The Attorney General’s Office activated preventive action against Communications Regulatory Commission (CRC) behind him controversial request that it sent to the media requesting data on its editorial policies.
The CRC had asked the channels for internal information such as “action manuals, minutes of the editorial committee and criteria for the selection of journalistic and news contentAlthough he later clarified that the request was “informative and analytical” in nature, he did not revoke the original request or make it clear whether its delivery was voluntary.
(You can read: The criteria set by the CRC for presidential addresses to be transmitted).
In its analysis, the Attorney General’s Office maintained that this request could constitute indirect censorship, a violation of fundamental rights and even an excess of functions. He highlighted the following possible risks:
– That the CRC exceeds its powers by requiring internal editorial decisions.
– That the formality of the request generates an inhibitory effect or self-censorship by the media.
– The threat to the confidentiality of sources, the professional secrecy of the journalist and the confidentiality of deliberations.
– Unclear use of data, its purpose and safeguard guarantees.
(You may be interested in: Petro denounces attempted censorship after the CRC requests the mass media).
Attorney General’s Office
For these reasons, the Public Ministry requested that the CRC deliver documents and clarifications such as:
– Copy of the original requirement.
– Legal basis of your jurisdiction for that request.
– Clarity about whether the delivery of information is voluntary or mandatory and the possible sanctions for non-compliance.
– Protocols to manage the confidentiality of information.
– Description of the purpose, use and scope of the data requested.
(You can read: CRC will adjust procedures after Council ruling on presidential addresses).
Media
The controversy does not end
Although the CRC issued a subsequent statement, the The Attorney General’s Office argues that this does not revoke the initial requirement nor does it clarify enough about its mandatory or optional nature.which continues to raise concerns about press freedom.
He Attorney General, Gregorio Eljachhas warned that it will not allow state entities to configure practices that violate freedom of the press or editorial autonomy.
On the other hand, press organizations and critical voices have interpreted the CRC letter as an attempt to control or undue surveillance over the media.
PORTFOLIO
