Latest / Ecosistemas / Ecosistema de la libertad de expresión - Invitada: Sandra Chaher

Transcript

Ecosistema de la libertad de expresión - Invitada: Sandra Chaher · Ecosistemas

0:00
Hello from ecosystems. We send a fraternal greeting to all radio environment staff,
0:07
the National Federation of Health Workers and its Secretary, Carlos Adamo, for allowing
0:12
them to be part of this great family that is a radio ecosystem environment under
0:18
the prism of polyhedron. How today' s world works, increasingly complex,
0:37
more uncertain, changing, seemingly chaotic, a world of all against all or
0:42
all for all. Not one thing or the other. The world operates in
0:48
a delicate balance of interacting ecosystems. I propose that you think together about how
0:56
these ecosystems work. A small pocket manual, perhaps just a bunch of thoughts
1:00
and reflections that allow us to accommodate, order, orient, understand how we
1:07
work in these hyper- informed and communicated societies, where it is hard for
1:14
us to discover their senses and motives every day. I invite you to listen
1:19
and discover together these ecosystems in which we are often inserted without wanting to be
1:26
part of them and which, however, are part of our daily struggles and
1:30
disappointments and under the prism of polyhedron, because every ecosystem is composed of different
1:38
faces or sides, with its vertices and particularities. Unity in diversity, where
1:46
the whole is superior to the parties, the agreement superior to the conflict the
1:51
reality is imposed on the idea and time in space. This will allow us
1:57
to build a sustainable world in an environment of full humanity, in harmony with
2:01
the unique protective nature of our existence and the generations to come welcome. There
2:12
are ecosystems under the prism of polyhedron and in this space, in ecosystems under
3:07
the prigma of polyhedron. Let' s always say that we try to think
3:10
of the world, not as something global, but with its planes and its
3:15
vertices and its points of view, which make it richer and more of all
3:23
variable and diverse in this time that we give ourselves in the radio and podcast
3:30
to think, to think aloud, and I can think of that sketche I
3:35
told you that it had to do precisely with television and ended with that phrase
3:42
the one who thinks loses good here. We try to think aloud and win,
3:46
at least win in conception, to interpret and understand the world around us
3:52
so changing, so complex, so difficult. At times, this ecosystem of
3:59
today we are going to dedicate something that we have already worked, that we
4:03
have already thought with Professor Porto, not dear friend who accompanied us in his
4:11
time Ricardo and with which we saw him from the legal point of view.
4:15
But it is very good now, at this moment and after having participated in
4:20
a meeting of the International Gine of UNESCO, to be able to chat with
4:27
someone who has dedicated himself for more than twenty years to work and think about
4:32
the power of the media and to work from the necessary search for equality in
4:40
the media. That is why, for this ecosystem of the media and for
4:46
this ecosystem of freedom of expression. We' re calling a specialist, Sandra
4:53
Chaer, with us on the other side of the line. In this case
4:57
it' s a little difficult when we don' t have you in the
5:00
studio, but let' s try to talk and get to know each other
5:06
through the air hello Sandra How are you? What' s up, how
5:08
are you? Nice to meet you, good. Sandra is a journalist with
5:12
a degree in Communication Sciences from the University of Buenos Aires and is also president
5:15
of the Civil Communication Association for Equality. In addition, she is a consultant
5:24
to UNESCO' s international organizations and works on gender and law, which in
5:30
these times too, when we have to live so convulsed, necessarily require a
5:36
reflection. I think we' re in a cultural battle rather than a battle.
5:44
It seems like a war and I think that, as had been said
5:49
at some point, in a war the first thing that is lost is the
5:53
truth. It' s not like that. Yes, let' s say
5:57
that the truth is a value at this time that is quite disputed, that
6:01
not all of them are not the same consensus about the truth that we had
6:08
in the past Venís de Santiago de Chile, on the five I believe that
6:12
on the three of May, which is the Day of Freedom of Expression,
6:16
a meeting took place there in Santiago, with a very strong document. He
6:19
' s talking about a worldwide deception. Not this is a document that we
6:25
generated some of the people who were participating in Argentina. Let' s say
6:30
the Global Conference on Freedom of Expression is an activity that does unesco every year
6:35
to commemorate precisely the three of May, which is the World Day of Freedom
6:39
of Expression, decided by the United Nations in the ninety- three this year.
