The High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism in Europe describes the role of the media in democratic societies as follows[1]: Democracy requires a well‐informed, inclusive and pluralistic public sphere; the media are, to a large extent, the creators as well as the “editors” of this public sphere. And warns: “In this they become the holders of considerable power and may come to assume the status of a “fourth estate” within society.”

The corollary of this concept, indebted of Jürgen Habermas[2] and other thinkers, is that if concentrated economic power controls the media then it controls the public sphere: the community debates in a scenario created and edited by economic power.

Economic groups with strong ties to financial capital control multiple communication platforms and are severely conditioning the plurality and diversity that a democratic society requires.

Since the 1980s, the dominance of the global agenda has been shaped by a few communication groups, including Alphabet Inc. (Google), Comcast, Walt Disney, News Corp / 21 Century Fox, ATT Entertainment Group, Time Warner, Viacom y Sony Entertainment. Having started on a certain facet of communication, today they combine multiple platforms and lead convergence processes, with a turnover and budgets that surpass that of many States.

This global hegemony has its counterpart in each of the territories. In France, the cradle of modern democracy, the national press has only three main actors: Figaro Socpress, Amaury (Le Parisien, L´Équipe) y Le Monde. Ignacio Ramonet, in an illustrative text that breaks down the relationship between the media and the main economic groups[3], reminds us of the unforgettable words of who was then director of TF1 channel (Télévision française 1), in relation to the true mission of this giant of the French media: “The TF1 mission is to help Coca-Cola to sell its product. What we sell to Coca-Cola is time available in the human brain”.

The ordinary citizens can not but look at the disproportionate impact of the power of the media on the international scene and in each of the local realities. The construction of objective conditions to start a war, to overthrow a legitimate president, or to promote certain economic policies are examples of this power that affects all countries, including the most consolidated democracies.

As the International Federation of Journalists rightly points out, when freedom of expression and the right to communication are subordinated to the logic of profit, are in the center of the scene the concentrated economy groups. “Advertisers have a

decisive impact on the content, as well as the media owners themselves, who are increasingly involved to the financial world”.[4]

Faced with this concentration, it’s essential for democracy to establish rules of the game that preserve both freedom of expression and the right to be informed.

The United Nation Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression had expressed that “The highest responsibility lies with the State. Not only has the duty to protect freedom of expression but also to promote it, which implies their obligation to have proactive public policies that lead to the full exercise of those rights.”

This obligation includes, as one of the main concepts, the promotion of a diverse ecosystem of media, supported by equitably distributed communication platforms, which expresses the different forms of organization and relationships within society. It is not feasible that concentrated channels give rise to all voices, as this would affect their margin of profitability and could even go against their corporate interests. In short, without diversity of medias, all the voices cannot be guaranteed.

Clearly, at this point there is a debate with concentrated economy. The major media argue that sustainability in the era of global and convergent communications requires scale, and therefore what matters is not diversity but pluralism of the big media, which would be the only economically sustainable.

We don’t believe in this at all. Again, there is no pluralism without diversity of media. International bodies and most of the comparative legislation endorse this position. In its Windhoek declaration (1991), Unesco declares that “By a pluralistic press, we mean the end of monopolies of any kind and the existence of the greatest possible number of news papers, magazines and periodicals reflecting the widest possible range of opinion within the community.”

Ten years later, the United Nations agency adopted the African Charter of Broadcasting of 2001 to express that “the legal framework ” Should include a clear statement of the principles underlying its regulation, the promotion of respect for freedom of expression, diversity and the free flow of information and ideas, as the development of the media content across public, private and community media.

The legal battle for pluralism and diversity

If we assume this diagnosis, our objective cannot be limited to polishing our message and seeking the best way to communicate it: we must join in the fight for the democratization of the word, which is the fight for democracy.

In effect, cooperatives have a strong concern about the need to improve our visibility. We want to show that we are a different way, a way to build economy at the service of sustainable development. But our low visibility is one of the consequences of mass media control by the corporate economy.

