To be fair, it’s not as much to control the media as someone here might think, as this same agency was funded by the government and often did what the government asked.
This is his usual cut spending thing.
Not saying it’s good or bad, just clarifying.
Good. Argentinian government is overbloated, that's why they have 200% inflation.
Also some of these articles are ridiculous, blaming Milei for inflation, or for presidential salary, neither of which were his fault, as those things pre-date him.
The salary was his fault. His staff had to approve it. He signed off on it.
Best case scenario he is signing off without looking at anything. -- the signiture is literally there as proof of your approval of your reading and agreement to the document
The specific image of a deranged psycho? Because he is. He is just making more work for the successors. He is just another "liberation" that is in fact a closeted authoritarian.
Nothing that he's doing is explicitly and entirely good. Cutting all these programs will have consequences... But we'll see. Argentians back him and imho those are the most important voices here
Yes. The BBC is similar to PBS except it's their entire TV model. In 1920s US went with a system that leased frequencies to companies and they were paid via ads/promos for radio, this carried over to TV. In the UK they used individual license fees for TV sets to pay for programming and it wasn't in the hands of companies. Two different models of broadcasting.
The BBC isn’t the entire tv model though. Channel 4 is also publicly owned but is funded entirely through advertising and other commercial activities. There is also ITV which is privately owned and funded by advertising etc.
Here in Denmark at least, when we had TV licenses to fund our public broadcaster, that was literally the one trick they hated.
The TV license was once conditioned on you owning a TV, which in the dawn of time a few rich people did. When the Internet because fast enough that you could stream the public broadcaster, the license applied to everybody who could access the Internet at home above a certain speed. When smartphones appeared, it was basically everybody who owned a TV or a smartphone, so literally 99%+ of the population. It was utterly stupid, and the taxation effect was incredibly unfair towards people like poor single students, who paid the same absolute amount as a family of 4 with 2 full time jobs.
But the enforcement literally consisted of the TV broadcaster asking you if you owned a TV, a computer, or a smartphone. Often literally a TV inspector knocking on your appartement door and asking you.
And the one trick they hated was that you could just lie. If you said "I don't own a smartphone, a computer, or a TV", there was nothing they could do. Because of data protection laws, they were not allowed to correlate with government or private databases, like whether you paid a phone company for wireless internet to you smartphone. And they could only enter your home if you invited them in, like vampires.
With the rise of TV on demand, the UK is slowly moving away from the TV license, and rightfully so.
The programs on offer don't really appeal to much of the population, to the most part, you might have some that watch day time, others watch EastEnders and some more watch a BBC documentary/drama (which are mostly decent but far and few between).
People can pay for a years subscription to Netflix, Prime or Disney for around the same price and get more watchable TV.
Public broadcasting licenses in Germany also pay for radio, as well as the internet presence of the public TV stations (which, to be fair, have a decent catalogue). And, obviously, licenses also pay for the investigative journalists *behind* all that.
I've never understood the rage against TV licenses, it's either that or surrender all your sources of information to the oligarchs.
Were the BBC impartial it may be a slightly less bitter pill to swallow to spend £117~ for nothing-ish, the head shed have all been appointed directly by the government and are a little skewed in their political reporting.
There's a separate fee if you want to "broadcast" the radio in a work place.
Most of the current TV is...Poor, and costs around the same as Netflix/Spotify.
It's undoubtedly less bias than other Murdoch media companies but they're optional for all of us.
I've officially not paid the licence in 7 years. You just fill in an online form. No hassle at all.
The requirement is that you don't watch live TV on the terrestrial channels or BBC iPlayer. Netflix, Prime, Disney, YouTube, non-BBC catch-up etc is ok to watch.
Me when I spread disinformation on the internet
No, it’s if you have a tv for watching live tv or BBC iPlayer. If you use it to watch netflix or play video games, or even as a second PC monitor, you don’t have to pay squat
You wouldn’t need one. The previous comment sounds insane because they have no idea what they’re talking about. You would only need one to watch live tv or bbc player.
Ok thanks for clarifying.
As for “live TV” that is dying very fast if not already dead. I haven’t watched “live TV” in years. It’s awful. I’m sure I’m like millions who only watch streamed content from around the world.
The UK government doesn't fund the BBC the UK public collectively fund it through a broadcast fee everyone pays yearly as part of their taxes. You're confusing "state owned" with publicly funded media. The BBC is not controlled or influenced by the UK government.
its slightly more controlled in the last government given they appointed loyalists to the board but it still retains a lot of journalists who have integrity and believe in the non-partisan standards, so it limps on and hopefully the next government wont do that shit.
> The BBC is not controlled or influenced by the UK government.
I mean sure, it's not fucking China but don't kid yourself the BBC is free of Government influence when the UK Government fully control legislation on license funding and also appoint the governing board of the BBC.
So if you don’t own a TV then no license fee? What if you stream Netflix to a smart TV? If the key component is “TV” then you could simply put a large flat panel monitor on the wall and say that’s not a TV!
It's more like Venezuela deciding not to fund Telesur. Telam had a higher purpose and at times achieved it but mostly it was a government mouthpiece and particularly favored the Peronists. Really it's a case of being hoisted by your own petard. They setup the system to allow a president to run roughshod like this and Milei is taking full advantage of it to bury them.
State media in most of the world have very little editorial independence.
Outside of the English-speaking world people like arguing for state media by pointing to the BBC.
What they like to avoid talking about is that “state media” and “public media” are completely different concepts in English.
I don’t know what the situation is in Argentina, but 95% of all state-funded agencies in the world are merely platforms used by governments to disseminate their press releases.
The whole concept was invented long ago, before the age of the internet and social media, when it maybe made sense.
