Tag Archive for: Public Defender’s Office

,

Media and symbolic violence: under the magnifying glass of a new Public Defender’s Office

We received a response from the Public Defender’s Office regarding the claims of symbolic and media violence carried out on the Los Angeles de la Mañana program on Channel 13 and the journalist Fabiana Dal Prá on the central noon newscast on Channel 12 in Córdoba.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Chimentos format and forced exposure

In the program Los Ángeles de la Mañana on Channel 13 on July 23, journalist Yanina Latorre told on the air that Karina Jelinek “does not whitewash her partner”, and that “she lives as a couple, with a very pretty girl” “They live together and are cuddly”, to which he added many other expressions referring to his private life. Later, a female worker claimed that Karina did not want to talk about her relationships and that she had declared that she was alone.

This type of “gossip” and content are very frequent on television, where the high exposure of famous women always leads to their private life and sexuality being exposed. However, an analysis of the case was requested by the Public Defender’s Office since it concerns the sexual orientation of a person who did not want to be exposed.

Faced with this claim, the Ombudsman’s Office responded by justifying and endorsing the dynamics that occurred in the program, through the argument that the reading and interpretation framework in which news related to the private life of public persons are presented responds to the magazine genre of shows. In the programs of this format, according to the Ombudsman’s Office, color “chimentos” are presented, firsts of the public and private life of entertainment figures, alluding, many times, to the fact that the media do not want data about them to be mediated . That is to say, the negative position of the figures works as the trigger for a chain of situations that transcend the broadcast, expanding on the rest of the television programs related to the genre: someone announces a scoop, the famous referrer gets angry in that or another program and interviews are carried out, among other variants provided by the format.

In this framework, the Directorate understands that the information offered by the panelist [Yanina Latorre] as a scoop, integrates the expected repertoire of possibilities that the program format enables ”.

Following this, the agency affirms that the program does not identify comments of a burlesque or discriminatory tone regarding Jelinek’s sexual orientation, but quite the opposite: “Likewise, it is observed that the comments and evaluations expressed are inserted in a framework of respectful communication of gender and sexual diversity and this approach is fostered throughout the development of the topic and by the host and all the panelists. Similarly, the dissemination of positive expressions and evaluations on the subject abounds, which contributes to questioning and de-constructing binary and stereotyped conceptions about affective relationships and a respectful visibility of diversity. “

Based on these arguments, the Ombudsman’s Office considers that the situation described does not enable an intervention in terms of violation of rights.

However, we understand that the institution must advance in deeper analyzes regarding the consent that is taken for granted about the exposure of the lives of public figures, as well as the objectification and fetishization of feminities and their sexual orientations.

The gossip format, like humor, seems to be a gray space where certain speeches are enabled that can be offensive and even violent, particularly towards the lives of LGTBIQA + people.

Without ignoring the importance of protecting the privacy of all people, it is necessary to recognize that it is not the same to speak and expose the sex-affective bonds between people who adhere to the heteronorm than those who do not, precisely because of the implications they have for their lives that pass in a heterocispatriarchal world.

In turn, the comments of the panelists involve the objectification of two women and their sexual orientation, which is evident in the comments of the panelist Yanina Latorre: “I love it”, “they tell me that it is a couple . It’s great. All good ”,“ well, we are glad ”,“ not bad. It gives me divine joy. They are both beautiful ”,“ you know I was looking at her to see what it would be like to be with her, I tell you she has divine tits ”.

Finally, why assume the supposed consent of public and media people to be exposed in all areas of their life? We are concerned about the interpretive framework used by the Ombudsman’s Office since it legitimizes the logic of these magazines, which imply a denial of the consent of public figures, which ignores what Jelinek said about not wanting to talk about his private life and which may have particularly violent implications when refer to your sexual orientation.

The Ombudsman’s Office in the media approach to cases of physical and sexual violence

Let us remember the interview conducted by the journalist Fabiana Dal Prá with a rape victim. “Do you blame yourself for something?” Dal Prá asks after Dahyana, the young woman from Cordoba who was sexually attacked in Barrio Ampliación Las Palmas, recounted her painful experience.