Cooperatives can be the vehicle for the community to recover the word. So that in the “public sphere” where the debates take place, the voices of all men and women, of all the territories and, fundamentally, our values are present. In this fight for the democratization of the word, an unavoidable objective is to achieve a legal framework that promotes plurality and diversity. Understanding by diversity that there are many media, but also that there are all kinds of medias.

It is essential for an effective democracy, that in addition to media of capital and those who control States, to have community medias as channels of expression of the community.

In Argentina, the decree-law on Broadcasting sanctioned by the Civic-Military Dictatorship in 1980 reserved the licenses only to commercial companies, excluding cooperatives, mutuals and other non-profit organizations.

This restriction was only repealed in 2009, when the new Law on Audiovisual Communication Services was sanctioned.[5]

It took twenty-six uninterrupted years of democracy to succeed. This law was the result of an intense and extensive debate and finally was approved by a large parliamentary majority, which included both official representatives and the majority of opposition representatives.

Nevertheless, it was attacked through judicial strategies of the concentrated media groups. Four years later, a claim of unconstitutionality of the law arrived to the Supreme Court of Justice.

The animosity of the hegemonic groups of the media was centered on the mechanisms of de-concentration and of foment to the competition contemplated in the law. In effect, the so-called Democracy’ Media Law placed limits on the number of communication services that could be operated by a single group[6] and established that “The operation of audiovisual media services may be carried out by providers of state management, private management for profit and private non-profit management, who must be able to operate and have equitable access to all available transmission platforms”. That is, private commercial providers had to de-concentrate and make room for public and community communication.

The Supreme Court convened a Public Hearing to hear all positions. The Cooperative Confederations of the Argentine Republic (COOPERAR), particularly on behalf of cooperatives developing or seeking to develop audiovisual services, presented as amicus curiae.

There was a legal defense of the aspects of the law by the concentrated groups and presented a clear and illustrative description of the actions of monopoly character that were carried out by precisely those who resisted the application of the law, harming the users organized under the cooperative model.

The Cooperar representative, the lawyer specializing in Right to Information Miguel Rodríguez Villafañe, said to the members of the Supreme Court of the Nation: “Media pluralism is a necessity of democracy and not the market, on the other hand, if the market is not controlled, it will surely tend to concentration. Do not allow concentrations that exclude. Work for the good of the country and declare as constitutional the Audiovisual Communication Services Act”.[7]

In October 2013, four years after its sanction, the Supreme Court declared the constitutionality of the new law. That same day the Stock Exchange of Buenos Aires had to suspend the quotation of the Clarín Group, that in the London Stock Exchange fell more than 20%.

To the date, the application of this law, approved by the majority of Parliament and endorsed by the highest judicial body, remains to be very partial.[8]

Cooperatives have made progress in all those activities that were forbidden to them, but the process of deconcentration is blocked in a national and Latin American political context more friendly to the concentrated economic groups and where the debate begins to revolve around the technological convergence, that is, the incorporation of mobile services and internet traffic as an integral part of infotelecommunications.

As Unesco reported in 2014, “In Latin America and the Caribbean, where a commercial model has traditionally predominated, media ownership has been highly concentrated among very few owners. In much of the region, on average, almost half of the products and services of the information and communications markets of each country were controlled by one provider”.[9]

This extreme concentration of the region was consolidated during the dictatorships, which did not allow the emergence of critical media or simply alternative to the affine or domesticated press, much of which is the same that today hegemonizes the market.

Although democracies chained by neoliberal economic policies do not manage to reverse it significantly, at the beginning of the twenty-first century the conditions for progress in democratization are observed.[10]

In most European countries, as well as in Canada and the United States, there are rules aimed to limiting the concentration of media ownership.

As expressed in a report prepared for the European Economic Commission, “The majority of EU Member States have adopted regulations in the area of media ownership, since limitations on the influence which a single person, company or group may have in one or more media sectors, as well as rules ensuring a sufficient number of diverse media outlets, are generally considered to be important for assuring pluralistic and democratic representation in the media”.[11]

In Europe this has been reinforced by a significant presence of public broadcasting, which somehow limits the concentration process, even within the setback it has had since the 1980s.

