# State-controlled media



## Porteño

Here in Argentina we have a radio and television system which, at the whim of the government, can broadcast only through the official station. For example, when the President wishes to address the nation all other programmes are immediately cut off and you can neither see nor listen to anything other than the President's speech. I have never come across a similar system in other countries I have lived in and wonder whether this is not a unique situation.


----------



## bibliolept

In Honduras it used to be quite common for both TV and radio. The bastards used to even turn off the cable TV service to make sure no one could watch anything else. The law is still on the books, as far as I know, but at least they let the privileged classes keep watching foreign cable channels.


----------



## Porteño

bibliolept said:


> In Honduras it used to be quite common for both TV and radio. The bastards used to even turn off the cable TV service to make sure no one could watch anything else. The law is still on the books, as far as I know, but at least they let the privileged classes keep watching foreign cable channels.


 
Lucky them, we lose the foreign cable channels, too. Of course, they are operated by local servers.


----------



## ernest_

Here, the government grant licenses to TV and radio operators to, uhm, operate. When there is one of these speeches going on both state and private TV channels broadcast the thing, although I'm not sure whether private channels are required by law to do so. But the thing is they do. There are secondary state TV channels that do not, however. At least they have the common decency to let you watch something else.


----------



## sureño

Porteño said:


> Lucky them, we lose the foreign cable channels, too. Of course, they are operated by local servers.


Porteño, I live in Córdoba and we have about 70 channels available. Here only air channels follow this speech. 
Channels from cable T.V. continue with their habitual programs (although I always watch the president because I want to know what she says. But it’s another matter)


----------



## Porteño

sureño said:


> Porteño, I live in Córdoba and we have about 70 channels available. Here only air channels follow this speech.
> Channels from cable T.V. continue with their habitual programs (although I always watch the president because I want to know what she says. But it’s another matter)


 
But not in the federal capital of Buenos Aires. I should add, they don't broadcast the president's speech, they just go off the air. But every radio station broadcasts it.


----------



## Macunaíma

Here in Brazil, when the President wants to make an address he has the constitutional prerogative to request that all TV channels and radio stations, whether public or not, broadcast it. The same goes for electoral campaigns. In Brazil the parties don't have to pay for TV space, the channels are obliged to provide each party running in the elections a space proportional to their representativity (to be calculated by the Electoral Justice) and their TV campaign is aired twice a day, in a half-hour slot in the early afternoon and another half-hour slot in the prime time. Paid TV channels are exempt.


----------



## Porteño

Macunaíma said:


> Here in Brazil, when the President wants to make an address he has the constitutional prerogative to request that all TV channels and radio stations, whether public or not, broadcast it. The same goes for electoral campaigns. In Brazil the parties don't have to pay for TV space, the channels are obliged to provide each party running in the elections a space proportional to their representativity (to be calculated by the Electoral Justice) and their TV campaign is aired twice a day, in a half-hour slot in the early afternoon and another half-hour slot in the prime time. Paid TV channels are exempt.


 
That's rather similar to the party political broadcasts in the UK when time is allotted to each of the three main parties (I believe it is not proportional) and the BBC puts them on the air. I don't know what happens to commercial radio and tv. However, I don't think the Prime Minister has any special prerogatives in that sphere.


----------



## sokol

In Austria it only happens once or twice a year that our president addresses us via TV (there's the New Year's speech I think, and probably another one on our national holiday/ independence day = 26th of october, probably also on may 1st = government day and workers day both, but then that's it surely).
Only in case of a national emergency (devastating floodings or a very heavy earthquake or something like that) I could imagine that our president would make such a speech.

On these days the two national TV stations broadcast the speech of the president which lasts for about 5 or 10 minutes - and that's the end of it. Cable or satellite stations of course continue with their own programme.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Here in Mexico it's almost the same as in Austria, all the (tele abierta) it means the public television has to cut off its programttion and they gives the speecch of the president, but in Cable TV the programs are the same, Normally the specches are 2 or 5 min and it finishes and the show go on. It's lika publicity so you don't get angry 'cause it's not really long.


----------



## mirx

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Here in Mexico it's almost the same as in Austria, all the (tele abierta) it means the public television has to cut off its programttion and they gives the speecch of the president, but in Cable TV the programs are the same, Normally the specches are 2 or 5 min and it finishes and the show go on. It's lika publicity so you don't get angry 'cause it's not really long.


