Whenever there is an important national soccer match broadcasted on TV, some people are stupefied in front of their TV screens waiting for their favourite teams. But in spite of the fact that these people pay regularly for their cable service, some of them cannot enjoy this TV spectacle whatsoever. On the contrary, they are only permitted to watch mere images of stadium seats crowded with the faces of fanatics or spectators, instead of the match. The reason for this seems to be that these viewers, so to speak clients of a cable service as well, do not wish to pay for an extra charge to watch these especial soccer matches, so they are not allowed to watch them. At least, there is some benevolent person working on the other side of the TV screen offering them the possibility of watching either the benches of the stadium, or the faces of fanatics, but not the match…
This situation leads some people to ask themselves three questions; are some sport programmes becoming less egalitarian? Could there be something like a monopoly either of sport programmes, or TV cable broadcasting? First, the fact that to a particular audience the access of these spectacles of public concern is permitted whereas to others restricted may have nothing to do with egalitarianism. On the contrary, making available these soccer tournaments of popular interest for a group of people, on the grounds that they can afford paying for this extra fee to watch these especial soccer matches, may have much more of elitism rather than a gesture of egalitarianism or equality. Second, there not seem to be neither the presence of a hegemonic power like a monopoly controlling all the existing sport programmes, nor something comparable to an economical group setting up to lobby a great part of the media as in the case of a few newspapers and TV programmes on behalf of screwing into everybody’s head their political perspectives or their distorted version of the present reality. However, there may be something like millions of Argentines trying to watch a soccer event of public interest on TV, but cannot do it since they have not paid for this special charge to watch relevant soccer matches.
The third remaining question is: Is there any law defending the rights of people who for some reason or other cannot watch these public sport spectacles on TV? For the time being, there is an old law of TV and Radio transmission created during the last dictatorship, but apparently falls on deaf ears on the abuses committed on some part of the audience. Fortunately, there is a proposal of a new law called ‘Nueva Ley de Radio Difusión’ that is being discussed in the congress and promises radical changes. For instance, the Art. 65 proposes so far a democratic initiative that is somewhat connected with everything that has been exposed in this paper.
ARTÍCULO 65
La presente ley tiene por objeto crear las medidas necesarias para garantizar el derecho al acceso universal -a través de los medios de comunicación social audiovisuales o sonoros-a los contenidos informativos de interés relevante y de acontecimientos deportivos de encuentros futbolísticos u otro género o especialidad.La SECRETARÍA DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN de la JEFATURA DE GABINETE DE MINISTROS adoptará medidas para que el ejercicio de los derechos exclusivos para la retransmisión o emisión televisiva de determinados acontecimientos de interés general de cualquier naturaleza, como los deportivos, no perjudique el derecho de los ciudadanos a seguir dichos acontecimientos en directo y de manera gratuita, en todo el territorio nacional. En el cumplimiento de estas previsiones, deberá elaborar un listado anual de acontecimientos de interés general para la retransmisión o emisión televisiva, respecto de los cuales el ejercicio de derechos exclusivos deberá ser justo, razonable y no discriminatorio.
[‘PROPUESTA DE PROYECTO DE LEY SERVICIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN AUDIOVISUAL’, pag. 103, 104, http://www.uba.ar/radiodifusion/download/proyecto_ejecutivo.pdf ]
7 comments:
Hi Nestor! I agree with many of the things you say. I think it is not fair that apart from the fact that you have to pay for the cable service you also have to pay a sort of fee to watch a football match at home. I think that these kinds of things only occur here, in Argentina. However, as I supouse you have written about this because of the decision of the goverment to give a very important sum of money to AFA so,in that way, everbody could see the matches, I must say that I am against this desicion. Why? Although I think is a good idea this is not the moment to do it, especially when it seems that everyone remembers that there is a lot of poor people in our country, What I mean is that we have priorities and the trasmition of football matches is far from being one. I do not understand why is that the government does not have money to raise the salaries of teachers or the pension retired people receive but they do have money to give it to people that manage such a redituable bussiness as it is professional football.
Jessica, I totally agree with you, but, you know, it seems that there are things that we don't know yet. Apparently, our president has bought a very important part of the shares of channel 11, so I think this may be one of the reasons why she is so interested in football for free. I' ve talked with a person that works in the media, and even though I cannot assure this is true, it sounds convincing taking into account the enmity between channel 13 and the president. It sounds like a joke, doesn't it?. It's a pity we might be governed by such unscrupulous people.
Well, With regard to scruples, nothing can be more unscrupulous than reserving the broadcasting of sport spectacles of public interest to those who can afford paying, while restricting the access of these to those who cannot. What's more shameful!! Broadcasting the seats of a stadium instead of the match to that non-payer part of the audience is so far a gesture of inequality, of making distinctions, of something that is not telling me precisely about good scruples. Fortunately, these distinctions, asymetries, inequalities, unscrupule managements are now a thing of the past with this new, coherent, understandable law. Hitherto, I can humbly say, in my personal case, that I can now turn on the TV and enjoy, like the rest of that audience with capacity of paying, of my favourite soccer matches of the sundays. Bye bye.
I agree with Jesica Lopez in the fact that, althought It's not fair that we have to pay in order to watch football matches, the decision that the president made was not taken in the right moment. I think that there are many things that need more attention than this in particular. As regards what mariana said I can't believe it.. as she said it's sounds like a joke... see you!
With the new law being debated nowadays, I've decided to put some personal thoughts into paper. You can consult them in my Spanish blog if you want to: http://problematicoyfebril.blogspot.com/2009/09/mentiras-monopolicas.html
Hello. I read the article 'Mentiras Monopolicas'. It's very powerful since it explains some political and more technical concepts that refer to the new law. With regard to (art. 12), which is mentioned in the article, I heard the other day in a political programme that it could possibly generate unemployment because many people, possessors of these licences, will have to renounce to them. In my opinion this is a questionable point of the law. By the way, the article refers to an organism of control similar to the COMFER and it is mentioned (Ley 22.285 art 95, 96), I do not work out if this refers to the old or the new law. Another point interesting to deal with, though out from this article, refers to the absenteesm of the oppossing party during the voting of the law.
Hello. I read the article 'Mentiras Monopolicas'. It's very powerful since it explains some political and more technical concepts that refer to the new law. With regard to (art. 12), which is mentioned in the article, I heard the other day in a political programme that it could possibly generate unemployment because many people, possessors of these licences, will have to renounce to them. In my opinion this is a questionable point of the law. By the way, the article refers to an organism of control similar to the COMFER and it is mentioned (Ley 22.285 art 95, 96), I do not work out if this refers to the old or the new law. Another point interesting to deal with, though out from this article, refers to the absenteesm of the oppossing party during the voting of the law.
nestor
Post a Comment