Cooperatives cannot be outside this debate. It is necessary that in each of our countries we can integrate efforts and have a common strategy to achieve legal frameworks and fight for its compliance, promote the property deconcentration and facilitate the diversity of media and plurality of voices.

Cooperativize journalism

Regulatory frameworks are useless if we are not able to advance in concrete experiences of media management. How do we achieve sustainable media in the hands of the community? How do our principles translate into practices that democratize the word?

Serve these lines for a first review, which should be systematized and expanded in an integrated cooperative effort.

Let’s start with the traditional media: written press. First of all it is necessary to relativize the term “traditional”. Although the circulation of the graphic media has tended to be reduced as a counterpart to the expansion of other platforms, news portals in particular, it is also necessary to recognize that the main portals are those linked to the graphic media of greater penetration.[12]

The ability to produce content and define the agenda of graphic journalism makes its importance remain central.

Cooperatives have important experiences in this field, which we can multiply and enhance. In particular, there is a rich experience of cooperative graphic media controlled by its workers.

In Argentina there are self-managed newspapers that took that course after being abandoned by their previous owners. They are distributed in dozens of localities from different regions, where they are usually the main information source.

Some important references are El Independiente (La Rioja), Commerce and Justice (Córdoba) and El Diario del Centro del País (Córdoba).

Among the media edited in Buenos Aires, the most recent cooperative experience is Tiempo Argentino, a medium that a business group created based on a political context and left hardly changed the scene.

The employees remained in the newsroom, took care of the facilities and held the company. Their main ally was the readers, who associated with the project for a monthly amount of fixed money and allowed them to restart the activity. Today the newspaper is again among the country’s main written media, with a particular agenda and a successful business model based on self-management.

In the world there is a great variety of cooperative graphic media: Die Tageszeitung, a newspaper founded in Berlin in 1979, initially linked to the environmental movement, which today has 45,000 subscribers; Ethical Consumer, which was born in Manchester in 1987, from 2009 went from cooperative work to mixed co-operative, with contributions of 200£ by partners interested in the support of this independent media; Fria Tidningen (Sweden), state-wide publication with 6,500 subscribers (Czech Republic);  BirGün (Turkey); Diario de los Periodistas (Greece), emerged after the crisis that shakes the country; La Diaria (Uruguay) a newspaper founded in 2006, of 16 pages, that is published from Monday to Friday, with online portal.

In Spain there are also developments in this field, for example the experience of La Marea, in Cataluña, which illustrates these new processes. It is the monthly magazine edited by the workers co-operative MasPúblico, formed by a group of ex-workers dismissed from the public newspaper, which closed its printed version in February 2012. The launch of the magazine was possible thanks to more than five hundred people who made contributions through a “micro-patronage” project, many of which later became part of the cooperative.[13]

All of these experiences guide us in the search for alternatives for cooperative journalism, which can be sustainable based on the commitment of the workers and the construction of innovative links with their readers.

They are companies that are more resilient than capital companies: in case of crisis workers are more committed to the continuity of the medium, and not to lose their work or their income, in addition to the concrete possibility of exercising journalism. In fact, as we have seen, many of the cooperative newspapers are emerging from enterprises recovery processes.

This greater commitment is further enhanced by its identification with the product. It is not the diary of an owner, or of a group of impersonal shareholders. It is the newspaper of the journalists

Another contribution to pluralism is the possibility of democratizing the editing table. The workers have the right, as owners of the media, to define the policy of their company and this includes their editorial line, as part of a participatory process open to the plural view of those who are also inserted and committed to the interests of the entire community, which is the one that definitely holds them.

In sum, betting on the organization of journalistic cooperatives is betting on companies that are more resilient, more democratic, transparent and committed to the social context where they are inserted. In addition, when it comes to publicizing our values, these cooperatives don’t need to be told about what a cooperative is. We share the same agenda, the same concerns and they are naturally willing to spread them.

Local Journalism Associative networks

In Argentina, this is the case of the Associative Federation of Newspapers and Cooperative Communicators (Fadiccra), which groups many “recovered journals” and also other workers cooperatives linked to the broad world of communication, such as those formed by young professionals of the design and computing, web portals and news agencies.