 

Exactly, I for one dont see anything negative about having all the nation listen to our president for 5 minutes. At the end of the day what he has to say will in a way or another have an impact on you, so may as well be prepared.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

In Canada, I don't remember the last time that the prime minister addressed the nation as a whole.  Speeches or excerpts are certainly broadcast, but the decision whether or not to broadcast is made by the media and not by the government.  Even the CBC, our national broadcasting company, very rarely broadcasts an entire speech, except for Christmas Day when the queen addresses the commonwealth.

When it comes to an election, the CBC must allow a certain amount of air time to each party.  I believe, but am not 100% certain, that the private media charge for political ads.


----------



## Porteño

mirx said:


> Exactly, I for one dont see anything negative about having all the nation listen to our president for 5 minutes. At the end of the day what he has to say will in a way or another have an impact on you, so may as well be prepared.


 
Maybe if it were for only 5 minutes, but unfortunately, Latin American presidents seem to have a penchant for making extremely long speeches, often little more than meaningless diatribes and giving little or no indication of what impact their policy (if they have one) is going to have on our lives. Still, I suppose we are luckier than the hapless citizens of Cuba or Venezuela who have to listen to hour after hour of their president's voice. Nevertheless, whether long or short, I still consider it an invasion of one's privacy when you are obliged to listen or watch something which has interrupted your precious leisure time. (Of course, you can always turn it off, but then you'll never know when your favourite programme is going to come back on the air).


----------



## Macunaíma

Porteño said:


> Still, I suppose we are luckier than the hapless citizens of Cuba or Venezuela who have to listen to hour after hour of their president's voice.


 
Oh, but that's a whole different thing! In Cuba and Venezuela you really have state-_*controlled*_ media, but not in Brazil neither in Argentina as far as I know. Having the president interrupt a TV show for a few minutes (never more than 5 minutes) to address the nation over a matter of national relevance is not something that annoys me --the TV shows are likely to annoy me even more. When the TV is back on, they are free to lambast the president and his policies if they want. 

Presidential addresses on nationwide TV network is a prerogative used with moderation --I can't remember the last time I saw one. The Electoral Justice makes sure it's only used in relevant matters, when a simple press release wouldn't do (for example, when the message has to reach all the sectors of the society quickly), and most importantly, that it's not used for personal political gain. Actually, there are serious restrictions on presidential addresses when the president is running for re-election or we are near electoral periods.


----------



## Porteño

Macunaíma said:


> Oh, but that's a whole different thing! In Cuba and Venezuela you really have state-_*controlled*_ media, but not in Brazil neither in Argentina as far as I know. Having the president interrupt a TV show for a few minutes (never more than 5 minutes) to address the nation over a matter of national relevance is not something that annoys me --the TV shows are likely to annoy me even more. When the TV is back on, they are free to lambast the president and his policies if they want.
> 
> Presidential addresses on nationwide TV network is a prerogative used with moderation --I can't remember the last time I saw one. The Electoral Justice makes sure it's only used in relevant matters, when a simple press release wouldn't do (for example, when the message has to reach all the sectors of the society quickly), and most importantly, that it's not used for personal political gain. Actually, there are serious restrictions on presidential addresses when the president is running for re-election or we are near electoral periods.


 
That's quite a different kettle of fish. More often than not, Argentine presidents abuse the system by using it for purely political reasons such as last week when a massive rally, comprised mainly of paid and bussed-in 'supporters' (a kind of rent-a-crowd as we used to call them in the UK), was held and broadxast nationwide merely for the purposes of trying to show that the president was as popular as she likes to think she is and to deliver a firebrand harangue against the sectors of the population she personally despises. Nothing was said that would have any direct impact on the lives of the hapless viewers and listeners.


----------



## mirx

I think we might have misunderstood you. In most our countries it is completely normal that a president will address the people by mass media, especially TV given the wide range it has. But, at leats in México, it is only used in very special and counted times and I don't think it bothers many. The majority of people get more annoyed by commercials that "interrupt" their TV shows.

Argentina is living a peculiar political situation at the moment so the party in power may be abusing a bit of the system. In México every September the president addresses the people to give a detailed report of his work during the last year. This is televised by the channed of the presidency, open TV may offer reruns later on.

I would say that most of the population see it as something positive, not that we really care about it, but if anything I'd say is not badly perceived.

Cheers.