The claim presented to the Ombudsman’s Office was responded favorably by the agency: “This approach proposes a risky interpretative framework for the facts, since by insinuating the possible guilt of the victim (even under a discursive modality of interrogation and not of explicit affirmation) it promotes the legitimation and naturalization of the acts of violence suffered ”. At the same time, it highlights the need and responsibility of those who communicate, to dismantle and eradicate violent coverage that reproduces “the guilty and naturalizing senses that those who exercise violence often express as reasons for the causality of the facts. It is important that those who communicate emphasize that all the reasons and the responsibility lies with the person who carries out the violence ”.

At the same time, the analysis of the institution revealed inconveniences at the time of safeguarding the identity of the person in a situation of violence and the absence of a badge with the 144 telephone line for assistance to victims of gender violence.

In this case, the Ombudsman’s Office recognizes that the situation presented corresponds to a case of symbolic and media violence, for which it proceeded to communicate the claim to Channel 12 and made itself available to dialogue with the channel in order to “enrich, from a rights perspective, future approaches of the station. “

The importance of the Public Defender’s Office for the eradication of gender violence

In May of this year, Miriam Lewin was appointed as Public Defender of Audiovisual Communication Services, after years of weakness and institutional weakness. This appointment has meant the strengthening not only of the Public Defender’s Office, but also an advance in the recognition of the rights of audiences as well as a renewed impetus in the fight against media and symbolic violence.

The responses received by the Ombudsman’s Office to the claims presented, in which the procedure for receiving, analyzing and returning them is clarified and made visible, indicates an important activation of the institution in pursuit of the defense of our rights.

Based on these claims, we celebrate the responses and actions of the Public Defender’s Office and, in turn, we require that progress be made in deeper and more enlightening interpretations of cases of symbolic and media violence.

More information

Contact

Cecilia Bustos Moreschi, cecilia.bustos.moreschi@fundeps.org

,

We have an Ombudsman and she is a feminist

Last Wednesday, May 27, in the midst of the health emergency affecting Argentina, the bicameral commission for the Promotion and Monitoring of Audiovisual Communication, Telecommunications Technologies and Digitization approved the appointment of journalist Miriam Lewin for the position Defender of the Public of Audiovisual Communication Services and only remains to be endorsed by those who preside over both houses, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Sergio Massa. The position was created by the Media Law and remained headless during the previous government’s term.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The political and economic instability that has been experienced in the country in recent years has led to a mismatch in regulatory agencies, which has resulted in difficulties in the normal functioning of the agencies responsible for directing and executing public gender and communication policies.

This situation exposed society to violations of their rights. Especially if we bear in mind that the media and advertising agencies are essential actors in content development. They hold a power not only commercial or as cultural institutions, but are considered as opinion formers, producers, reproducers and transmitters of values, stereotypes, meanings and common sense, while determining what is considered relevant, normal , debatable and socially accepted or rejected.

Actors who have a monopoly on the media and content production systematically legitimize gender inequalities through the content they disseminate. For this reason, it is necessary to demand that the State guarantee the effective use of public policies that ensure respect for human rights, democratization of the media, that promote equality and that eliminate discrimination. Not only to overthrow the violence and the reproduction of stereotypes and gender violence that are perpetuated within the contents that are circulating, but also for the elimination of structural inequalities in the work spaces of this industry that mostly affect women.

Thanks to the feminist struggle and its agenda, gender-based violence is no longer tolerated today and as a result of the complaints they managed to create a legislative framework in which Media and Symbolic violence is contemplated. The Audiovisual Communication Services Law and the Comprehensive Protection Law to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women in the areas in which their interpersonal relationships are developed have the goal of protecting and safeguarding the rights of women and LGBTQ + people. In addition, state agencies such as ENACOM, the INAM Observatory of Media and Symbolic Violence (now absorbed by the new Ministry of Women, Genders and Diversity), the Public Defender, INADI and the Office for the Monitoring of Publication of Sexual Trade Offer Notices.