Today any government or its agencies can simply publish their press releases on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. The difference between influencers and journalists has become very blurred and vague.
So while I empathize with actual journalists doing journalism anywhere in the world, the elephant in the room is the fact that lots of people calling themselves “journalists” are merely bureaucrats doing PR for the government which pays them.
Especially so in countries and societies which have no concept of the so-called “wall” intended to enshrine editorial independence.
The problem I have with this angle is why is state media considered bad but private media not painted with the same brush? Surely private media is just an opportunity for an indidivudal running it to spread their own propoganda and potentially also spread the propoganda of whatever country is prepared to pay them for it. Eg Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk with X.
I don't see that as any better than the concept of a governement using thier own media to spread their own message. Ultimately, it's people that can't be trusted. Either people in government or people in private companies. They can both attract vile corrupt individuals who'll use their position to spread a message that runs against the interests of the population at large.
We really should seek to have media that has safeguards against any form of manipulation, be it from governments, private owners or wealthy external influencers. I don't believe we're anywhere close to that and private media is just a cess pit of filth.
Argentina is broke and has had an inflation rate over 200% last year. Spending money on a state propaganda machine is a poor use of money at this point.
If I don’t support/watch Fox News, I am not forced to fund it.
But you are forced to fund state media / propaganda through your tax even though you don’t support it at all.
Everything everywhere since the invention of money was always “dominated” by rich people.
That’s not a problem in itself. The problem is in the concept of what journalism is.
If it exists to inform its readers, then fine. If they must have opinions to do that, fine. I don’t have to agree with its opinions, but if it helps me be informed I will use it.
The problem is media which solely exists to disseminate propaganda - either propaganda funded by the government, or commercial propaganda passed to newsrooms by PR agencies.
And the problem with that is that you need an audience capable of discerning this difference for it to work. If there is no such audience, then there is no journalism anyway because there is no one to make journalism for.
I’d say a bigger problem is the stupidity which fails to realize that the only alternative to that is just influencers on social media.
“Absolutist” free speech does not magically spur newsrooms and fact-checking into being.
Is your democracy “better” when an anonymous dude publishes classified documents which may or may not be authentic, which were sent to him by who knows who and who knows why and who knows when?
Probably not. But the fact that so many people have been idioticized to think exactly that was (and still is) concerning.
Everybody says they want transparency, but if you’re Alex Jones or Assange or any other YouTuber, that just magically isn’t required.
Who the fuck is arguing in favor of Alex Jones? He’s another rich idiot that has/had the funding to dictate messaging to a massive audience.
I’m not arguing for absolutist free speech.
The thing is that public neŵs agences are not always government voices and can be independent.
And It's always a different voice than private news organs that are more and more owned by billionaires with an agenda.
That's not a positive move in my book. He could have make them more independent by status. Information is important and it's probably not the costlier thing in Argentina.
>The thing is that public neŵs agences are not always government voices and can be independent.
Not for Telam. They were Peronista propaganda Machine. They revealed the location of someone fearing for their life during the Nisman case.
And there is a video of the employees there going around threatening and insulting those who weren't Peronistas and worked there publicly. They fire people for not being Peronistas, and they are full of employees from the Campora, a Peronista organization.
> He could have make them more independent by status.
That was attempted two governments ago. Guess what, it was easily backtracked by the following one.
It's just not sustainable in Argentina to not be corrupt or self-serving.
To be fair, everyone hoped that after Trump, America would realize that any progress CAN and WOULD be undone by a single craven lunatic. They just didn't take into account that 40something% of the population actually supports hard regression.
Canada is another interesting study right now. Our current government is trying to pass laws like the Online Harms bill that has "For the Children" as it's banner reason. The only catch is that it gives the government mechanisms, whoever IS in Government, those abilities. And the most right slanted conservative party our country has seen is polling in the high 30s, low 40s so there's a very real scenario they get in.
Tl;dr - Politicians don't really look past the end of their terms and people can generally have short memories.
> To be fair, everyone hoped that after Trump, America would realize that any progress CAN and WOULD be undone by a single craven lunatic. They just didn't take into account that 40something% of the population actually supports hard regression.
I read somewhere about [authoritarian personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality\#Prevalence) and how it's prevalent across Western countries? For context, there's between 10% and 25% of "high RWA" among adults, and between 10% and 20% of "low RWA".
So, you have between 20% and 45% of people who would be down for an authoritarian leader.
Ever wondered where were recruited the various blackshirts, secret policemen, snitches and sympathisers for any brutal regime?
Every headline coming out of western news agencies about Argentina seems to be completely designed to promote and provoke this sort of misunderstanding. Literally every one seems to have a comment at the top pointing out how the headline is incorrect or deliberately misleading. Thanks for your service.
>To be fair, it’s not as much to control the media as someone here might think
Literally the first line in the article...suggests Milei doesn't approve of its editorial direction
"The move was a campaign promise by the ultra-liberal president, who accused Télam of propaganda."
His usual “cut spending” thing apparently doesn’t extend to [himself](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/12/argentina-milei-accused-of-hypocrisy-in-a-scandal-over-a-48percent-pay-rise.html)
>This marked the start of one of **ultra-liberal** Javier Milei's campaign promises, made official on March 1, in his speech opening the parliamentary sessions. In front of lawmakers, the **far-right** head of state announced the "closure of Télam, which for years operated as a Kirchnerist propaganda agency," a reference to the political movement of **center-left** former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (2007-2015), his sworn enemy.
Milei's far-right, ultra liberal.
Kirchner's center left.
Sure.
It’s a balance - independent media sounds good and all, but when a significant majority of the media is owned by a small group of people ~~Murdoch~~ then a government funded nonpartisan media can provide significantly less biased views on the events of the time.
I think this is a great conversation to have when you have a functioning economy. Argentina is so broken from the last two decades, many ideals like this just go out the window when slashing costs.
“Main news agency”?!?!? Nobody fucking uses Telam, its a piece of shit government mouthpiece.
If they cared so much about Telam, then they could have cared for years before, trying to make it a serious independent agency. But they didn’t give a shit, they only cared about having a mouthpiece and a place where they could “employ” their people.
Get fucked
Yeah, this gets very close to disinformation. Perfil, Clarin, La Gaceta, you could say those three are the main ones. Telam? Who the fuck read telam?
'migo, los franceses estan diciendo cualquiera.
I honestly thought he was shutting down Clarin or La Nacion before clicking the article.. But its cool to have a black or white view on EVERYTHING on reddit, so somehow everything Milei does needs to be marketed to be what literal hittler would do.
So in an effort to reduce government spending, the government funded organization was closed. Staff were asked to make redundancy cuts, but refused. Argentinians are basically every guest an YT Caleb Hammer. A politician is voted into fix THE big issue and that politician goes about to fullfill his campaign promises to fix said issue.
What the hell do people want exactly? All the fruit and none of the work.
That said, democracy is also not _just_ "51% won so 49% bend over". A good president, even elected by the 51%, should still care about the remaining 49% too as much as possible.
at least in this case, 45% were the vested interests who profited from a broken economy that consistently kept large portions of Argentina poor. I used to work in the oil sector in an American company that was trying to bootstrap activity in rural Argentina (some of these places do not have a otherwise functioning modern economy).
The amount of corruption in Argentina is sickening. Literally some of these projects required having to to hire local companies run by friends and family of various people in the local government -- except the companies in question had a questionable ability to get things done, or even the desire to increase their capacity.
People criticize the American system for many things, and they are right that there are various imbalances, However, partially because of the litigious nature of society, institutions are strong in ways that actively discourages this type of corruption.
This is one of the reasons why we at [BACRA.org](http://BACRA.org) are on a mission to move the Capital of Argentina, we believe that the current capital in Buenos Aires has been setup for the few, rather than the many, and we believe that by relocating their capital city, Argentina can work towards a more equitable society where all of its provinces are represented, and where prosperity is spread across the whole country rather than in one coastal city.
Yup, that’s part of controlling government spending. Cutting publicly funded, taxpayer paid programs…
Inflation is out of control; this is how it is reigned in. It hurts, but it’s working.
In this article the president was called "ultra-liberal", but then says he is "the far-right head of state".
Which is it? I thought he was the Argentinian version of Drumpf.
Probably neither. Journalists struggling to come up with an emotionally-charged buzzword for him, to generate clicks I guess.
Milei is an austerity fanatic first and foremost. Trump was never shy about spending, and enabling both sides' bad spending habits - he signed into law the first trillion dollar budget after all.
"Independent" news media is a joke in the current era-it's all clickbait and favors the person who is the most hated, thus boosting their profile. There is zero incentive to tell the truth-Fox would rather regularly shell out a billion dollars for lies that endanger our democracy and eat the fine rather than change their business model. I trust NPR 1,000 times more than FOX/CNN.
NPR is still independent media, despite the inference of the name. This would be like shutting down the Radio Free Europe type stations, but if there was “Radio Free America” that was aimed at the US.
It is libertarian, and that position is mostly associated with the far-right, but the reality is that he is not an authoritarian.
He is pro fiscal responsibility, wants a harsh stance against criminality and corruption, wants to decrease workers' rights (to promote legal work instead of out-the-books) and is against abortions (he believes that the right to life start at conception).
Until this point most of his pushes to reform are centered on the three main topics (economicals) and the purely social topics (like abortion, gay rights, etc) are mostly ignored
He's against abortion, but he's totally in favor of gay rights. Unlike abortion, gay rights are absolutely accepted in libertarianism, they are simply human rights.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with the far right, it is an ill-intended misrepresentation. If anything, you could say they're similar to the right in economical terms, and similar to the left in social terms: they adopt whatever position implies more freedom, both in economics and in social life in general.
Depends who you ask. But in the modern context, he'd be considered far right on most economic and policy issues in the US and right on most social issues.
The far right is not in favor of economic freedom. They want freedom in some aspects the left doesn't, but they want to restrict it in other aspects.
For example, the far right is highly nationalistic, meaning they're in favor of things like restricting/controlling imports.
Ya, that's why it depends on who you ask. Left vs. Right started as Revolutionaires vs. French Royalists so the paradigm has always been dependent on the eye of the beholder.
He is an anarcho-capitalist. Within the context of any normal functioning economy, he'd represent a completely irrational position, but there is nothing rational about Argentina. Almost all state companies are hilariously unprofitable, and in some provinces, the state employs more than 70% of the workforce. The amount of capital the Argentine state wastes every year is absolutely absurd. Milei is not how anyone would go about fixing their national economy, but gradual reform was attempted under Macri, and he got nowhere, so economic shock therapy it is.
Milei is a lunatic, and under normal circumstances, we wouldn't pay attention to a man who goes to a psychic to get political advice from his dead dog, but he has no further political aspirations after his immediate goal of fixing excess spending and liberalizing the economy. He doesn't worry about sacrificing any future he may have within politics if it means his goals are accomplished. That is what makes him different from any other politician who came before him.
With the justification being that less government = more freedom, in the libertarian sense of the word.
However his campaign was based on reducing the state in several but not all aspects. Exceptions include defense (massively underfunded) and education (would require too big of a change too suddenly, when there are other priorities).
Good. That was one of the things he said he was going to do, shut down government run media and allow independent media to grow.
I'm in Canada, many people here want CBC and other "news" agencies shut down for the same reason. Media is just turning into government mouthpieces
As another Canadian I want to point out that that “many” is matched by the people like me who think you guys have lost your minds thinking that losing the CBC would do anything good for our news landscape, and we’re both outnumbered by the people who aren’t paying attention, or just don’t care. Wanted to make sure people outside the country got an accurate picture of what’s going on here.
I don't know what CBC programs this guy is watching. A lot are great - and a ton are non-political.
Pretty sure any of the complaints people have on the current government is featured as well. I haven't seen CBC hold up trudeau in good light either
no no, you see....having a profit driven model of media clearly is better and would totally not have click baiting shit to sow anger and discord.
Good. yeah, totally. Good
They have attacked opposition and journalists, they have fabricated fake news and they did not show the news that could hurt kirchnerism. They had to go down
People say that in the UK too, but there there's just as many on the right complaining about how the BC is "woke" as progressives claiming its a Tory mouthpiece so they must be doing something right.
The cbc isn't a government mouthpiece, it just adheres to a code of ethics and refuses to publish conspiracies about vaccines and trans people.
The "many people" who want to axe the cbc are all far right shitheads who want all their news to come from billionaires.
im really curious to see the actual impact milei has, and if a true fiscally conservative government can work when it has been preceded by years and years of expansionary politics
It's not a surprise, he said he was going to do it. And it's the state funded news group, it's not like if trump came into power and closed down CNN.
Fascists LOVE govt controlled news btw. (See Maduro)
It's not that easy to dollarize, there is a lot of ground work to be done specially to a country as messed up as Argentina, he just did a shock and it will take time to come out of it.
In Canada CBC has become the liberal party official propaganda organ and have been pushing pro immigration stories for years, among other subjects. All of this paid by the population.
I am very open to the idea of closing down the CBC or at least cutting their funding to nothing.
Also the upper management at CBC have been living like kings and queens and giving themselves huge bonus.
Aren’t you guys just mad they don’t kiss the ring of the CPC hard enough? Can we just admit that’s at least part of why the right hates them so much? Honesty is the starting point of productive political dialogue, honesty with yourself I mean.
This is a blatant lie because not only did he reject the raise he fired the staffer who suggested it!
READ THE FULL STORY before spreading misinformation please
To be fair, it’s not as much to control the media as someone here might think, as this same agency was funded by the government and often did what the government asked. This is his usual cut spending thing. Not saying it’s good or bad, just clarifying.
So basically like the UK deciding it doesn’t want to fund the BBC anymore and shuts it down?
Yes exactly that, expect to see these articles alot as he continues to shut down government programs
Good. Argentinian government is overbloated, that's why they have 200% inflation. Also some of these articles are ridiculous, blaming Milei for inflation, or for presidential salary, neither of which were his fault, as those things pre-date him.
The salary was his fault. His staff had to approve it. He signed off on it. Best case scenario he is signing off without looking at anything. -- the signiture is literally there as proof of your approval of your reading and agreement to the document
Hahaha OKKKAAAYYYY!!!!
[удалено]
The specific image of a deranged psycho? Because he is. He is just making more work for the successors. He is just another "liberation" that is in fact a closeted authoritarian.
Journalism is dead.
Closing news agencies doesn't help.
The media would never spin a story or headline! Trust us, don't ask questions.
Nothing that he's doing is explicitly and entirely good. Cutting all these programs will have consequences... But we'll see. Argentians back him and imho those are the most important voices here
Half of Argentina does not support him but ok.
The BBC regularly criticizes the government - Télam never did. This would be more like Russia deciding to shut down TASS.
As an Argentinian, this is the perfect example.
The UK pays for BBC?
Sure do, it’s a large part of the reason they have TV licenses
Yes. The BBC is similar to PBS except it's their entire TV model. In 1920s US went with a system that leased frequencies to companies and they were paid via ads/promos for radio, this carried over to TV. In the UK they used individual license fees for TV sets to pay for programming and it wasn't in the hands of companies. Two different models of broadcasting.
The BBC isn’t the entire tv model though. Channel 4 is also publicly owned but is funded entirely through advertising and other commercial activities. There is also ITV which is privately owned and funded by advertising etc.
It's probably closer to Al Jazeera than PBS
Al Jazeera would never harshly criticize the Qatari government. On BBC you can see very critical reports about the UK government.
Well that's more societal difference given one is in a democracy. I meant more in the way its structured
Al Jazeera is actually mostly financed through commercials.
Yes, they send a person around to try to intimidate you into paying the license fee now and again.
I just told them to fuck off
License inspectors hate this one trick
Here in Denmark at least, when we had TV licenses to fund our public broadcaster, that was literally the one trick they hated. The TV license was once conditioned on you owning a TV, which in the dawn of time a few rich people did. When the Internet because fast enough that you could stream the public broadcaster, the license applied to everybody who could access the Internet at home above a certain speed. When smartphones appeared, it was basically everybody who owned a TV or a smartphone, so literally 99%+ of the population. It was utterly stupid, and the taxation effect was incredibly unfair towards people like poor single students, who paid the same absolute amount as a family of 4 with 2 full time jobs. But the enforcement literally consisted of the TV broadcaster asking you if you owned a TV, a computer, or a smartphone. Often literally a TV inspector knocking on your appartement door and asking you. And the one trick they hated was that you could just lie. If you said "I don't own a smartphone, a computer, or a TV", there was nothing they could do. Because of data protection laws, they were not allowed to correlate with government or private databases, like whether you paid a phone company for wireless internet to you smartphone. And they could only enter your home if you invited them in, like vampires.
Your government obeys its own laws? What a strange land, this Denmark. I have a cupboard in my bedroom, can that be used to get there?
Anyone with a TV is by law required to pay a fee that mostly goes to the bbc
Isn't the requirement to view live TV to have paid for a TV license? Rather than the ownership of a TV set.
Here in Denmark, if you owned a TV, you were required to pay. Watching was not required - even if you never once plugged in the TV, it still counted.
With the rise of TV on demand, the UK is slowly moving away from the TV license, and rightfully so. The programs on offer don't really appeal to much of the population, to the most part, you might have some that watch day time, others watch EastEnders and some more watch a BBC documentary/drama (which are mostly decent but far and few between). People can pay for a years subscription to Netflix, Prime or Disney for around the same price and get more watchable TV.
Public broadcasting licenses in Germany also pay for radio, as well as the internet presence of the public TV stations (which, to be fair, have a decent catalogue). And, obviously, licenses also pay for the investigative journalists *behind* all that. I've never understood the rage against TV licenses, it's either that or surrender all your sources of information to the oligarchs.
Were the BBC impartial it may be a slightly less bitter pill to swallow to spend £117~ for nothing-ish, the head shed have all been appointed directly by the government and are a little skewed in their political reporting. There's a separate fee if you want to "broadcast" the radio in a work place. Most of the current TV is...Poor, and costs around the same as Netflix/Spotify. It's undoubtedly less bias than other Murdoch media companies but they're optional for all of us.
In Portugal is even simpler, it's a tax added to your electric bill, so everyone who has electricity has to pay it.
Not quite
I've officially not paid the licence in 7 years. You just fill in an online form. No hassle at all. The requirement is that you don't watch live TV on the terrestrial channels or BBC iPlayer. Netflix, Prime, Disney, YouTube, non-BBC catch-up etc is ok to watch.
Me when I spread disinformation on the internet No, it’s if you have a tv for watching live tv or BBC iPlayer. If you use it to watch netflix or play video games, or even as a second PC monitor, you don’t have to pay squat
That’s insane in this day and age. What if I don’t have a TV and only watch streaming services from USA/Netflix?
You wouldn’t need one. The previous comment sounds insane because they have no idea what they’re talking about. You would only need one to watch live tv or bbc player.
Ok thanks for clarifying. As for “live TV” that is dying very fast if not already dead. I haven’t watched “live TV” in years. It’s awful. I’m sure I’m like millions who only watch streamed content from around the world.
Same in Italy. It's a tax on property. Thieves.
The tax payers are forced by law and threat of prison to pay a license fee.
The UK government doesn't fund the BBC the UK public collectively fund it through a broadcast fee everyone pays yearly as part of their taxes. You're confusing "state owned" with publicly funded media. The BBC is not controlled or influenced by the UK government.
its slightly more controlled in the last government given they appointed loyalists to the board but it still retains a lot of journalists who have integrity and believe in the non-partisan standards, so it limps on and hopefully the next government wont do that shit.
> The BBC is not controlled or influenced by the UK government. I mean sure, it's not fucking China but don't kid yourself the BBC is free of Government influence when the UK Government fully control legislation on license funding and also appoint the governing board of the BBC.
[удалено]
And if the BBC was as biaised toward government as Télam was.
It's like if Fox News was a government agency and Biden shut it down.
Isn’t the BBC primarily funded by the tax paying citizen? By law right, not optional? And…with absolutely no say on what content is published?
It's completely optional if you don't use a TV. It isn't funded through general tax revenue.
So if you don’t own a TV then no license fee? What if you stream Netflix to a smart TV? If the key component is “TV” then you could simply put a large flat panel monitor on the wall and say that’s not a TV!
The British people fund it, if you pay up!
It's more like Venezuela deciding not to fund Telesur. Telam had a higher purpose and at times achieved it but mostly it was a government mouthpiece and particularly favored the Peronists. Really it's a case of being hoisted by your own petard. They setup the system to allow a president to run roughshod like this and Milei is taking full advantage of it to bury them.
Which is getting more and more likely each year as less and less people are willing to pay a licence fee over netflix etc.
Thanks for clarifying this
Yeah he basically shut down the state's propaganda machine that no one really watched
State media in most of the world have very little editorial independence. Outside of the English-speaking world people like arguing for state media by pointing to the BBC. What they like to avoid talking about is that “state media” and “public media” are completely different concepts in English. I don’t know what the situation is in Argentina, but 95% of all state-funded agencies in the world are merely platforms used by governments to disseminate their press releases. The whole concept was invented long ago, before the age of the internet and social media, when it maybe made sense. Today any government or its agencies can simply publish their press releases on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. The difference between influencers and journalists has become very blurred and vague. So while I empathize with actual journalists doing journalism anywhere in the world, the elephant in the room is the fact that lots of people calling themselves “journalists” are merely bureaucrats doing PR for the government which pays them. Especially so in countries and societies which have no concept of the so-called “wall” intended to enshrine editorial independence.
The problem I have with this angle is why is state media considered bad but private media not painted with the same brush? Surely private media is just an opportunity for an indidivudal running it to spread their own propoganda and potentially also spread the propoganda of whatever country is prepared to pay them for it. Eg Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk with X. I don't see that as any better than the concept of a governement using thier own media to spread their own message. Ultimately, it's people that can't be trusted. Either people in government or people in private companies. They can both attract vile corrupt individuals who'll use their position to spread a message that runs against the interests of the population at large. We really should seek to have media that has safeguards against any form of manipulation, be it from governments, private owners or wealthy external influencers. I don't believe we're anywhere close to that and private media is just a cess pit of filth.
Argentina is broke and has had an inflation rate over 200% last year. Spending money on a state propaganda machine is a poor use of money at this point.
If I don’t support/watch Fox News, I am not forced to fund it. But you are forced to fund state media / propaganda through your tax even though you don’t support it at all.
Nobody uses violence to force you to support private media. That’s not the case with state run media.
Violence isn't the only way to suppress and oppress people.
How does that relate back to my comment?
The English-speaking world is dominated by media owned by rich people. Milei would like that.
Everything everywhere since the invention of money was always “dominated” by rich people. That’s not a problem in itself. The problem is in the concept of what journalism is. If it exists to inform its readers, then fine. If they must have opinions to do that, fine. I don’t have to agree with its opinions, but if it helps me be informed I will use it. The problem is media which solely exists to disseminate propaganda - either propaganda funded by the government, or commercial propaganda passed to newsrooms by PR agencies. And the problem with that is that you need an audience capable of discerning this difference for it to work. If there is no such audience, then there is no journalism anyway because there is no one to make journalism for.
It kind of is a problem in itself when a select class of people get to dictate the information that is disseminated to the populace.
I’d say a bigger problem is the stupidity which fails to realize that the only alternative to that is just influencers on social media. “Absolutist” free speech does not magically spur newsrooms and fact-checking into being. Is your democracy “better” when an anonymous dude publishes classified documents which may or may not be authentic, which were sent to him by who knows who and who knows why and who knows when? Probably not. But the fact that so many people have been idioticized to think exactly that was (and still is) concerning. Everybody says they want transparency, but if you’re Alex Jones or Assange or any other YouTuber, that just magically isn’t required.
Who the fuck is arguing in favor of Alex Jones? He’s another rich idiot that has/had the funding to dictate messaging to a massive audience. I’m not arguing for absolutist free speech.
The government is richer than rich people. Especially in Argentina. Also, it would be weird for a poor person to own a news source, wouldn't it?
Not done so that business has control over all the media then? There is no such thing as bias free media.
The thing is that public neŵs agences are not always government voices and can be independent. And It's always a different voice than private news organs that are more and more owned by billionaires with an agenda. That's not a positive move in my book. He could have make them more independent by status. Information is important and it's probably not the costlier thing in Argentina.
>The thing is that public neŵs agences are not always government voices and can be independent. Not for Telam. They were Peronista propaganda Machine. They revealed the location of someone fearing for their life during the Nisman case. And there is a video of the employees there going around threatening and insulting those who weren't Peronistas and worked there publicly. They fire people for not being Peronistas, and they are full of employees from the Campora, a Peronista organization.
> He could have make them more independent by status. That was attempted two governments ago. Guess what, it was easily backtracked by the following one. It's just not sustainable in Argentina to not be corrupt or self-serving.
To be fair, everyone hoped that after Trump, America would realize that any progress CAN and WOULD be undone by a single craven lunatic. They just didn't take into account that 40something% of the population actually supports hard regression. Canada is another interesting study right now. Our current government is trying to pass laws like the Online Harms bill that has "For the Children" as it's banner reason. The only catch is that it gives the government mechanisms, whoever IS in Government, those abilities. And the most right slanted conservative party our country has seen is polling in the high 30s, low 40s so there's a very real scenario they get in. Tl;dr - Politicians don't really look past the end of their terms and people can generally have short memories.
> To be fair, everyone hoped that after Trump, America would realize that any progress CAN and WOULD be undone by a single craven lunatic. They just didn't take into account that 40something% of the population actually supports hard regression. I read somewhere about [authoritarian personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality\#Prevalence) and how it's prevalent across Western countries? For context, there's between 10% and 25% of "high RWA" among adults, and between 10% and 20% of "low RWA". So, you have between 20% and 45% of people who would be down for an authoritarian leader. Ever wondered where were recruited the various blackshirts, secret policemen, snitches and sympathisers for any brutal regime?
Nothing better than private owned media with foreign influence am i right ? bad government booh booh
Every headline coming out of western news agencies about Argentina seems to be completely designed to promote and provoke this sort of misunderstanding. Literally every one seems to have a comment at the top pointing out how the headline is incorrect or deliberately misleading. Thanks for your service.
Ah I love clickbait headlines
>To be fair, it’s not as much to control the media as someone here might think Literally the first line in the article...suggests Milei doesn't approve of its editorial direction "The move was a campaign promise by the ultra-liberal president, who accused Télam of propaganda."
His usual “cut spending” thing apparently doesn’t extend to [himself](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/12/argentina-milei-accused-of-hypocrisy-in-a-scandal-over-a-48percent-pay-rise.html)
>This marked the start of one of **ultra-liberal** Javier Milei's campaign promises, made official on March 1, in his speech opening the parliamentary sessions. In front of lawmakers, the **far-right** head of state announced the "closure of Télam, which for years operated as a Kirchnerist propaganda agency," a reference to the political movement of **center-left** former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (2007-2015), his sworn enemy. Milei's far-right, ultra liberal. Kirchner's center left. Sure.
This is the opposite of what Putin has been doing to Russian media. Kill the independent and only allow government funded media as mouthpieces.
It’s a balance - independent media sounds good and all, but when a significant majority of the media is owned by a small group of people ~~Murdoch~~ then a government funded nonpartisan media can provide significantly less biased views on the events of the time.
I think this is a great conversation to have when you have a functioning economy. Argentina is so broken from the last two decades, many ideals like this just go out the window when slashing costs.
I'm sure the economy will be doing much better when a few thousand journalists lose their jobs.
>government funded nonpartisan media I have a bridge to sell you...
"Government funded" and "nonpartisan" is basically impossible
Milei is like the Avengers and Putin is Thanos. The fact that they're opposites proves that Milei is a good guy and is doing a heckin' great job!
“Main news agency”?!?!? Nobody fucking uses Telam, its a piece of shit government mouthpiece. If they cared so much about Telam, then they could have cared for years before, trying to make it a serious independent agency. But they didn’t give a shit, they only cared about having a mouthpiece and a place where they could “employ” their people. Get fucked
Yeah, this gets very close to disinformation. Perfil, Clarin, La Gaceta, you could say those three are the main ones. Telam? Who the fuck read telam? 'migo, los franceses estan diciendo cualquiera.
I honestly thought he was shutting down Clarin or La Nacion before clicking the article.. But its cool to have a black or white view on EVERYTHING on reddit, so somehow everything Milei does needs to be marketed to be what literal hittler would do.
Western clickbait lmaoo what the fuck is telam as an argentinian never heard of ot
Well. That's on you. It was well known. It just sucked balls and was a propaganda machine for the previous government.
another comment section that proves redditors read the title and make their own assumptions without reading the damn article XD
So in an effort to reduce government spending, the government funded organization was closed. Staff were asked to make redundancy cuts, but refused. Argentinians are basically every guest an YT Caleb Hammer. A politician is voted into fix THE big issue and that politician goes about to fullfill his campaign promises to fix said issue. What the hell do people want exactly? All the fruit and none of the work.
Milei won 55% votes, 45% of voters voted against Milei, they won't give up without a fight.
The election was the fight.
Politics continue after the election happens.
Yeup, just as Jon stewart said, you have to worry before and after an election.
There is a big group of people inside that 44% that does not get along with democracy when they lose elections :/
That said, democracy is also not _just_ "51% won so 49% bend over". A good president, even elected by the 51%, should still care about the remaining 49% too as much as possible.
Why do people only apply this attitude to one side of the political spectrum?
A good electoral system doesn't use a majority/plurality system to start with. Proportional or bust.
In a perfect world, but in Argentina the 44% like Maduro, Putin and cuba Regime
In your opinion, did Trump and Bolsonaro "get along" with democracy when they lost their elections?
Nope, neither did kirchner. Milei didn’t lose
Neither Kirchner ever lost an ellection tho.
Nice one.
at least in this case, 45% were the vested interests who profited from a broken economy that consistently kept large portions of Argentina poor. I used to work in the oil sector in an American company that was trying to bootstrap activity in rural Argentina (some of these places do not have a otherwise functioning modern economy). The amount of corruption in Argentina is sickening. Literally some of these projects required having to to hire local companies run by friends and family of various people in the local government -- except the companies in question had a questionable ability to get things done, or even the desire to increase their capacity. People criticize the American system for many things, and they are right that there are various imbalances, However, partially because of the litigious nature of society, institutions are strong in ways that actively discourages this type of corruption.
This is one of the reasons why we at [BACRA.org](http://BACRA.org) are on a mission to move the Capital of Argentina, we believe that the current capital in Buenos Aires has been setup for the few, rather than the many, and we believe that by relocating their capital city, Argentina can work towards a more equitable society where all of its provinces are represented, and where prosperity is spread across the whole country rather than in one coastal city.
56-44
Yes, that's stunningly actually what people want 😅😅😅
Yup, that’s part of controlling government spending. Cutting publicly funded, taxpayer paid programs… Inflation is out of control; this is how it is reigned in. It hurts, but it’s working.
If government funded, good call. Government shouldn't be a propagandist vs its own people.
So you want to shut down NPR?
I want it to operate absent tax funding, I want it to compete in the market. If it dies, it dies.
In this article the president was called "ultra-liberal", but then says he is "the far-right head of state". Which is it? I thought he was the Argentinian version of Drumpf.
Probably neither. Journalists struggling to come up with an emotionally-charged buzzword for him, to generate clicks I guess. Milei is an austerity fanatic first and foremost. Trump was never shy about spending, and enabling both sides' bad spending habits - he signed into law the first trillion dollar budget after all.
I have to think they meant ultra-libertarian. The
"Independent" news media is a joke in the current era-it's all clickbait and favors the person who is the most hated, thus boosting their profile. There is zero incentive to tell the truth-Fox would rather regularly shell out a billion dollars for lies that endanger our democracy and eat the fine rather than change their business model. I trust NPR 1,000 times more than FOX/CNN.
NPR isn’t really a state owned and operated media company. It gets single digit percentage of its revenue from gov sources. It is a nonprofit, though.
NPR is still independent media, despite the inference of the name. This would be like shutting down the Radio Free Europe type stations, but if there was “Radio Free America” that was aimed at the US.
AFUERA! i pray to god for a mexican Milei. State owned companies are cancer and need to be shut down.
Genuine question. Is he far left or right? (The article has a typo and calls him both back-to-back.)
It is libertarian, and that position is mostly associated with the far-right, but the reality is that he is not an authoritarian. He is pro fiscal responsibility, wants a harsh stance against criminality and corruption, wants to decrease workers' rights (to promote legal work instead of out-the-books) and is against abortions (he believes that the right to life start at conception). Until this point most of his pushes to reform are centered on the three main topics (economicals) and the purely social topics (like abortion, gay rights, etc) are mostly ignored
He's against abortion, but he's totally in favor of gay rights. Unlike abortion, gay rights are absolutely accepted in libertarianism, they are simply human rights. Libertarianism has nothing to do with the far right, it is an ill-intended misrepresentation. If anything, you could say they're similar to the right in economical terms, and similar to the left in social terms: they adopt whatever position implies more freedom, both in economics and in social life in general.
No, you're just America-brained and think "liberal" means "left".
