Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Press Freedom

MEDIA-MEXICO: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Powerful Broadcasters

Diego Cevallos

MEXICO CITY, Jun 6 2007 (IPS) - Mexico’s Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the country’s powerful and formerly untouchable biggest broadcasters, Televisa and TV Azteca, by declaring several key clauses of a 2006 law unconstitutional.

In a preliminary vote, the magistrates decided that the clauses gave the two broadcasters and a small group of radio stations unfair advantages and ran counter to democracy.

“The Court has shown independence by not yielding to the power of the networks and has given a spanking to the members of Congress and the government of Vicente Fox (2000-2006), who approved the law in an act of submission,” said political science Professor Denise Dresser at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico.

The judges will hold a final vote on all of the provisions of the law after concluding their deliberations, which began three weeks ago and end Thursday.

The magistrates’ arguments were the target of fierce attacks on Televisa and TV Azteca programmes in the last few days.

Without granting the right to rebuttal, the two companies, which have more than 95 percent of the viewing audience and have a corner on the advertising market, lashed out at the judges’ decisions and those who filed the suit accusing the law of being unconstitutional.


The justices concluded that it is illegal for stations that have already been assigned TV and radio frequencies to branch out into digital services of all kinds simply by notifying the government and without paying any additional costs, while potential new competitors had to participate in public tenders.

They also decided that new concessions should not necessarily be awarded to the highest bidder, and that 20-year licences that can be automatically renewed are unconstitutional.

The Court stated that these central aspects of the law favour the emergence of monopolies and the further concentration of media ownership in the hands of the current concession-holders, against the public interest.

The judicial system “has taught a big lesson to the other branches of the state, which yielded (to the power of the major broadcasters),” said Javier Corral, a former senator of the governing National Action Party (PAN), who was among those who brought the lawsuit.

Media analyst Néstor Cortés told IPS that the magistrates “have won a level of confidence and trust unusual for institutions in Mexico.”

The law was passed by Congress in March 2006 in the midst of the campaign for the July presidential elections, under the open pressure of the two broadcasters. Several legislators revealed that parts of the law were actually drafted in the offices of the two networks.

The legislation was approved by lawmakers from all of the parties, including the leftwing Democratic Revolution Party (PRD). However, a number of legislators have since said that they regretted their vote, and some have even admitted that the parties were pressured with threats that their campaign spots would not be put on the air.

Both ruling party and opposition legislators said that once the Supreme Court hands down its final ruling, they will draw up a new bill that will guarantee democratisation and healthy competition in the media.

They also promised to draft legislation to support public and educational stations, as well as community radio stations, which are not even mentioned by the 2006 law.

The handful of radio and television stations that dominate the airwaves in Mexico partly owe their power to the millions of dollars they receive during election campaigns for airing the ads of political parties, which pay them largely with taxpayers’ money.

During the campaign for the Jul. 2, 2006 presidential elections, 80 percent of the more than 324 million dollars spent by politicians and parties went to the media.

Seven out of 10 viewers in Mexico watch channels belonging to Televisa, two out of 10 watch TV Azteca channels, and radio stations are concentrated in the hands of 13 business groups.

The majority of these companies, which have seen their profits soar in recent years, took part in no public tender to receive their concessions, which they were awarded directly by governments of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled the country from 1929 to 2000.

Fox, who like Calderón belongs to the conservative PAN, cultivated close ties with the two main networks and was seldom criticised by them when he was in office.

The president said Wednesday that he would respect the judges’ decision, and would press for a new law that is the result of a consensus among all of the parties.

The magistrates’ discussions on the broadcasting law were marked by an unprecedented level of transparency. Their sessions, in which the law was consistently described as running counter to the interests of democracy, were aired live on local public television, and their draft resolution was placed on the Court’s web page.

Only nine of the 11 judges sitting on the country’s highest court took part in the deliberations. One recused himself because of past academic activities in which he expressed opinions on the issue, and the other because he was sick.

“What the Supreme Court has done is extraordinary and historic, because it confronted one of the powers-that-be without being intimidated, demonstrating that it is a solid institution,” said human rights activist Sergio Aguayo, a professor at the Colegio de Mexico.

His colleague at that prestigious institution of higher learning, Lorenzo Meyer, said he was surprised by the stance taken by the judges, which he said was a lesson in independence.

 
Republish | | Print |


jennifer cole phillips