But associative experience doesn’t have to be limited to cooperatives. If we add to the distribution of all these cooperative media, to all those of local character that are administered by family companies or other small and medium companies, we find a scattered but very significant coverage. There it is their weakness but also their strength. Being dispersed, it is very far from the power of the press published in the national capital, but precisely because of its geographical location can be a key factor for equitable territorial development.

In Argentina we have in this line of work the valuable experience of the Cooperative of Provision of Daily Services and Regional Newspapers (Dypra), integrated by cooperatives but also family businesses and SMEs. It is, strictly speaking, an alliance of small and local newspapers to survive the process of economic and territorial concentration that is imposed on the activity, leaving the local communities without a voice.

Through their cooperative, they can access to better prices for paper purchase, edit supplements that they share among all interested publishers (for example tourism, education, social economy) and offer advertising space at federal level.

The voice of the community

Radio is a medium widely used by the community. It has a vital role as a media to face emergencies when there is no other way of communicating or transmitting local news, from personal to politics news.

It has often been a tool of resistance, to make those who have no voice heard, even in the worst historical contexts. It is a beautiful medium that has demonstrated throughout the world its ability to make a difference for the culture, problems and hopes of the community, from giving a voice to its referents and neighbors.

The interesting thing is that its presence has been maintained throughout history, despite the advent of television or the internet. Accompanying ourselves through listening continues to be an indispensable form of human coexistence.

Many community radios are closely linked to the cooperative movement. Not only in isolated locations but within urban centers, where they try to make room for the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in the midst of the global agenda that typifies times and spaces in the metropolis. In Buenos Aires, for example, Radio Gráfica was born in the middle of 2001/2002 crisis, self-managed by workers who in that moment recovered a printer abandoned by a commercial company. Supported by the graphic union, they started a radio station that today reaches all the south of the City, in addition to creating a dentistry center and a high-school for young people in disadvantageous situation.

This experience teaches us how we can incorporate media development as part of our commitment to the community.

Other cooperative radios have been the result of a process of the recovery of pre-existing radios that were emptied by their former owners. This is the case, for example, of Radio Ondas del Sur, the first FM radio in Bahía Blanca, Argentina, and that today, with its both frequencies FM and AM, it is constituted as an open space to the community “where access to information is interpreted as a right and not a commodity.

In the Argentine experience, we can’t ignore the case of Radio Cooperativa, an important medium with headquarters in Buenos Aires, and twenty-two repeaters in seven Argentine provinces, and one in Uruguay. It is an excellent example of how a media can be managed by its workers in a successful way, even in the most competitive markets, with all the advantages of resilience and plurality that we mention.

Another valid experience in this sense is that of Medias that are owned by the whole community. For example the experience of Celta TV[14], a Television signal of the Cooperativa de Servicios Públicos y Sociales de Tres Arroyos, a medium-sized town in the Province of Buenos Aires.

Like many other service cooperatives, from the development of the infrastructure to provide internet and cable television service, it took on the challenge of developing its own television channel to take charge of the agenda of local issues, ignored by the national Medias.

It is not a media for the cooperative movement expression, it’s a cooperative to express the community. An 85-year-old entity which, after being recognized as an organization of civil society, is able to reflect the interests and preferences of the community.

This path – to develop a network of cable television and build a community medium – is a feasible and concrete way, particularly in the area of smaller urban centers.

As in any service, it will be essential to assume cooperative integration as a strategy.

It is the example given by Colsecor, a cooperative center that brings together 115 public service cooperatives that provide cable television.

This cooperative fulfills a prime role, which is to improve the negotiation conditions with the suppliers of the different signals. From there, it has generated a set of services that includes, among others, Colsecor Play (an online content portal for television, tablet or smartphone), a service of on demand videos, an own news portal  and a media library, that is, a bank of audiovisual contents that gathers independent regional productions with local look.

