3 ms·

I can't believe people here in Argentina when they compare Cristina's actions with the military coup from 76'. Many will go as far as to compare Cristina with H

by Hrundi 15y ago

I can't believe people here in Argentina when they compare Cristina's actions with the military coup from 76'. Many will go as far as to compare Cristina with Hitler and insulting her with gender slurs. Cristina takes the blame for thwarting our freedom of expression, but she certainly did otherwise. The opposition says that freedom of expression is very low, while it is clear to me that it has never been higher. I have never seen this much freedom to say anything you want to say. This is why it saddens me when I hear people saying that we are heading into another dictatorship. Take an example, if you will, Cristina's derogation of the Calumnias e Injurias (Slander and Injuries) felony. This law has been used by torturers from the Dirty War to avoid and dilate their process. The amount of confirmation bias is incredibly high nowadays in Argentina. What do I mean by this? This government has done some really great stuff, and they also screw up other stuff up (I might say that practically every government does, depending on the looking glass). This has brought an enormous scrutiny on the media's role in deciding elections and shunning candidates they deem contrary to their agenda. Particularly, the situation boils down to Clarín's massive monopoly vs the Kirchnerismo. You may call Clarín our local version of Fox News. Cristina Kirchner and her late husband Néstor are certainly right in that there is a monopoly. They are, on the other hand, criticized by not giving press conferences and having a huge pride and elitism. Perhaps you can relate this to the republicans claiming that the Obama administration is very secretive about their intentions. I find it hard to sit in a grey area, seeing both sides trying to bring me closer to their particular interpretation of the truth. I've personally debunked many lies that were presented by either Clarín or media affiliated with the government. I think due to my unhealthy thirst for information. But other people will just close their minds and simply settle for something they've read. Cristina's opposition will stubbornly defend many things that simply aren't true, and they will never concede a point. Sadly, the same happens with Cristina's loyalists. Having said that, I'm very uneasy about this particular measure. In this country, you can very easily access someones private data such as banking history, every possession they have, even medical history. Adding an extra item to the list sure creeps me out. You may say: "Why, Hrundi, surely there must be legislation that prevents that sort of data leak, right?". Well, we do have legislation regarding that, just like the US has HIPAA. Unfortunately, this has never stopped information from leaking out. I guess its time to sand off my fingerprints!

loboman 15y ago
We already had freedom of expression before, you could say whatever you wanted about previous presidents in public. But now the government has higher control of the press, by controlling the paper, it has also publicly attacked and tried to close some of our biggest media (regardless of their quality, that's a bad sign... the government arbitrarily choose to attack one monopoly very openly, while allowing other monopolies to continue as always), while it has funded their own partidist media -with our taxes-. Meanwhile we have seen violent, even physical attacks against people who talk openly against the Kirchnerismo, like Lanata (I'm not saying the government did these attacks, but they weren't as common before the Kirchnerismo). If Clarin is like Fox News: what would happen if the POTUS decided to close Fox News, just because? The end result wouldn't be more freedom of speech. I don't think the Kirchner did all wrong, but I do really think our freedom of expression is getting smaller every year with them.
- Hrundi 15y ago
  Imagine, if you will, that Twitter existed during the Dictadura. Now, imagine all of the immense slurring and derogatory flaming that Cristina received in the weeks prior to the recent presidential election, but now switch Cristina for 1976' first de facto leader Jorge Rafael Videla. I personally applaud and defend* their right to express themselves like that, but the situation would have been a wee bit different back then. A bit of packet sniffing and moments later you are being thrown off a plane. My family paid taxes for government media (such as the official channel) for all of the presidents since the return to democracy in 1983. This government suddenly is the first to get the slack. The slack that Clarín has never given to previous governments due to the kisses and cuddles and proven corruption). The government didn't pick a monopoly, there's only one! All other so called monopolies (not even close to Clarín's shadow) are also bound by law, and access to documentation from judiciary and administrative branches can offer a lot of insight into the enforcement of the law. The government passed a "Media law" against monopolies. It was certainly proven that Clarín is one. Clarín then manages to have the law stopped by a friendly judge, a friendship going all the way back to the military process! It is not true that they tried to close Clarín. They don't want to control the paper. They want to make the single, biggest source of paper in Argentina (Papel Prensa) equally price their paper, and not have an unfair advantage to their owners. Cristina doesn't run an enterprise. The government is every one of us, and I'd like to be able to print 10.000 papers by paying the same competitive price that Clarín. Don't forget Clarín's role on the Dictadura, let's make a toast for expropriation! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Brindis_Noble_Videla.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Brindis_N... Please, don't try to put all Kirchneristas in the same bag. The same goes for the opposition. The extremists from both sides will fling personal attacks all around, but there are a lot of people that enjoy having a discussion and trying to find the logic behind this whole clusterfuck of information crossfire. This discussion about the media is occurring all around the world (Brazil, Mexico are immense examples, I don't know much about the US). It's not that Cristina is Satan and woke up one day feeling bipolar (another stupid attack) and tried to destroy media concentration. *: I also applaud and defend their right to consume a single source of information and blindly defend points that were heard in the background noise from a TV while they are having dinner. I understand the pain though. Trying to consume information and different takes on a story can be exhausting. "A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." I got a bit carried away, sorry for the wall of text!

