Those who attack freedom of expression are always the others

The stabbing of a young man in Algorta, Bizkaia, in May was turned into a crime committed by “five Moroccan unaccompanied minors”, according to far-right Twitter accounts favoured by being subscribers to the social network. The Ertzaintza denied this responsibility. A child was murdered in Mocejón, Toledo, in August, which was also sold on social networks as a murder carried out by a foreigner, when the detainee was of Spanish nationality. Disinformation is not only a danger that comes from abroad – that is the part that most worries the European Commission – but it acts within each country with the intention of poisoning social relations.

It is not only the networks that are the scene of this propagation of lies with political intentions. The media are also responsible for errors and manipulations that call into question the constitutional right of the Spanish people to receive “truthful information”. But the political parties do not watch this spectacle from the sidelines. The tense atmosphere means that anything goes as long as they find something that describes their adversary in the most abject terms. Can this be solved with legislative reforms? The Government believes so.

The Council of Ministers approved on Tuesday a project called a “regeneration plan” with a rather ambitious objective. “We want to reinforce the cleanliness of democracy,” in the words of the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños. To begin with, the broad scope of the reforms raises doubts about whether Spain is “a full democracy,” as the Government likes to claim, or whether it urgently needs to regenerate itself. This is what happens when one attaches oneself to a slogan that becomes an unrenounceable principle.

There was a time when separatists said that Spain was a rubbish democracy, that it was like Turkey. Now it is the Spanish right that claims that Spain is heading towards a dictatorship, and they are referring directly to Venezuela.

Meanwhile, the temperature of the right-wing media is at boiling point every day, denouncing the evil of the government in every possible way and enjoying wide coverage on national television. This is not exactly what is happening in Venezuela or Turkey.

What is certain is that whenever a government or parliament intervenes in any matter affecting freedom of expression, it is advisable to pay close attention. The final product may not be up to what appeared in the catalogue or in the advertising.

In line with what the European institutions have already ordered, the Government is calling for greater transparency from the media, most of which are privately owned, both in terms of their ownership and the income they receive from publishing institutional advertising. This information will appear in a “public media register” that will be controlled by the National Commission for Markets and Competition (CNMC).

What does one have to be like to appear there? The difficult thing is to know who establishes the criteria. It cannot be that the Government decides who can be a journalist. Minister Ernest Urtasun spoke at the press conference about trying to prevent the pseudo-media from being financed with institutional advertising. Bolaños did not use that word, but it does not matter because the one who has done so on several occasions has been Pedro Sánchez. The president said in June that it is necessary “end the impunity of some pseudo-media largely financed by far-right coalition governments between the PP and Vox.”

All members of the CNMC are appointed by the Government. They can be vetoed by a Congressional Commission by an absolute majority. Its president has a non-renewable six-year mandate. Urtasun commented that this register should be prepared “by an organisation that is not dependent on the Government”. Therefore, it remains to be seen how the process for electing the Commission will be changed.

As an example of the limits of any intervention, it is worth remembering that media that are theoretically nothing pseudo They published false information in the previous legislature about the financing of Podemos that had been promoted by the Ministry of the Interior of the Rajoy Government. Sometimes, it is not necessary to be a digital chiringuito privileged by a Government with public money to publish falsehoods. The line between error and conscious manipulation can be very thin. But, as has often been seen with public television, there is no line. Everything responds to a political interest.

Granting governments and parliaments the power to decide which media can be recognised as such is also debatable. It is difficult to find respect for pluralism on regional television channels that serve the interests of the PP in Madrid or Galicia, as well as other parties in other communities. The profile of the presidents elected for these channels already says everything about what their priorities are.

The government will also promote a legal reform to pursue hoaxes through the right of rectification. “When there is defamation, lies and hoaxes, there should be a quick and effective response from the courts,” said Bolaños. Ultimately, everything will continue to depend on the decision of a court.

The Popular Party expressed its opposition to the changes before the press conference after the Council of Ministers began, in which the measures were summarised without going into very specific details. Sánchez “is not the one to hand out media licences or journalist cards”, said Miguel Tellado. “The democratic deficit in Spain is not in the media. It is in Sánchez and his government”.

The “regeneration” offensive was promoted by Pedro Sánchez after his wife began to be investigated by a Madrid court at the initiative of several far-right organisations. The president denounced the existence of a “mud machine”, a concept that Podemos used in the previous legislature and that the socialists resisted using then.

The legislative package goes beyond the issue of disinformation. The PSOE and Sumar are committed to reforming the gag law, although to do so they need the support of parties such as Esquerra and EH Bildu, who previously refused to vote in favour unless it included a ban on rubber bullets and on immediate return at borders.

Another commitment: reforming the law on official secrets, which dates back to Franco’s regime. This is another recurring issue in Congress, promoted on more than one occasion by the PNV, which has not aroused much interest in the PSOE until now. At least, on the last occasion, the period for submitting amendments was extended until the end of the legislature.

The disinformation crisis, which is by no means limited to Spain in Europe, is one of those issues where the severity of the consequences is far greater than the number of effective or viable solutions in a democracy. In addition, there is no clear majority in Congress to approve several of the changes presented, especially if they are organic laws, such as the Penal Code, which require an absolute majority. It remains to be seen whether the great offensive will ultimately result in more defeats than victories.

It will provoke an angry debate in which all politicians will present themselves as champions of media freedom to criticise others (but much less themselves). Even Isabel Díaz Ayuso has been quick to say that “she would never use the media of the Community of Madrid to go against journalists”. Here we must make an effort not to laugh. It is the same policy that has Miguel Ángel Rodríguez as chief of staff, someone with a long history of threatening journalists of all kinds.

It’s the same old story. As in Sartre’s phrase, those who attack freedom of expression are always the others.

Source link