6:44
That event was held in Chile, because in Chile it had been done
6:48
thirty years ago also for the first time. Then he went back there to
6:54
commemorate his thirties. In the context of this conference, which involves many panels
6:59
of debate, discussion, etc, a state- signed official declaration circulated,
7:06
very protective in terms of rights and particularly, that is, a declaration on
7:13
freedom of expression, because it was in the context of the event the people
7:17
we were there participating from Argentina. Well, it surprised us negatively. I
7:27
don' t know exactly what adjective to use this statement, because we know
7:32
what we' re living across Argentina. With regard to this issue, which
7:35
has nothing to do with the protection of freedom of expression. It is understood
7:41
that States in general, such statements are official and are often statements of principle,
7:46
but at this time, with this Government, the signing of this declaration
7:48
is very contradictory to the real situation that is being experienced within, in journalism
7:56
and in communication in general. So what we did some of the people who
8:01
were there was just to put together a document in which we pointed out just
8:07
some of the violations of freedom of expression within borders and try to disseminate it
8:13
as much as possible, because it seemed to us that it was not fair
8:18
that this was the image that the government is trying to give out when it
8:22
is not what is happening inwardly. Let me see if I understand then the
8:26
official representation of Argentina had a very libertarian discourse, obviously, and you who
8:31
participated in these events for a long time and who have research and development works,
8:39
saw that it was not what is, indeed, happening in the country.
8:43
Beyond the speech they had, there was no official delegation, because it
8:48
is not a meeting of governments. It is a meeting that is organized by
8:52
a team in which they set up an agenda with experts and experts from all
8:56
over the world linked to different topics. This is a meeting where people participated
9:00
in a face- to- face manner and other people in a virtual way,
9:05
with a number of parallel events. In other words, it is a
9:07
very large activity in general, with people specialized in communication in the panels.
9:13
There may eventually be some, some representative of some Government, but this is
9:20
not an event organized by Governments, but by a United Nations agency, which
9:24
is UNESCO. In this context, yes, I cannot tell you what the
9:30
cooking of these kinds of statements is like, but I understand that I suppose
9:35
that there must be an area that is shared in the countries with UNESCO,
9:39
all the countries of the world, and considering that the Global Day of Freedom
9:43
of Expression was being commemorated, a declaration is circulating that the countries choose to
9:50
sign or not sign, and this is independent of whether they had delegations present
9:54
on the site or not. In fact, I, at least, did
9:56
not see anyone from the Argentine Government, or come forward like that. The
10:00
opening was entirely in charge of authorities or unesco from the Government of Chile and
10:05
then the panels were, as I told you, then that document is signed
10:11
or not signed, that is, they make the decision to participate or not
10:15
the foreign ministries of the countries. In this case, the Foreign Ministry of
10:18
Argentina chooses to sign it and that' s what circulated and that' s
10:24
what woke up our Let' s say our clear annoyance. They speak of
10:28
free, independent, plural and diverse media. It' s a long statement.
10:35
If you look at it, we take some paragraphs just as an example
10:39
and leave the link in our document, just so that people can access the
10:43
full statement, which has two pages where there are a lot of elements that
10:48
are protective. It is all your duty to be free of speech, that
10:50
is, everything you say. This is what should happen and so we would
10:54
be very well if this were to happen, and that is to say the
11:00
summum of a democratic society with freedom in general and freedom of expression in particular.
11:05
Of course, it is like an idea of duty or what we would
11:09
like it to be, but it hides a very dark reality, which is
11:15
what we are living, with very complicated risks in the future. If one
11:20
is thinking that the public media system is being dismembered in Argentina, with the
11:26
serious complication of how to access information, free information, of the commitments that
11:33
many of the owners of the media corporations in the country have. Yeah,
11:39
that was one of the aspects we marked. No, well, they'
11:45
re first. I would like to be just one more comment that is in
11:50
relation to the fact that we are signing it people who come from different fields,
11:54
that we were gathered there for this activity. But the signatures go from
11:58
Cintia otaviano in this public defender, Miriam Lewin, current defender Martín Becerra,
12:05
communication policy expert, Silvia Bager Batcher, specialized in media and digital literacy.