It is necessary to emphasize this last service: it is key to hold own television signals of the local cooperatives. Maintaining a television signal can have prohibitive costs if all content must be developed in an independent way. On the other hand, if only extra regional content is reproduced, then we will have lost all the power to have a medium of our own. An alternative strategy is to have an audiovisual content bank shared by all cooperatives, where they can discuss priorities and content, and even provide their own productions to share.

This leads us to the need to produce adequate content for each of the different audiovisual communication platforms. It is a challenge that not only requires commitment to the community, but also sufficient scale and professionalism. What is involved is to cooperate for the production of content, creating a sustainable network of producers and Medias under cooperative management.[15]

Each of these experiences includes a history of conflict and resistance to achieve its space in a context hegemonized by business logic. The equipment requisitions, the boycott by dominant broadcasters, the complicity of officials who don’t facilitate their procedures, the fight for a space in the radio spectrum, are part of the fight for the democratization of the word that carries out this type of organizations.

The important thing is to assume that this must be part of the agenda of the cooperative movement. We will be heard when the community is heard. It is not possible to sustain a message of solidarity if the media respond to a logic that antagonizes us.

The Info-telecommunications revolution

All these experiences that we have briefly mentioned, along with as many others as the radio or cooperative television channels on the Internet[16] or the valuable co-operative news platforms such as Co-operative News (Britain), The Media Co-op (Canada), MediaCo-op (Scotland) and Indian Cooperative (India), have to be studied, systematized, critically analyzed and give them the value as the basis for a strategy that allows us to face the revolution of infotelecommunications, today hegemonized by concentrated economic power.

Multimedia convergence is not the mere appearance of services that combine text, voice, image and sound, but the disappearance of the boundaries between mass media and communication services. In this scenario, companies “not only aspire to group all types of media (edition, photography, press, radio, film, television, internet) into their structure, but also to carry out all activities related to three major areas that up until now were autonomous: mass culture, advertising and information”[17]

The mass culture with its essentially commercial products (cinema, television entertainments, music), commercial as well as political advertising and information with its press agencies, graphic journalism, portals or continuous news channels, all under one and the same corporate control.

Those who entertain us, sell us and inform us are the same global players, who also control the technological support on which these spheres, in particular networks, servers and software, are based.

Being able to integrate and access the benefits of new information and communication technologies requires physical networks, especially fiber optics. Every day the bandwidth requirements are higher. If before the modernization arrived from the hand of the electrical networks, today the societies and territories must have access to the information highways to be integrated. Data is, in effect, the key input of capital accumulation in this new era. Who controls its content and distribution is who can dominate the social and economic order. This time, on a global scale. Like the old empires, they can occupy territories and dominate nations, but without firing a bullet. They only need to be the owners of the channels, platforms and communication production that govern life in most countries.

With another logic, which aims to strengthen democracy and sustainable development to and from communities, cooperatives have shown that we can develop our own networks. We did it in several countries with the electricity and telephone networks and today we do it with the cables that allow to offer N- play. But even in cases where this is not possible, we must strive for its development and control to serve the harmonious integration of the territories and their communities. This requires the presence of networks in the hands of community organizations and the State, as well as regulations that guarantee freedom, plurality, privacy and respect the investments made by the community in order to guarantee that those will be at the community service.

Together with the networks we must discuss the need to have Internet servers aligned with a territorial and community logic. When we put something in “the cloud” we are actually putting it on another’s computer. And that “other one” are usually large corporations of the most concentrated capital, usually servers located in the most developed countries, with all the implications that this have in terms of privacy, sovereignty and, ultimately, power.

If we want to democratize power, prioritizing the democratically organized community in each territory, then we must discuss where the information is saved and how it is accessed.

Finally, in a third layer that adds to the networks and the servers, is the software, the computer programs that run the whole system and each of the networks. The control of information flows (including privacy issues, political sovereignty, prioritization criteria and accessibility) are managed by a software that hegemonically is also in the hands of concentrated capital. The cases of Google and Facebook are the most public and notorious, but not the only ones.

This is a field where cooperativism also has important experiences. The collaboration between free software – corporate free software – and cooperativism has resulted in the birth of programmer cooperatives, experiences where the commitment to free software and solidarity work converge at the service of the human dignity. It would be an insignificant emancipation if we managed to free ourselves from the dictatorship of capital but we ended up being slaves of its software.