----------



## Porteño

mirx said:


> I think we might have misunderstood you. In most our countries it is completely normal that a president will address the people by mass media, especially TV given the wide range it has. But, at leats in México, it is only used in very special and counted times and I don't think it bothers many. The majority of people get more annoyed by commercials that "interrupt" their TV shows.
> 
> Argentina is living a peculiar political situation at the moment so the party in power may be abusing a bit of the system. In México every September the president addresses the people to give a detailed report of his work during the last year. This is televised by the channed of the presidency, open TV may offer reruns later on.
> 
> I would say that most of the population see it as something positive, not that we really care about it, but if anything I'd say is not badly perceived.
> 
> Cheers.


 
That would seem to be a very positive thing and very different from the way it is used here. Slightly off-topic, but it is not that Argentina is going through a peculiar political situation at the moment, it is something that all the presidents do and have done for quite a long time and was especially prevalent during the military dictatorship with their incessant 'comunicados'.


----------



## mirx

Porteño said:


> That would seem to be a very positive thing and very different from the way it is used here. Slightly off-topic, but it is not that Argentina is going through a peculiar political situation at the moment, it is something that all the presidents do and have done for quite a long time and was especially prevalent during the military dictatorship with their incessant 'comunicados'.


 
That's where we misunderstood you. 

The government does control the media (like everything else in the country if need be), but they don't over use this facility, in fact I would say that they hardly ever use it. They see too much of themsleves in the News anyways. And it's proven how Mexican presidents become puppets of the media when they are too much on air, thus lose all their credibility and popularity.


----------



## Porteño

Macunaíma said:


> Oh, but that's a whole different thing! In Cuba and Venezuela you really have state-_*controlled*_ media, but not in Brazil neither in Argentina as far as I know.


 
No, it's not controlled in the same sense as in Cuba or Venezuela, but it is controlled economically. Newspapers or TV channels that broadcast opinions unfavourable to the government of the moment lose all government advertising revenue, which is an important economic factor. As a result, most of them toe the line to survive!


----------



## Macunaíma

Porteño said:


> No, it's not controlled in the same sense as in Cuba or Venezuela, but it is controlled economically. Newspapers or TV channels that broadcast opinions unfavourable to the government of the moment lose all government advertising revenue, which is an important economic factor. As a result, most of them toe the line to survive!


 
If you consider the Brazilian market as a whole, government advertising funds are not that big anyway, so the media here is not more dependant on government money as that of Europe. Of course the government economic influence on the media is larger if you consider the budget of state-controlled enterprises, like Petrobras. But even those enterprises are only partly state-owned and the are accountable to their shareholders who elect part of the board of directors, so it's wouldn't be an easy job for the government to use them to pressurize the media economically. In this respect, these companies do what will be in their best interest from a commercial point of view, like any private company. If the government tried to interfere, the private shareholders, the other media and the opposition parties would get in their way or criticize them all the more, so it might be counterproductive. In Brazil the most influential media -- Globo TV and Veja magazine -- are the most 'watchful' and critical of the government. They are not in the least dependant on revenues from government advertising, but they do carry government and state companies adverts all the same.


----------



## Porteño

Macunaíma said:


> If you consider the Brazilian market as a whole, government advertising funds are not that big anyway, so the media here is not more dependant on government money as that of Europe. Of course the government economic influence on the media is larger if you consider the budget of state-controlled enterprises, like Petrobras. But even those enterprises are only partly state-owned and the are accountable to their shareholders who elect part of the board of directors, so it's wouldn't be an easy job for the government to use them to pressurize the media economically. In this respect, these companies do what will be in their best interest from a commercial point of view, like any private company. If the government tried to interfere, the private shareholders, the other media and the opposition parties would get in their way or criticize them all the more, so it might be counterproductive. In Brazil the most influential media -- Globo TV and Veja magazine -- are the most 'watchful' and critical of the government. They are not in the least dependant on revenues from government advertising, but they do carry government and state companies adverts all the same.


 
Yes, and I can well recall the independence of the Mesquita family with their '_O Estado de São Paulo_' newspaper during the military government years. And those years which I lived through from 1969 to 1981 were benign when compared to what happened here where the only independent voice was that of the _Buenos Aires Herald_.


----------



## Macunaíma

Porteño said:


> Yes, and I can well recall the independence of the Mesquita family with their '_O Estado de São Paulo_' newspaper during the military government years. And those years which I lived through from 1969 to 1981 were benign when compared to what happened here where the only independent voice was that of the _Buenos Aires Herald_.