12:15
That is to say, the picture of signatures is wide. I forgot the
12:20
question sorry, Luis, no, no, it' s not okay.
12:24
There is a whole panorama that you propose, which has to do a little
12:30
bit with the beginning of the talk, which I would like us to deepen
12:35
later, which is this story that is being constructed that in some way too,
12:43
as you have commented at some point, there is a whole symbolic construction
12:46
behind that story. To see these kinds of documents in general, in these
12:50
kinds of events, I imagine that it is customary for countries to sign it
12:54
and if there had not been so much contradiction with the internal situation, none
12:58
of the people we were there would have dedicated ourselves to point them out,
13:05
because, well, a capable government, that is not in what you have
13:09
higher expectations, let' s say it is not solving the issues of freedom
13:15
of expression according to the older ones, with the greatest guarantees, we could
13:18
say. But I mean, there may be some things you don' t
13:24
agree with. But if it had not been so tremendous in all fields,
13:28
the contradiction would not have been pointed out. Then you asked me about the
13:33
public media, which is one of the fields we pointed out in the document.
13:37
Just the public media at the moment are already being limited or closed even
13:45
without the approval of the basic bill, and that is what is likely to
13:48
happen directly to its privatization, that is, the disappearance of the public media
13:52
and the basic bill is approved. He' s with us, Sandra Chair,
13:58
in this free speech ecosystem. What if we don' t dismember a
14:03
little bit and take the straw out of the wheat or if we don'
14:09
t remove the layers from the onion, the amount and the number of innocent
14:18
ordinary people who are consuming the media today, without understanding a little how the
14:22
root of this cultural battle we live in There, as Indian Solari would say,
14:28
a treasure of innocents out there many n or you treasure that you don
15:18
' t see I have brains or looked at another with which you know of
15:26
so much. Ladies, I like not only sine a hundred so much that
15:43
good love nothing or sane beautiful gay ox that it is from the for two
16:07
or I use already I go know or or he keeps these good soil like
17:15
that and I need you to know that both with man very person king the
17:37
sensations or little like but ay love nothing. Good grace. This or all
18:03
interviews or are working yes with Sandra Chaer and after listening to the Indian with
18:34
his treasure of the innocent, we keep thinking together. Freedom of expression is
18:40
good, because Sandra is president of the Civil Communication Association for Equality and she
18:45
speaks that, before freedom, we should think about equality in order to be
18:51
free. And that sounds good to me. From where we went so we
18:56
could talk about freedom of expression. No, yes, I don' t
18:59
say that. That seems to me that, always as in all aspects of
19:02
life, it may be a healthy balance. I don' t know if
19:07
I would put one value ahead of another, because it seems to me that
19:11
in the name of either one of us, we have reached extremes that we
19:14
don' t like. In fact, we are now living just as far
19:18
away from a proposal that is not, let us say, either. What
19:22
we' re criticizing isn' t exactly freedom. Also so that they do
19:30
not own a concept. If no one takes away from us a value that
19:33
all people think we do believe is clear that it is freedom, then it
19:37
always seems good to me what I understand that the exercise of any freedom if
19:42
you do not have the means to exercise it, is a vain freedom.
19:47
Sure good. There that is interesting, because this is what is also raised
19:52
in relation to communication. No, that is, you need plurality and diversity
19:56
of voices, which has to do with generally good, it has to do
20:00
with the freedom to express oneself and to be able to express an opinion,
20:04
but you have to guarantee the material conditions for that plurality of voices to exist
20:11
and for that cultural diversity to exist as well. There are some measures of
20:15
which the Government has already implemented that are justly against this. What we said
20:23
before the closure of public media is one of the aspects, because there you
20:27
are just limiting the diversity of voices. It seems to me that a very
20:33
important aspect is not only that the public media ceases to exist as a particular
20:40
voice of the public media, which is already a lot, because the public
20:44
media actually often covers agendas that the commercial media choose not to cover by a
20:49
topic of perhaps menorating. Not then do you have an agenda in general and
20:56
in relation to the issues that I work on gender, particularly promoted and cared
21:03
for by the public media. But there is another aspect that seems to me
21:06
to be the central one in Argentina, which I do not know if in
21:10
all countries it is the same as the reach of the public media, both
21:15
of fabric and of national radio. On national radio there are forty- nine
21:18
radio stations throughout the country. Tela provided before the current situation of suspension in
21:25
which it is of information to the media throughout the country. Well, this
21:27
is a clear violation of the right to information. I mean, there are
21:33
people all over the country who are already running out of information sources. Well,
21:40
this is clearly contrary to freedom of expression and opinion you are going.
