Public interest or published interest?: Argentine media regulation in economic press
The Argentine Legislative Power passed Law No. 26522 on Audiovisual Communication Services (LACS) on October 10, 2009. It called into question the historical relationship among the political, socio-cultural and economic objectives that guided the regulation and represented a new notion of ‘public in...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/164784 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/164784 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | PRESS ARGENTINA REGULATION FRAMES https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.8 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5 |
| Sumario: | The Argentine Legislative Power passed Law No. 26522 on Audiovisual Communication Services (LACS) on October 10, 2009. It called into question the historical relationship among the political, socio-cultural and economic objectives that guided the regulation and represented a new notion of ‘public interest’. The process of debate and approval of the Law occupied a significant space on the media agenda, although it was defined from particular frames that formulated diagnoses, evaluations and prescriptions. Analyzing the journalistic treatment of this matter is important because it involved the interests of the field where the media themselves take part. In addition, they are considered publicly prominent co-constructors of social reality, so they collaborated with the production of narratives about the debate around the Law. This work studies the news frames of the LACS in the Argentine economic press, observes the evolution of these frames throughout the debate and approval of the Law and compares how the newspapers defined the aspects under discussion. The quantitative content analysis identified three frames in tension: ‘political and institutional dispute’, ‘sociocultural public interest’ and ‘business public interest’, which behavior varied according to the newspaper and registered fluctuations throughout the period under study. |
|---|