Who is Miriam?

Miriam Liliana Lewin is an investigative journalist with an extensive career in television, radio and graphics, including work on Telenoche Investiga, Todo Noticias, Radio Nacional and América TV, among others. She was nominated seven times for the Martín Fierro award on radio and television.

She was a member of the Peronist left during the 1970s and was detained in the Virrey Cevallos clandestine detention center and in ESMA during the last civic-military dictatorship (1976-1983). In 1985 she was a witness in the Trial to the Boards, continues to declare in cases related to crimes against humanity in Argentina and is an active activist for human rights and in the struggles of the feminist movement.

As a writer, her literary works include “Ni putas ni guerrilleras” (co-authored with Olga Wornat) on sexual crimes in clandestine detention centers during the last military dictatorship. It had its first edition in 2014, pre #NiUnaMenos, #MeToo and debate on abortion, and is an indicator of interest and conviction in the feminist agenda.

On several occasions, she has expressed her affinity with the feminist movement, participating as a speaker in talks on abuse and power in society, or referring to the Women and Dissidence meeting, which is held every year in La Plata, highlighting the significant growth and importance of the women’s movement, the green, violet tide and the groups that fight for rights in the country.

In dialogue with TN, Lewin promised “to carry out a democratic and participatory management, with open doors for both communicators and all sectors that feel their rights violated in this special reality. The Ombudsman does not have punitive functions. It is that all those involved in the phenomenon of communication can be represented on the media map. To extend the rights of all and always respecting freedom of expression. “

Today more and more discriminatory discourses are questioned by society and in this line, the appointment of Miriam Lewin constitutes a hopeful message regarding the fight against media violence that affects, mostly, women and people belonging to the LGTBQ + community.

Author 

Irene Aguirre
Sofía Mongi

Contact

Cecilia Bustos Moreschi, cecilia.bustos.moreschi@fundeps.org

Again macho soup in the media

As part of our work monitoring public policies regulating the media, we identify situations of media and symbolic violence and carry out the corresponding complaints. On this occasion, it was about the broadcasts of two television programs: on the one hand, “Los angeles de la mañana” on Canal 13 and, on the other, “Animales sueltos” on América TV.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

What happened in “Los angeles de la mañana”?

In the program broadcast on May 14, “Los Angeles de la mañana” (a magazine directed by Ángel De Brito) made a “change of look” to Cinthia Fernández, which consisted of a haircut. During the same, Cinthia said repeatedly that he did not want to be cut, but gave in to the insistent pressure from his colleagues. In this situation, he mentioned that he did not want to be cut too much, and that he wanted to see how far they cut it, setting the limits for the intervention. Its manifestations were reduced with comments like “it is not elegant what you have”, “do not be silly, hair grows”, “you do not have to see it”, “they brought you here to be better”.

During the haircut Cinthia was seen nervous, scared, pressed and uncomfortable with the situation. The driver and the panelists were all the time commenting about their appearance in a demeaning way and without letting it intervene. “I want to cry, I’m serious,” “I’m having a hard time,” he said, about the end.

We are concerned that television exposes such a violent situation, especially the exercise of acts on the body of women without their consent. It is clear that she consented to agree to the change of look, but this was not carried out under her terms, but was systematically pressed and all her comments and expressions of desire were minimized.

What happened in “Animals loose”?

On May 16, in the program broadcast by America, media and symbolic violence was again committed. Towards the end of the program, Alejandro Fantino asked the panelist Romina Manguel: “But stop, that’s how you came?”, Referring to his clothes. The driver, ignoring the discomfort of the journalist, continued saying: “Focus on Manguel”, asking him to show his clothes and parade.