21:48
Bearing in mind, I think that, in substance, the debate which we
21:52
knew to give at the time when the law on audiovisual communication services was debated,
21:56
which is to know the substance of what communication is. If clearly those
22:07
who oppose speak of a business and a business framework where sometimes they want to
22:12
accommodate the public media if they want to justify them if they are profitable,
22:18
they are not profitable and give profit, but a profit, that is,
22:22
from a unit, from an effective commercial look, as even the old media
22:27
law in Argentina, which was thought that air itself was indeed a consumer product,
22:33
knew. And the valaire has a value and that value has to be
22:41
monetized. When we look at it from a human rights perspective and understand that
22:48
communication is an essential right to our identity as a person, there is no
22:55
business involved. Of course you go in. No. No. No,
23:00
clearly there is no respect or promotion of the right to communication in the government
23:07
proposal that we have that I also think it is necessary to say, from
23:12
my point of view, how I see it being quite misunderstood in relation to
23:18
communication. That is, it is a rather limited concept, because the idea
23:23
from the state, from the governmental proposal that they are making to us,
23:30
the state should not have public means, it does not have to invest in
23:37
official pauto, that the investment has to do with the dissemination of the acts
23:41
of government, with which, on the part of the state, the idea
23:48
is that the communication must be totally delivered to the market and you have in
23:55
no way to participate to improve the access, the voice, etc of sectors
23:57
usually disadvantaged. That is, going back to what we said before, the
24:02
material conditions to guarantee freedom of expression and, on the other hand, it
24:07
seems to me that the emphasis they place on digital communication also marks a particular
24:17
agenda that would not be criticized, from my point of view, if it
24:22
did not engage in violence. I believe that the problem with the digital strategies
24:26
proposed by the Government is violence, manipulation and disinformation. I mean, if
24:33
there was only one use we could say very intense technician backwards, I think
24:41
we should learn. In fact, there are things that I think from others
24:45
for communicational paradigms, you have to learn in relation to the use in favor
24:49
of digital tools. But the government, as well as other far- right
24:55
proposals, use digital tools as a provocative strategy and we could say to disrupt
25:03
public debate. Not then. However, it seems to me to be a
25:08
negative aspect, but in general, as a proposal, it is a rather
25:14
limited proposal in relation to communication and totally outside the right to communication. You
25:19
differ in your studies the idea and you did it again here. I share
25:26
it, the social networks, on the one hand, and the mass media,
25:30
on the other. To what extent this is going to disappear in the
25:33
future, and they are all going to be a single medium in a single
25:37
way, because it seems like the digital is eating everything, even the discourses
25:42
in the media we already knew. No yes, I think it is not
25:51
good to keep the difference in an aspect that seems relevant to me, which
25:57
has perhaps not so much to do with the impact on the audiences, which
26:00
I think is what you are thinking, yes, not with the responsibility towards
26:04
the states, at least to this day, until the regulation of social networks
26:08
has other characteristics than those that today have in most countries of the world,
26:15
the responsibility of traditional media is very different from that of social networks. I
26:23
mean, they have to be held accountable. Whoever is in charge of a
26:26
medium, whoever owns that medium, or whoever is the person in front with
26:33
the microphone in the hand of that medium, has a responsibility and has a
26:37
responsibility to the State and to society in general. Laws that regulate how you
26:44
have how it should be handled that you don' t have it on social
26:49
networks that, for starters, can already be anonymous that that' s a
26:55
total abysmal distance. Then it seems to me that there is a distinction that
27:00
you have in do to make. For this reason, now I think so.
27:04
In relation to construction and impact, it is already a little more difficult
27:10
to differentiate. For example, if we think of the Government' s communication
27:17
that we, from communication for equality, are conducting an investigation into the communication
27:22
of freedom of progress and, particularly since they reached the Government. My law
27:26
comes through a system that we could call communicational info or a digital media system.