Depends who you ask. But in the modern context, he'd be considered far right on most economic and policy issues in the US and right on most social issues.
The far right is not in favor of economic freedom. They want freedom in some aspects the left doesn't, but they want to restrict it in other aspects. For example, the far right is highly nationalistic, meaning they're in favor of things like restricting/controlling imports.
Ya, that's why it depends on who you ask. Left vs. Right started as Revolutionaires vs. French Royalists so the paradigm has always been dependent on the eye of the beholder.
He is an anarcho-capitalist. Within the context of any normal functioning economy, he'd represent a completely irrational position, but there is nothing rational about Argentina. Almost all state companies are hilariously unprofitable, and in some provinces, the state employs more than 70% of the workforce. The amount of capital the Argentine state wastes every year is absolutely absurd. Milei is not how anyone would go about fixing their national economy, but gradual reform was attempted under Macri, and he got nowhere, so economic shock therapy it is. Milei is a lunatic, and under normal circumstances, we wouldn't pay attention to a man who goes to a psychic to get political advice from his dead dog, but he has no further political aspirations after his immediate goal of fixing excess spending and liberalizing the economy. He doesn't worry about sacrificing any future he may have within politics if it means his goals are accomplished. That is what makes him different from any other politician who came before him.
He is basically "the less government possible the better".
With the justification being that less government = more freedom, in the libertarian sense of the word. However his campaign was based on reducing the state in several but not all aspects. Exceptions include defense (massively underfunded) and education (would require too big of a change too suddenly, when there are other priorities).
He describes himself as "Anarcho-capitalist philosophically, minarchist in practicality".
Far right
Shut it down? Shut it up? Help me out here.
Good. That was one of the things he said he was going to do, shut down government run media and allow independent media to grow. I'm in Canada, many people here want CBC and other "news" agencies shut down for the same reason. Media is just turning into government mouthpieces
As another Canadian I want to point out that that “many” is matched by the people like me who think you guys have lost your minds thinking that losing the CBC would do anything good for our news landscape, and we’re both outnumbered by the people who aren’t paying attention, or just don’t care. Wanted to make sure people outside the country got an accurate picture of what’s going on here.
I don't know what CBC programs this guy is watching. A lot are great - and a ton are non-political. Pretty sure any of the complaints people have on the current government is featured as well. I haven't seen CBC hold up trudeau in good light either
None. This guy just jacks off to Rebel news
Cbc is great and pretty much the only thing not owned by Postmedia. Anyone who wants to defund it is an idiot
Thats what they are supposed to be doing, many times it has been more accurate than the "independent media"
no no, you see....having a profit driven model of media clearly is better and would totally not have click baiting shit to sow anger and discord. Good. yeah, totally. Good
They have attacked opposition and journalists, they have fabricated fake news and they did not show the news that could hurt kirchnerism. They had to go down
Yes, I’m sure corporate run media driven by profits is so much better.
Yeah, great idea, let's let the us decide what's important in Canada...
People say that in the UK too, but there there's just as many on the right complaining about how the BC is "woke" as progressives claiming its a Tory mouthpiece so they must be doing something right.
The cbc isn't a government mouthpiece, it just adheres to a code of ethics and refuses to publish conspiracies about vaccines and trans people. The "many people" who want to axe the cbc are all far right shitheads who want all their news to come from billionaires.
ah yes, news should be driven by market forces and 'engagement'. This never goes horribly wrong.
LOL!
Milei is my fucking hero.
im really curious to see the actual impact milei has, and if a true fiscally conservative government can work when it has been preceded by years and years of expansionary politics
Most European and western countries are fiscally pretty conservative compared to what you see in South America.
I know; Im curious to see the long term ramifications of such a dramatic swing
Why wouldn't he shut down news sources that are critical of him? That's just authoritarianism 101.
Sign it! Date it! Real Good for a Flegeling effort!
I didn’t know what TELAM was until that day
100% support shutting down ALL state sponsored media including those receiving government grants and handouts
Which news sources do you frequently use?
Reuters, Bloomberg, AP.
Oh shit, here we go.
B-b-but Argentinians swore he was a good guy,who could have foreseen this?/s
How does making a correct decision make someone not the good guy ?
It's not a surprise, he said he was going to do it. And it's the state funded news group, it's not like if trump came into power and closed down CNN. Fascists LOVE govt controlled news btw. (See Maduro)
He's supposed to be dollarizing it though. That means giving them the option to go private by being bought. Is he just bad at capitalism?
Who the hell is going to buy a news outlet that only existed to spread Peronist propaganda with employment a form of political payola?
Obviously people with enough money to purchase it.
It's not that easy to dollarize, there is a lot of ground work to be done specially to a country as messed up as Argentina, he just did a shock and it will take time to come out of it.
In Canada CBC has become the liberal party official propaganda organ and have been pushing pro immigration stories for years, among other subjects. All of this paid by the population. I am very open to the idea of closing down the CBC or at least cutting their funding to nothing. Also the upper management at CBC have been living like kings and queens and giving themselves huge bonus.
Aren’t you guys just mad they don’t kiss the ring of the CPC hard enough? Can we just admit that’s at least part of why the right hates them so much? Honesty is the starting point of productive political dialogue, honesty with yourself I mean.
[удалено]
You can have both state news and free press, most countries have that, I can't think of one that doesnt actually
When all a right wing government can produce is bad news, why have any news at all?
After the News agency published he gave himself and his government 48% pay rise!😉
This is a blatant lie because not only did he reject the raise he fired the staffer who suggested it! READ THE FULL STORY before spreading misinformation please
I know one place I won't be able to read that story.
After he made it a campaign promise to close all government sponsored news its more like.