Manguel’s reaction was a nervous laugh and ask him to stop. The driver continued, insisting that the cameras focus on her and insinuating that she could find a partner. All this intervention, although brief and only at the end of the program, was extremely violent for Romina and stereotyped for women. This was accompanied by the complicity and laughter of the rest of the panel made up of men, who did nothing to stop these moments of uncomfortable reification of the only female panelist of the program.

Why are we talking about media violence and what laws protect our complaints?

Both media contents are humiliating and discriminatory, and constitute cases of mediatic and symbolic violence. Recall that the Law of Comprehensive Protection for Women 26.485 defines media violence as “that publication or dissemination of stereotyped messages and images through any mass media, that directly or indirectly promotes the exploitation of women or their images , injure, defame, discriminate, dishonor, humiliate or threaten the dignity of women, as well as the use of women, adolescents and girls in pornographic messages and images, legitimizing inequality of treatment or construct sociocultural patterns that reproduce inequality or generators of violence against women “. In this sense, according to articles 70 and 71 of the Audiovisual Communication Services Law 26,522 all media outlets are obliged to comply with 26.485 in addition to “avoiding content that promotes or incites discriminatory treatment based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, economic status, birth, physical appearance, the presence of disabilities or that undermine human dignity or induce to behaviors that are harmful to the environment or to the health of people and the integrity of children or adolescents “.

What organisms do we denounce and what for?

Attentive to this normative framework, as well as to the great responsibility -particularly in Argentine society- of the media to construct meaning and form an opinion, we have denounced these situations in front of the Ombudsman’s Office, the INADI radio and television Observatory and the Observatory of symbolic and media violence of the INAM. We hope that these agencies take the necessary actions in this regard and we commit ourselves to continue ensuring the effective execution of existing public policies, as well as promoting those that still need to be created to fight against this and all types of gender violence.

More info:

Denunciamos a Eduardo Feinamm por sus dichos homo-odiantes sobre Facundo Nazareno Saxe

Denunciamos a TN por violencia mediática y simbólica

Denuncia al programa Animales Sueltos por tratamiento discriminatorio de la información

El Show de la Mañana otra vez incurrió en violencia mediática

Author:

Mariana Barrios Glanzmann

Contact:

Cecilia Bustos Moreschi, cecilia.bustos.moreschi@fundeps.org

We denounce TN for media and symbolic violence

In the framework of our work of monitoring public policies regulating the media, we identified and denounced two situations of media and symbolic violence that were exposed in two programs of the Todo Noticias channel last week.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The first situation occurred on May 2, when in a report issued a story is exposed about a woman (former police officer), named Johana, who was stealing cars using a drone. The second one is presented the following day in the newscast of the half day also, in a news about a former employee of the Municipality of La Plata who was dismissed from her job and considers that the dismissal was unjustified. Beyond the specific stories that are exposed in each of the news, we find in common a violent approach as the news is illustrated with photos of women in underwear or swimsuits, exposing a hypersexualization of the protagonists through the display of their bodies. This representation is stereotyped and diverts attention from what is being reported in the news, which has to do with the commission of a crime in the first case, and a labor claim in the other. Illustrating both situations with these images delegitimizes the women in these stories and inflicts media and symbolic violence on them and also on other women who may be in the same situation. That is why from Fundeps we proceeded with the corresponding complaints, which were filed with the Public Defender’s Office, the Radio and Television Observatory of INADI and the National Institute for Women. In a context of social transformation, driven fundamentally by the struggle of the feminist movement, it is inadmissible to tolerate expressions that contain discriminatory gender stereotypes, which fuel the perpetuation of a macho culture that permanently violates the freedom and the body of women. Understanding the role of the media in the reproduction of symbolic violence is that, in addition to executing the corresponding complaints, we urgently see the need to create spaces for training and training of workers of the mass media. communication regarding the gender perspective, considering that it is the only way to guarantee the production and the approach of respectful contents that contribute to the construction of a equality society.

