked away to oblivion--along with the estimated 30,000 persons made to “disappear” during the repression. Some journalists--out of fear or complicity--preferred not to mention certain disturbing facts--such as the existence of concentration camps where prisoners were systematically tortured--or limited themselves to publishing the censored official versions of alleged “confrontations--”many of which were later denounced as camouflage for executions. Journalists were also aware of the campaign of psychological warfare carried out by the de facto regime to whitewash illicit acts and create an atmosphere of fear and confusion.

 

What is now surfacing in Argentina is whether there should be some sort of mea culpa on the part of news organizations or journalists concerning  their role in support of the dictatorship and its illicit practices, whether they should be asked to respond in the courts for backing the actions of an illegal, unconstitutional and criminal government. At stake also is the enactment or not of a law passed last year that would greatly expand the possibility of creating alternative news organizations. The establisment media feel threatened by this legislation because one of its aims is to limit the monopolization of information. For their part, newspapers such as Clarín insist that the law is a subterfuge so the government or its sympathizers can get a stronger hold on the communication business.

 

 The question is similar to that involving whether military persons accused of gross rights violations should be brought to trial--a prolonged process taking place in Argentina. Conservatives argue that the issue should be shelved for the good of society or that those who fought against the military regime should also be brought to trial. But as the trials of military rights abusers drag on, the Madres de Plaza de Mayo and human rights organizations have begun to ask if legal actions correspond for those ciivilians involved directly or indirectly in the repression. What level of responsibility do they have? And then what about the judges? The religions authorities? The economic interests?

 

The problem is where the process might go to or where it might end. Thus, the situation involving the press is clearly a political issue. Those critical of the established news entities see the struggle to bring rights violators to trial as part of a longer term process of social, economic and cultural change. The establishment clearly understands that and thus feels threatened by the attempt to question its direct or indirect support for the dictatorship. Conservative and rightwing interests say society cannot continue pointing its finger at the military who, according to them, "saved" the country from disorder, communism and the like. So the question is asked: Is it better for society to close its eyes to the abuses and continue as if nothing had happened by means of explicit or de facto pacts of immunity? Or should society dig out the truth and in so doing attempt to rectify its ways and prevent a recurrence of any such abuses in the future?

The novel aspect of this struggle is that it pits journalists against journalists. But it also raises the question concerning whether delving into the alleged covering up or support for illegal acts of the dictatorship constitutes a violation of the principal of "freedom of the press." Our readers are welcome to send us their opinions on this issue.