Latin America: media reforms spark debate

This is a guest post by Ángel García Català

On 14 December, the first national Brazilian congress on communication and media will be held in the country’s capital. The four day conference in Brasilia will discuss, amongst other things, the need for a new media law. The Workers’ Party (PT) is trying to amend the current legislation, which they consider to be “anachronistic and authoritarian” primarily because they believe it favours the interest of business over the interests of the wider population. Brazilian president President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has shown that he favours the reform, stating that “the more television there is, the more journalism and cultural programmes that appear, the more political debates ensue and the stronger the democratisation of communication will become”.

Brazil is following a process that has already been initiated by other countries in the region. El Salvador has also started discussions on media law whilst the parliament of Ecuador will begin the approval process of its own law on the 10 December. Other countries like Uruguay and Argentina have already adopted reforms.

Opinions on these laws and their suitability are polarised. Take the various reactions to the law adopted by the Argentinian Senate, for example. Some see this type of reform as a clear attack on freedom of expression, while others applaud it as a mechanism for strengthening democracy.

The new law in Argentina, which replaces the broadcasting law passed in 1980 during the military dictatorship of General Jorge Rafael Videla, provides that the same company cannot own more than 10 audiovisual licences. Those who are currently exceeding that number will be forced to sell the rest. One of the businesses most affected by this measure is the Clarín group, which has 264 licences and whose profits last year stood at around US $500 million.

The Spanish companies Telefonica and Grupo Prisa (which publishes El País) are also greatly affected. No wonder then, that these companies are among the biggest opponents to reform. Ricardo Roa, assistant general editor of the newspaper Clarín believes that “the law promotes a press weaker and docile toward political power”. Associations like the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) have also rejected the new law outright, saying that such reforms are an “enslavement to freedom of expression while promoting the creation and acquisition of media by the state and groups close to power.”

In contrast, the Argentinian reforms have the full support of Frank La Rue, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, who considers it as one of the most advanced reforms in the world, as well as seeing it as “an example to others countries [to] ensure access for all social sectors to the media”. Reporters Sans Frontieres has also endorsed the reform, calling it a “brave and necessary law, despite pressure from some pretty selfish press groups”.

Look but don’t play.

This is a guest post by Orfeo Mattar

The video gaming industry is surrounded by controversy; indeed it would appear that it actively seek to court it in a bid to boost sales. This is the case with many of the biggest releases of the gaming calendar, including the critically acclaimed release of Modern Warfare 2, which was boosted by a controversial level in which the player assumed the role of a Russian terrorist.

However, whilst that controversy was global, in Australia it was a mere drop in a torrent of continual controversial decisions regarding video game classification. One recent such decision was the one made to deny classification to the original version of zombie game Left 4 Dead 2. This decision meant that the game could not be published in Australia, amounting to a form of state censorship. Whilst the game was eventually granted a classification it had to be passed through three versions before the review board finally granted it the top rating of MA15+.

The requirement for edits and changes must be challenged. No such requirement was made by, for example, the British Board of Film Classification, despite their review coming to similar conclusions as their counterparts at the CRB. Both boards found that the game was far too violent, and depicted violence in a manner that was far too realistic, to grant the game a rating which would allow legal minors to play. Yet, despite both boards coming to that conclusion, the game had to be changed before it could be sold in Australia. This is due to serious discrepancies in the classification of video games as opposed to other media and in particular the film industry. The CRB is unable to give any video game a rating above MA15+ despite there being a well-defined framework which allows for classifications of R18+ or above.

There is a serious problem with the Australian legislation; a flaw which is stopping game developers from pushing the boundaries of their art. This must be changed so that the CRB can work without being forced to act as a state censor. It bears noting that the decision of the CRB on Left 4 Dead 2 made special note that the general theme of the game was not considered unacceptable.

Libel in the spotlight

Today’s Media Guardian leads with an extract from journalist Tom Bower’s submission to the culture, media and sport committee/

The piece is accompanied by an analysis of the prospects for change — based on Index on Censorship and English PEN’s proposals — written by litigation lawyer Dan Tench. Tench is cautious:

So beyond the important issue of the recovery of libel costs, it appears that further reform to libel law is likely to be complex, controversial and some way off.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK