66 Fintech Advisory would provide television and internet access to 25% and 19%, respectively, of the 10 million homes in Argentina, which at the time had a population of 36 million people (Newbery, 2006). El Crisis del Campo Despite the benefits and freedom Grupo Clarín experienced under presidents likeMenem and Kirchner, the growing conglomerate was not without its share of enemies. Incoming President Cristina Fernández, Kirchner’s wife and former First Lady, played a large role in the well-known feud with Grupo Clarín that later became known as el crisis del campo (the countryside crisis). The dispute began when Fernández attempted to pass a law that would increase taxes on certain agricultural products. This law was unpopular among farmers and landowners, with many protesting by going on strike and creating roadblocks (Macrory, 2013). Clarín, in its coverage of the protests, visibly sided with the protestors on this issue. When the law was narrowly defeated in the Senate, Fernández publicly blamed Clarín for its negative representations of her and the law. El crisis del campo was only the beginning, with Fernández and Grupo Clarín feuding throughout the rest of her presidency. In 2009, the Argentine legislature at Fernández’s behest passed Law No. 26,522, also known as the Audiovisual Communication Services Law (Argentine Republic, 2009), to democratize the country’s audiovisual media by de-concentrating media ownership. The law sought to destroy media conglomerates in Argentina and promote diversity in the country’s media landscape. It also encouraged independent audiovisual outlets to create and produce content by granting them funds from the national government and created the Federal Authority on Service for Audiovisual Communications, which was in charge of regulating the law. Given the feud between Grupo Clarín and Fernández, however, many saw the legislation as a move meant to harm the conglomerate. Grupo Clarín publicly questioned the president’s intentions with the law, given the relationship between the two. Grupo Clarín’s biggest objection to the law could be found in Article 161, which placed limits on the number of broadcast television and radio licenses a company can own (Nejamkis & Esposito, 2013). Despite Grupo Clarín’s objections, Fernández continued her attack on the organization, this time targeting Clarín owner Ernestina Herrera de Noble, one of the richest women in Argentina. Fernández claimed the two adopted children of Herrera de Noble were children of kidnapped political prisoners from the days of Videla’s military dictatorship, and she urged the courts to investigate. By associating Grupo Clarín with Argentina’s infamous dictatorship, Fernández hoped to discredit the company and any future criticisms it made against her. It quickly became a situation of “she-said, she-said,” with Clarín claiming it was harassed by the government and the government claiming Clarín conspired against it (Ortiz, 2010). Neither side truly won this particular dispute, with the main outcome for both being a continued decline in trustworthiness and transparency, particularly among Argentine citizens. Still, Fernández’spoliticallycraftedattacks on Grupo Clarín did not stop. Legislation passed in 2011, again at the behest of the president, defined newsprint as a national interest and, if deemed necessary, allowed the state to increase ownership in the only newsprint producer in Argentina: Papel Prensa (Macrory, 2013). At the time, Papel Prensa’s three stakeholders were Clarín (49%), La Nación (22.5%), and the Argentine Republic (27.5%). Notable print media figures, such as renowned Argentine journalist Horacio Verbitsky, argued that the private businesses with a stake in Papel Prensa unnecessarily raised prices and ultimately hurt the consumer. Clarín and La Nación, he argued, “have used this monopoly to stifle the competition…driving up costs in order to drown them and remove any possibility for growth” (Rafsky, 2012). In this regard, Fernández was correct to pass the law; however, righting that monopolistic wrong was not her primary goal. Outside the legislation regarding state ownership of Papel Prensa, Fernández also publicly claimed the Videla military junta kidnapped and tortured the newsprint manufacturer’s original owners, the Graiver
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==