27:34
Let' s say the name you choose to name, but my law
27:40
is not a product of social media, let alone this. It seems to
27:42
me that there is that sometimes it is said and I think the veil has
27:45
to run. There. My law comes as a traditional media panelist and totally
27:51
yes, yes, yes, of course And besides, this is still a
27:56
person who resorts a lot to the traditional media that I am after the contents
28:03
of those traditional media in very small cuts go viral through social networks. Obviously,
28:11
perhaps in the past, with a little more before being President, with
28:15
a little more diversity in relation to the media in which he participated and to
28:19
which he gave interviews, and now limited to a small number of journalists who
28:25
are almost part of his equito and who complement the twitter team. I don
28:32
' t think I complement the communicational digital ecosystem, along with its group of
28:38
twitters, to promote the same ideas, the same stories, the same narratives,
28:44
and so on. Sandra Chair with us in this free speech ecosystem.
28:48
You' ll burn the Indian solari that piles in the most sacred fire and
29:03
searches the crazy ganbatufia and you' ll burn the regoron you' re a
29:21
prigoric icino game and you' ll judge that voice that reminds you father without
29:26
who you are. And that' s right. You will see, there
29:32
are people watered only to their mezquity and do not desazon demonize their sun They
29:41
lost the room of the fratizada, they came down saved and dream that they
29:52
go back to sleep looking in the sky and feel the fused brutal, very
30:08
buy you will have the pain the most sacred fire of today and bucara of
30:15
love. The atrocity of Jean Sojo and Camata was hell and consor can stop
30:37
whenever they are able to decide and everything but temptation. In two ways,
30:49
love is trocenti and also an idea less we know more suspicious and call of
31:03
silence. Bed six hundred and in all good the same I salted my dearest.
31:19
Throw down the cantata, I' ll sea the pain in the most
31:32
sacred fire of obes and very loaded. Love the blind mundane of what we
31:40
are no longer and it marries you regor in the fire of the orifibrego you
31:53
will evoke a voice that reminds you forever. I think quite clearly or with
32:40
Sandra Chaier we are in this ecosystem of freedom of expression. Sandra did not
32:45
want to overlook something that has to do with your research and that has to
32:51
do with freedom of expression and with this that arises about situations of abuse,
32:54
harassment, digital violence and hate speech that also sometimes goes to the facts,
32:59
as has happened a few days ago in a horrific femicide that we have lived.
33:08
Your concern has always been to inculcate knowledge and gender from your association.
33:16
And I also believe and it is worth thinking about together, let' s
33:22
say that this generation situation through the digital, has lowered the quality of the
33:30
broadcasts and those of the discourse. I do not know if you explain the
33:36
violence exactly to see in relation to these recent situations of real violence in real
33:45
life and linked to digital violence. We, many years ago, since we
33:51
investigated communication for equality, hate speech that we have been saying that there is
33:55
no border between the real and the virtual, that the border is crossing more
34:00
and more, but it is not a phenomenon that is also current this seems
34:05
interesting to me to say. I say research around the world is realizing Let
34:09
' s say Nazism preceded by a campaign against or Let' s say the
34:19
holocaust preceded against a campaign, by a campaign against the Jewish people by Nazism.
34:27
In Rwanda, too, the massacre. Let' s say that there
34:32
was in that country preceded by a campaign against one of the ethnic groups,
34:38
the ethnic group, let' s say attacked and violent. I mean.