,

We denounce Eduardo Feinmann for his homo-hate statements about Facundo Nazareno Saxe

By virtue of Eduardo Feinmann’s homo-hateful expressions about the person, life and work of a CONICET researcher, from the Fundeps Gender and Sexual Diversity Team we decided to report this case to the Public Defender’s Office and the National Institute against Discrimination , Xenophobia and Racism (INADI).

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On Thursday, April 11, during the broadcast of his television program on the national air channel A24, journalist Eduardo Feinmann violently exposed a speech by Facundo Nazareno Saxe, researcher at the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) and the Research Institute in Humanities and Social Sciences of the National University of La Plata. Taking as a reference the paper ‘Queer memory and anal cartoon: when the comic opens our asses (and we like it)’, Eduardo Feinmann said “It impresses me. A shame. These are the researchers who then complain ?, “Create something called ‘ñoquicet.” The contemptuous tone that the journalist used to denigrate the researcher’s work around the queer perspective and respect for diversity, as well as his sexual orientation, showed in himself the marked homo-hateful look that he reproduced through a massive medium Communication.

Not only did he present the researcher Saxe’s speech in a violent way, but he also exposed it, sharing his personal data and social networks, which allowed some people to access and reproduce a series of messages full of hatred and threats towards him. his way of being and thinking.

This finding made by the driver and journalist was not casual either, since it was carried out in a context in which the cuts made by the National Government to CONICET and the crisis that science was going through in our country were news. In this way he made a homo-hateful political use, taking the image of Facundo Nazareno Saxe and his investigations to criticize CONICET and in this way justify the budget reduction and lack of policies regarding it.

Making and using this type of homo-hate messages is not only violence and discrimination, but also in a context in which there is a great reaction against all the advances of conquered rights such as the Law of Equal Marriage and the Law of Identity of Gender, is extremely harmful because of the hatred it generates and endorses.

It is important to remember that, according to the report of the Argentina LGBT Federation, in 2017 alone there were 103 assaults, murders or acts of physical violence motivated by an act of discrimination based on sexual orientation, expression or gender identity. Added to this, we must consider that the Trans population of the Argentine Republic has an average life expectancy of about 32 years and that we still do not even have trans labor quota laws (except in the province of Buenos Aires) to be able to guarantee minimally basic rights that have historically been denied to them.

For all these reasons, we consider that this was a clear case of media and symbolic violence in accordance with the definitions of Law 26,522 on Audiovisual Communication Services, which in its Article 70 establishes that “the programming of services provided by law must avoid content that promote or incite discriminatory treatment based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation … or that undermine human dignity … ”

We understand that the media have an undeniable responsibility in the construction of citizenship, since they are not only opinion makers, but also endorse and legitimize practices of society.
The symbolic violence expressed through the media promotes its reproduction and bases other forms of gender violence, so we reject the statements of Feinmann, insist on the need to train journalists in gender perspective and in the treatment of this case on the part of the competent bodies.

Author

Valentina Montero

Contact

Cescilia Bustos Moreschi, cecilia.bustos.moreschi@fundeps.org

,

Acclamation in the Public Defender’s Office continues: new Provisional Director

The last week of September, the Bicameral Commission for the Promotion and Monitoring of Audiovisual Communication, presided over by Senator Eduardo Costa (UCR), unexpectedly decided on the provisional appointment of a new Public Defender: Eduardo Jesús Alonso.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The decision to appoint a Provisional Defender was agreed by the ruling party with ignorance of the opposition. The Commission meeting was convened to deal with the anomalous situation that the Public Defender suffers and to be able to analyze the appointment process. The designation itself was not part of the agenda. The surprise then, was the designation of Alonso, whom the majority of the Commission did not know: neither his name, nor his career, nor his curriculum, nor the reasons why he proposes him as Provisional Defender.

Finally, as the designation did not take place, the deputies of all the blocks agreed on the appointment of Alonso, which will remain in force until the titular Defender is appointed, within a period of 60 days. It should be noted that since the Chair of the Commission it was clarified that the provisional designation is intended to fulfill the operational and administrative functions of the Public Defender’s Office and can not take any resolution of an institutional nature.

