On Tuesday afternoon, the Chamber of Deputies began to discuss the Executive Branch’s bill that modifies the current media law (19.307).
Although the proposal had already been discussed previously and only the changes made in a second instance remained to be approved, the session had to be suspended and rescheduled for Wednesday due to a regulatory slip-up regarding the deadline.
The session will resume on Wednesday, in a day that is expected to be long since the Accountability Report will also be discussed. An extraordinary session is expected to continue with the treatment of the media bill.
Parliamentary context and threats to press freedom
The ruling coalition was able to pass the proposal with 51 votes in favor of the 87 possible, however, the project was not able to complete its approval.
Parliamentary rules stipulate that any extension of the session must be voted on before 8 p.m., but when they discovered that it was already 8:04 p.m., they were forced to adjourn the session.
The debate was characterized by passionate speeches and significant disagreements.
Colorado Party deputy Martín Melazzi defended the proposal, arguing that it is a “media law, not a law against the media.” According to Melazzi, “with this law, we are throwing a lifeline to traditional media outlets so that they can continue to survive.”
Melazzi contextualized that the original proposal of the Executive Branch allowed a maximum of eight frequency licenses per holder for over-the-air channels or radios.
This number was reduced to four in the Chamber of Deputies and raised again to five in the Senate. “We contributed to reducing the number of licenses from eight to five,” the Colorado deputy reiterated.
Questions about Antel
A sensitive point during the debate was the role of the state-owned company Antel. Melazzi stressed that the Colorado Party has been a defender of Antel, and underlined that the company “is not obliged to provide its infrastructure.”
This comment referred to Article 49 of the bill, which grants cable operators the right to apply for licenses to provide broadband and Internet access services using their networks or resources contracted with third parties.
Responses from the opposition and interest groups
In the Chamber’s bars, the Single Telecommunications Union (Sutel) expressed its discontent. Members of the union showed t-shirts that spelled out the phrase “They are killing Antel.”
Sutel Secretary General Florencia Leymonie described the project as “undemocratic and regressive,” arguing that it favors private companies to the detriment of Antel.
For his part, Gabriel Tinaglini, a deputy for the Frente Amplio, harshly criticized the proposal. “We are witnessing another chapter in this disastrous series of events in which the government and the ruling party have immersed us in the discussion of the media law,” he declared.
According to Tinaglini, the Senate’s bill is “much worse” than the original and puts democratic quality at risk with articles such as 72, which imposes impartiality in political coverage by the media.