34:39
What I mean is, it' s not something that has to do with
34:44
social media. Specifically, it is a procedure by which stigmatization, discrimination,
34:52
hate speech are set up as a breeding ground, within which violence may or
34:55
may not ensue, but physical violence is virtually non- existent without the previous
35:02
and concomitant stigmatization campaigns. We could say this, which is how we could
35:13
say an ABC on the subject. I am currently concerned about the normalization of
35:17
the Facho speeches. We could say to what extent. I' m fifty
35:27
- six years old. I participated in the debates at the beginning of democracy
35:30
as a journalist about whether or not you should be given to dictators in the
35:36
media, whether or not you should be interviewed. Even if you did a
35:39
clear critical interview today. No. Yes, yes, yes, yes,
35:43
let' s say, even if you questioned them, but you were giving
35:47
them a microphone and well, many people, many female colleagues and colleagues,
35:55
I say we thought maybe we shouldn' t give them a voice, because
36:00
there' s a point where they' re legitimizing their story. It seems
36:01
to me that with this, with that, with that subject, this is
36:06
a very particular moment to think about to what extent, unless that is,
36:10
to what extent it makes sense for you to interview and give you and microphone
36:17
people xenophobic, discriminatory, homophobic, sexist, fascist compositions, etc, in
36:27
the media that will somehow end up normalizing them, because you would have to
36:30
be super critical and practically not let them speak clearly so that that it would
36:37
not normalize and then also why you are inviting them. If you' re
36:43
not going to let them talk, then it seems to me that there is
36:46
a debate there that would be interesting to have in relation to how these speeches
36:51
are being normalized. The phenomenon is, in some way, not to recognize
36:52
the other. No. One always talks about recognizing the other not like the
36:57
other. But it is very true that I also know that the idea of
37:00
the amount of consumption that this content is going to have, the visibility that
37:06
it will have, the look that it will have from others, of the
37:08
success that you will have. When interviewing this one or Ackell, well,
37:12
there I think you' re crossing an ethical border that my expectation would be
37:20
to stop us as journalists on this side, not without crossing it, that
37:24
is, your need for impact has to have a limit, but it seems
37:30
to me that you really have that it' s full of journalists that obviously
37:32
go for the clickbate. I have no doubt or because of the rating,
37:37
but well, it is a conception of the profession that I do not share
37:42
at all, but somehow it puts into play the situation of the procession of
37:45
the profession itself. Not today, but I say again, it seems to
37:49
me that this is not a new subject. It seems to me that at
37:52
other times in history, too, this was put at stake. These are
37:55
ethical decisions as journalists. Yes, what I think is different and this seems
38:00
to me to be a particular situation in Argentina. I just came from Chile
38:05
and asked how much my colleagues earned in Chile. Now I' m not
38:08
practicing the profession, but a journalist was at least six hundred dollars a month
38:14
and you have colleagues here who are earning three hundred dollars a month in mainstream
38:19
media not. Then it seems to me that there we do have a situation
38:23
of labor precariousness in the media that does not collaborate, because you with what.
38:28
It is very difficult to ask someone, besides to assume ethical positions with
38:31
three jobs, running from one side to the other, with little sleep,
38:36
in short, with a lot of precarious situations, which does not justify at
38:40
all to move inappropriately, because even those who move inadequately or who do not
38:47
have to say, or who transcend or who sometimes cross this border people who
38:52
in turn earn a lot of money. But it seems to me that work
38:57
insecurity is also a bit of an attack on Sandra' s ethics. I
39:00
know you' re very busy. I don' t want to be afraid
39:06
of you any longer, just to invite you to talk again and talk about
39:09
gender in particular, but only a final reflection on how you see the picture
39:15
from here on out, depending on what you saw in Santiago Mira. It
39:20
seems to me that the hearings of the Public Defender' s Office are taking
39:28
place, it seems to me this week. It seems to me that this
39:30
is a good space to deepen something that I am going to carry out this
39:35
proposal that has to do with. It seems to me that the field of
39:37
the right to communication would have to be more active at a time when the
39:43
right to communication is being so threatened in Argentina. Okay, well, we
39:47
' re going to participate and I' m committing you so that next time
39:53
we can develop that job that you' re proposing. Thank you very much,
39:58
thank you for the invitation. Thank you very much. We' re
40:01
leaving this ecosystem. Today we do it musically, with this encounter with an
40:07
amateur angel, my name Luis del Chovarino. You know this, that ecosystem.
40:12
Many thanks to that that the yellow in the technical operation of the production
40:15
of Medina Reboba we meet again as always at this same point of the day
40:20
that it is nice to say that not chao. I start with the end
40:29
ending in the beginning my interests may not have been healthy. I can no
40:40
longer fulfill the feat. Promise you just keep singing to Trason due towards frans
41:00
doesn' t know when they start to condemn Me to just let me know
42:06
my saved escape in the argon of self- love, to the soner of
42:15
the living and suffering and very master vido, I can no longer complir.
42:23
I promised Saña I' d just walk away singing. More than once I
42:37
heard myself say that in resistance there is all the mixed up value of life.
42:52
I can' t understand anymore. Ha Saña dog gave me hope sings