by Hrundi 15y ago

loboman 15y ago

We already had freedom of expression before, you could say whatever you wanted about previous presidents in public. But now the government has higher control of the press, by controlling the paper, it has also publicly attacked and tried to close some of our biggest media (regardless of their quality, that's a bad sign... the government arbitrarily choose to attack one monopoly very openly, while allowing other monopolies to continue as always), while it has funded their own partidist media -with our taxes-. Meanwhile we have seen violent, even physical attacks against people who talk openly against the Kirchnerismo, like Lanata (I'm not saying the government did these attacks, but they weren't as common before the Kirchnerismo). If Clarin is like Fox News: what would happen if the POTUS decided to close Fox News, just because? The end result wouldn't be more freedom of speech. I don't think the Kirchner did all wrong, but I do really think our freedom of expression is getting smaller every year with them.

Hrundi 15y ago
Imagine, if you will, that Twitter existed during the Dictadura. Now, imagine all of the immense slurring and derogatory flaming that Cristina received in the weeks prior to the recent presidential election, but now switch Cristina for 1976' first de facto leader Jorge Rafael Videla. I personally applaud and defend* their right to express themselves like that, but the situation would have been a wee bit different back then. A bit of packet sniffing and moments later you are being thrown off a plane. My family paid taxes for government media (such as the official channel) for all of the presidents since the return to democracy in 1983. This government suddenly is the first to get the slack. The slack that Clarín has never given to previous governments due to the kisses and cuddles and proven corruption). The government didn't pick a monopoly, there's only one! All other so called monopolies (not even close to Clarín's shadow) are also bound by law, and access to documentation from judiciary and administrative branches can offer a lot of insight into the enforcement of the law. The government passed a "Media law" against monopolies. It was certainly proven that Clarín is one. Clarín then manages to have the law stopped by a friendly judge, a friendship going all the way back to the military process! It is not true that they tried to close Clarín. They don't want to control the paper. They want to make the single, biggest source of paper in Argentina (Papel Prensa) equally price their paper, and not have an unfair advantage to their owners. Cristina doesn't run an enterprise. The government is every one of us, and I'd like to be able to print 10.000 papers by paying the same competitive price that Clarín. Don't forget Clarín's role on the Dictadura, let's make a toast for expropriation! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Brindis_Noble_Videla.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Brindis_N... Please, don't try to put all Kirchneristas in the same bag. The same goes for the opposition. The extremists from both sides will fling personal attacks all around, but there are a lot of people that enjoy having a discussion and trying to find the logic behind this whole clusterfuck of information crossfire. This discussion about the media is occurring all around the world (Brazil, Mexico are immense examples, I don't know much about the US). It's not that Cristina is Satan and woke up one day feeling bipolar (another stupid attack) and tried to destroy media concentration. *: I also applaud and defend their right to consume a single source of information and blindly defend points that were heard in the background noise from a TV while they are having dinner. I understand the pain though. Trying to consume information and different takes on a story can be exhausting. "A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." I got a bit carried away, sorry for the wall of text!