For now, the only thing that is known about the new Public Defender is that he is a young lawyer of 32 years who, with the assumption of the new management in 2015, went to work in the General Secretariat of the Presidency.
The Public Defender’s Office for Audiovisual Communication has been unaccompanied since November 14, 2016 when, before the end of the mandate of Lic. Cynthia Ottaviano, the Bicameral Commission of the Congress decided not to appoint a new defender or renew the mandate of the outgoing defender. From that moment, the lawyer María José Guembe, Director of Protection of Rights of the Ombudsman, was an interim reference.

The institution of the Public Defender’s Office is essential because it acts as an intermediary between the communication actors and the public, representing the interests and rights of the audiences. In recent weeks, we have carried out a report of media violence against the entity. From the Public Defender’s Office, they informed us that they have problems to respond to the procedures and claims and clarify that “The delay is due to the Bicameral Commission of promotion and monitoring of audiovisual communication, telecommunications technologies and digitalization of the which depends on this body, has decided to appoint a new person in charge of the Public Defender’s Office until the situation of acefalía is regularized and a new Public Defender is elected. ”

In this way, the continuity of this acclamation since 3 years ago, is a violation of the citizenship since their rights can not be fully enforced without the full action of this body. Until a new Public Defender is selected and appointed, the rights of the audiences remain at risk.

Writer:  Emilia Pioletti

Contact:

,

Seven months and counting of acephaly for the Public Defender’s Office

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The Office of the Public Defender, the agency responsible for receiving complaints from active hearings in cases of rights violations, has previously received international awards. Among them, is the one granted by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the OAS. On this occasion, he was awarded the “Inter-American Award for Innovation for Effective Public Management”. This award

“…is an initiative of the Department for Effective Public Management of the OAS, whose main objective is to recognize, encourage, systematize and promote the innovations in public management that are being carried out in the region with the purpose of contributing to institutions Increasingly transparent, effective and have mechanisms for citizen participation.”

The institution was one of the main actors in public policy mapping to protect women against symbolic and media violence, in addition to protecting the general public. Through complaints, or acting on their own initiative, they issued opinions against content that exercised media violence and carried out activities, such as meetings and training, or instances of mediation, with the producers of said contents in order to raise awareness and give guidelines for producing content Not sexist.

However, this efficient and participative management of the organization has been interrupted since November last year when the Bicameral Commission, which should appoint the maximum authority of the Ombudsman’s Office, decided not to appoint anyone at the end of the mandate of Ms. Cyntia Ottaviano . As we mentioned in previous notes, the agency is still in an irregular situation and unable to carry out activities that go beyond mere formal and administrative communications. This limits that measures are taken in cases of media violence for reasons of gender or any other, and it does not allow the Ombudsman to make pronouncements on the quality of the contents denounced.

There is still no certainty about what will happen to the Ombudsman. In this context, it is important to remember that CEDAW, in its concluding observations to Argentina, recommended:

“To amend Act No. 26.522 (2009) on audiovisual media services, in order to provide the Public Defender with the power to sanction violations of provisions to regulate gender stereotypes and sexism in the media.”

In this sense, the institutional situation is detrimental to what is recommended according to international standards.

More information

– The OAS will distinguish the Ombudsman’s task for the promotion of gender equity | Defensoría del Público

– Worrying situation of the Public Defender’s Office | FUNDEPS

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org

Worrying situation of the Public Defender’s Office

Three months ago the Office of the Public Defender is out of town, a circumstance that leaves the agency unable to fully carry out the functions assigned in the current Audiovisual Communication Services Act. This situation runs counter to the recommendations of the CEDAW Committee and aggravates the situation of vulnerability of the rights of the hearings.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The Office of the Public Defender of Audiovisual Communication, which was created together with the Audiovisual Communication Services Law, is an organization that promotes, diffuses and defends the right to democratic communication in the media.