The experience of Tech Co-op Network (North American Technology Worker Cooperatives)[18] a network of 26 cooperatives of programmers from the United States and Canada, and the one of the Federación Argentina de Cooperativas de Trabajo de la Tecnología  y de la Comunicación (FACT-TIC),[19] composed of 36 cooperatives, are two good examples in this sense.

In short, as part of the agenda for the democratization of the word and the construction of a system of medias at the service of the community, cooperatives have to assume a policy on the technology in which communication rests.

Diversified integration

Who are the actors of civil society who can lead the process of democratization of the word?

I think basically there are two groups. First, content producers in the general conception of the term: journalists, programmers and designers, actors and workers in general of graphic, radio and audiovisual production. All these are men and women who see limited their income and autonomy in front of the media concentration.

Second, civil society organizations rooted in each locality. Universities, trade unions, business chambers, political parties, cooperatives, mutuals, cultural organizations, etc. All actors who feel that their voice is not heard, is swept away by the agenda imposed by the national and global hegemonic media.

The situation of these actors is strongly contrasted with the promises of plurality and horizontality that came along with the new information and communication technologies. The cooperatives face it every day. It’s well known by the journalists who have adopted the cooperative way after being expelled by the concentrator model, and also well know by the cooperative movement that doesn’t manage to have visibility and weight in the public opinion according to its social and territorial development.

The concentration of the media and the centrality of the multimedia platforms have ended up shaping a model that collects global financing (taking away these opportunities for the local media), captures content in a global way (which does not pay or pay badly), consolidates mega-basis of strategic data for politics and business and imposes a hegemonic vision by being able to massively put its own titles on the scene, outlining a hegemonic public agenda.

One example, which negatively impacts our experience: a cooperative fails, the media replicate the news and link it to similar episodes, then it’s edited by promoting a negative view of this economic model and this is finally adopted as “common sense” by many sectors of society. Cooperativists have seen this many times. But we have never seen a similar repercussion from a scandal generated by a corporation.

This result that achieves economic power is due to a diversified concentration strategy: “It creates concentrated, radiocentric, linear networks in the media system, which allows them to control critical resources and destroy the activities of other nodes” This is because “economic groups knows that a media strategy that occupies only a technological channel and doesn’t diversify or weave alliances, doesn’t have actually the ability to dispute the territory”.[20]

Given the diversified concentration, controlled by hegemonic groups, cooperatives must promote a diversified integration, where content producers and community organizations can develop a plural and democratic media system.

An integration that has at least four dimensions: “the integration of media with organizations in their specific field, multimedia and multiplatform integration, integration by branch (graphics, radio, audiovisual, digital) and integration with regional and international networks.”[21]

The first dimension involves the construction of communication nodes where can converge the civil society organizations of the locality or region with the media with roots in the same community. In this area cooperatives can promote newspapers, radios, television channels, regional agencies, regional web portals, within the framework of the varied experience that we have presented in these lines.

With the same effort, we must also promote the organization of the community to guarantee access to the highways of communication, discussing control over networks, servers and software at the service of local development and democratization of access to information.

The second dimension involves promoting integration between the different platforms, just as the concentrated economy does, but in the opposite direction. The integration of agencies, radios, newspapers, cable channels, portals but from diversity, respecting the different voices and looks, favoring dialogue and debate, reflecting the agenda of the communities where they are inserted.

The third dimension is integration by branch, looking for synergies between all the actors of the graphic press, among all the radios, between programmers, or between providers of communication media. This facilitates, among other things, the dialogue with the other organizations of cooperativism and solidarity economy.

Finally, the fourth dimension of the diversified integration strategy is the construction

of global networks, from which communities and all organizations of solidarity economy can promote their public agenda, which is the agenda for the protection of the planet, sustainable development, human rights and peace.

For this, cooperatives along with other companies and organizations of solidarity economy, must take up the challenge of integrating diversity in the construction of a communication system that promotes the democratization of the word.