 
Oh, yes. But, fortunately, we have moved on with the times as far as democracy is concerned.


----------



## Porteño

Macunaíma said:


> Oh, yes. But, fortunately, we have moved on with the times as far as democracy is concerned.


 
Yes, so it seems. You even managed to get rid of a president who the majority didn't like. We can't do that here. I'm in danger of going off-topic if I go too much into that and the differences between our two countries, although I should just say that I am a Brazilian at heart and both my children are Brazilian, although my wife is Argentine. You can imagine how I feel sometimes!


----------



## Etcetera

Ciàu Porteño.



Porteño said:


> Here in Argentina we have a radio and television system which, at the whim of the government, can broadcast only through the official station. For example, when the President wishes to address the nation all other programmes are immediately cut off and you can neither see nor listen to anything other than the President's speech. I have never come across a similar system in other countries I have lived in and wonder whether this is not a unique situation.



Here in Russia, we have several state TV channels and radio stations, I don't know their exact number. Private channels and radio stations also exist, but they used to enjoy greater freedom in Yeltsin's era. 

No cutting all other programs off during the president's speech, though. In fact, only state TV channels have to broadcast this speech, other channels may choose to broadcast it or show something of their own choice. But I've noticed that for the last two years at least _all _channels in the Moscow region chose to broadcast the president's New Year address. I wasn't so a few years ago...


----------



## Porteño

Etcetera said:


> Ciàu Porteño.
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Russia, we have several state TV channels and radio stations, I don't know their exact number. Private channels and radio stations also exist, but they used to enjoy greater freedom in Yeltsin's era.
> 
> No cutting all other programs off during the president's speech, though. In fact, only state TV channels have to broadcast this speech, other channels may choose to broadcast it or show something of their own choice. But I've noticed that for the last two years at least _all _channels in the Moscow region chose to broadcast the president's New Year address. I wasn't so a few years ago...


 
Is that perhaps an indication of presidential pressure?


----------



## Etcetera

Porteño said:


> Is that perhaps an indication of presidential pressure?


I'm not a devote TV watcher and am far from politics. But my impression is that no special pressure was needed after the infamous change of the NTV Russia management.


----------



## Porteño

Yes, you're are probably right.


----------



## mistertopo

Porteno
Cable TV is not force to broadcast the president's speech. The 4 air channels and the national radios are forced to do so, but not cable. Sometimes cable news channel broadcast the speech becouse they want to.
In my opinion one of the worrying part of this system is when it is used as presidential propaganda, just for the sake of campaigning.
Unfortunately, Lately we are seeing a lot of it!


----------



## Porteño

mistertopo said:


> Porteno
> Cable TV is not force*d* to broadcast the president's speech. The 4 air channels and the national radios are forced to do so, but not cable. Sometimes cable news channel*s* broadcast the speech bec*a*use they want to.
> 
> *Or are pressured?*
> 
> In my opinion one of the worrying part*s* of this system is when it is used as presidential propaganda, just for the sake of campaigning.
> Unfortunately,  we are seeing a lot of it lately!


 
*I couldn't agree with you more!* 

Please excuse the small corrections. They are more probably typos than errors.


----------



## mistertopo

The "cadena nacional" used to be used for more important matters, a public issue, emergency situations. As so, you didn't care if the regular schedule changed, you wanted to watch it. 
Now, I'm glad we have cable tv.
In regards to the pressure to broadcast the "cadena nacional" i'm not so sure. Unfortunately I think they concentrate the pressure on regular programing of air channels.

(Sometimes I feel trapped inside 1984 )


----------



## Cheesee = Madness

Chaska Ñawi said:


> In Canada, I don't remember the last time that the prime minister addressed the nation as a whole.  Speeches or excerpts are certainly broadcast, but the decision whether or not to broadcast is made by the media and not by the government.  Even the CBC, our national broadcasting company, very rarely broadcasts an entire speech, except for Christmas Day when the queen addresses the commonwealth.
> 
> When it comes to an election, the CBC must allow a certain amount of air time to each party.  I believe, but am not 100% certain, that the private media charge for political ads.



The private medias do charge for the adds. The parties get money from donations, and I believe that they also get money from the government, but I cannot remember if it is proportional or what.


----------