As we have previously reported, this dependency of the State has been in place since November 14 of last year when, upon the expiration of the term of Lic. Cynthia Ottaviano, the Congressional Bicameral Commission decided not to appoint a new defender / Nor to renew the mandate of the outgoing defender. To date, the agency has filed a petition for the attorney María José Guembe, Director of Protection of Rights of the Ombudsman, to be the highest authority in this transitional stage. In the same way and given that the role of Guembe does not enjoy all the faculties, the organism remains acephalous, and therefore, lacking in operability.

The institution of the Public Defender’s Office is fundamental because it acts as an intermediary between the communication and public actors, representing the interests and rights of the audiences. In this way, acephaly violates citizenship and their rights can not be fully enforced without the full action of this body. This situation has already lasted for almost 3 months, but continues to work, receiving and channeling claims.

Complaints made from FUNDEPS

During 2016, from FUNDEPS, we made several complaints to the organization, highlighting those made to the TV channel TYC Sports and the program “Majul 910” by Radio AM 910.

In December of last year, we received a telephone notification about the status of the claim made by an institutional advertisement of the TV channel TyC Sports, in the month of September. In such advertising, a conversation is shown between a heterosexual couple, reproducing stereotypes of the sexual division of labor, as well as of power relations within couples. In response to this claim, the Ombudsman acknowledged and mentioned the stereotypes that reproduce the media and highlighted the positive aspects of the audiences by expressing their agreement with the constructed messages. For this complaint, a communication was made to the television channel, which was not answered. We received a formal written response in which it is mentioned that:

“In its report on the piece, the Directorate of Analysis, Investigation and Monitoring of this Ombudsman said that” it receives the comments expressed in the consultation as an indication of the legitimate disagreement of the hearings with the uncritical reiteration of stereotypical representations that, moreover, do not Correspond to the current social diversity in terms of family compositions and role assignment within families”

Due to the serious situation that the organism is undergoing, it was not possible to take other measures. In addition, in November of last year we made a complaint about the radio program “Majul 910” in Radio La Red AM 910 in which, under the supposedly “humorous” language, reproduce stereotypes and apologies to gender violence.

In this case, the Ombudsman also acknowledged the legitimacy of the complaint and reported that the company RED CELESTE Y BLANCA SA, owner of LR5 Radio La Red AM 910 responded to the complaint:

“… the comments made by comedian Claudio Rico have been made exclusively with animus iocandi and that he never had the objective of offending women or carrying forward a stereotype of beauty that is offensive and oppressive for women. Has been the goal of ‘LA RED’ to spread a message of media violence as stated in the presentation”

Finally, the Radio expresses: “In this sense … we take due note of it and proceed to communicate the terms of the same to the drivers, participants and producers of the”Majul 910″ Program”.

Since they can not take any further measures or issue their opinions on the quality of the contents, the complaints made to the Public Defender’s Office have lost strength and legitimacy and are left to the will of the denounced media.

In this context of great uncertainty, it is important to remember that, in its concluding observations to Argentina, CEDAW recommended “Amend Act No. 26.522 (2009) on audiovisual media services in order to provide the Public Defender with the power to Sanction violations of provisions to regulate gender stereotypes and sexism in the media. ” Faced with this, the institutional situation of the Public Defender’s Office is even more serious. The international recommendations are aimed at giving more powers to the body, which is currently limited to its functioning, a limitation that is constituted as a regressive situation that diminishes the level of protection of women against symbolic and media violence, and of audiences in general.

The reproduction of gender stereotypes in the media is a form of mediatic and symbolic violence, in accordance with the definitions of Law 26.485 of Comprehensive Protection to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence against Women, which are also contemplated in the Law 26,522 of Individual Communication Services. Agencies such as the Public Defender’s Office are fundamental to ensure the production of content and programming in media that do not foster a culture of discrimination and violence. Given the gravity of the case, we again express our concern about the violation of the rights of the hearings and demand that the situation be rectified shortly.

More information

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org

Emiilia Pioletti – emiliapioletti@fundeps.org