June 2017


[1] A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy (Medios libres y plurales para sostener la democracia europea) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/hlg/hlg_final_report.pdf

[2] See for example “Teoría de la acción comunicativa”

[3] L´Explosion du journalisme, Éditions Galilée, 2011

[4] La concentración de los medios en América Latina. Federación Internacional de Periodistas, Oficina Regional Latinoamerica y el Caribe, 2016. www.ifj.org

[5] Strictly in 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice had already declared  unconstitutional the article that discriminated against cooperatives, but the Federal Broadcasting Committee (COMFER), the law enforcement authority, never allowed this to progress.

[6] For example, it sets the limit of 24 cable licenses; 35% of the total population or subscribers; Does not allow to be holder of more than one signal of contents; Cable license or an open TV license in local order; 3 local licenses; A content signal for licensees of radio and open TV and a proprietary signal for cable license holders

[7] Dr. Miguel Julio Rodríguez Villafañe, 23 de agosto de 2003

[8] On the last day of 2015, shortly after assuming the new national government, was sanctioned a decree that modified substantial aspects of the law.  Among its foundations, it points out that “the role of the different competing networks to support technological convergence must necessarily be contemplated by regulatory policies in order to implement a homogeneous normative framework suitable for the development of the industry, which will benefit users and consumers” and “as the technological barriers that originally separated the telecommunication and broadcasting sectors are eliminated, the pre-existing system of sectoral economic regulation enters in  a crisis”.

[9] World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: Regional overview of … LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (Paris, UNESCO, 2014), pag. 14. Available on: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002277/227740e.pdf

[10] En los últimos 10 años, se han aprobado nuevas leyes en Perú (Ley de Radio y TV, 2004), Venezuela

(Ley de Responsabilidad Social en Radio, Televisión y Medios Electrónicos , 2004), Uruguay (Ley de Radiodifusion Comunitaria, 2007), Argentina (Ley de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual,2009); Brasil (Ley de Servicios de Acceso Condicionado o de Televisión por Suscripción, 2011); Bolivia (Ley de Telecomunicaciones, 2011); Colombia (Ley ANTV, 2012); Ecuador (Ley Orgánica de Comunicación, 2013); México (Reforma Constitucional sobre Telecomunicaciones y Medios de Comunicación, 2013 y Ley Secundaria de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión, 2014); Chile (Ley de TV Digital, 2014); y Uruguay  (Ley de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual, 2014)

[11] Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member States – Toward a Risk-Based Approach: Final Report. Comisión Europea, Dirección General de Sociedad de la Información y Medios  de Comunicación, Lovaina, 2009, pág. 31

[12] “In the society of networks, users continue to seek access to traditional media and the number of these newspapers has increased exceptionally thanks to the web. Considering the 200 on-line information sites visited in the US, traditional media account for 67% of traffic” The Explosion of Journalism. Ignacio Ramonet, 2011.

[13] The Future of Co-operative Media. Luis E. Barahona Monge. Presidente de la cooperativa de comunicadores.  http://www.primeraplana.or.cr/es/Su_Criterio/El_futuro_de_los_medios_es_cooperativo/

[14] http://www.celtatv.com.ar/

[15] It’s a valuable experience the case of the cooperative Trama, integrated by cooperative Medias to produce content in associated form. See “Another television is possible”, by Juan M. Berlanga, in Solidarity Economy towards a New Map of Communication. Media Plant 2012.

www.alainet.org/images/Economia%20Solidaria%20hacia%20un%20Nuevo%20Mapa%20de%20Comunicacion.pdf

[16] For example, it was launched “Floreal”, The Cultural Cooperative Center Web Channel linked to the Instituto Movilizador de Fondos Cooperativos, in Argentina. www.florealweb.tv

[17] Ignacio Ramonet: L´Explosion du journalisme, Éditions Galilée, 2011

[18] www.techworker.coop

[19] www.facttic.org.ar

[20] Nahum Mirad, “Solidarity Economy, key to another media map”, in Solidarity Economy, towards a New Map of Communication. Usina de Medios. 2012.

[21] Nahum Mirad, ibid

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *