Censorship in its different forms is as antique as freedom of expression. In Mexico it is well known the phrase of former president José López Portillo (1976-1982) “I do not pay, for them to hit me”, as if public resources were from the president rather than from society. From that point in time, censorship has been acquiring more sophisticated forms.
The weekly review Proceso (@revistaproceso) for a lot of years did not receive any gubernmental advertisement. Except for one big private company, Proceso did not receive private advertisement despite complying with all the market criteria in connection with its distribution, readers (audience) and all the criteria that a private company would need to acquire advertisements. Why? Because if a private company acquired ads in Proceso, it was probable that its name would be included in the governments blacklist that would trigger tax audits, discrimination when participating in tenders, and so on. The disuasives to have advertisements in Proceso have been significantly more than the incentives.
Nonetheless, what we had not seen –or at least I had not seen- was the shameful case of BBVA Bancomer and its marketing agency Mindshare (Forbes in Spanish describes the case and there is no room for interpretations https://www.forbes.com.mx/sdpnoticias-dice-que-bbva-bancomer-le-quito-publicidad-pero-el-banco-lo-niega/), when they tried to do an editorial censorship by conditioning the acquisition of advertisement in exchange for having a favorable editorial treatment. There have not been any major consequences –at least by now and with this specific case-, because the affected media (SDP Noticias) publicly informed of the case, and there was solidarity by other journalists and the citizenship. This BBVA-SDP Noticias case is, however, there with what it can mean further. The Mexican federal government will substantially reduce its acquisition of advertisement (which I deem accurate, because there have been abusive use of public resources for objetives outside the scope of the public interest). The media with audience must look for private advertisers, as in any part of the world. The problem is that such a path which is a good and adequate one, is presenting unforseen effects. ¿Can private advertisers do what they want with their advertisements in media? There is no single answer because the SDP Noticias case had not happened as Forbes describes it. Nonetheless, the correct answer is no.
If we take into account the judicial case law and the United Nations and the Organization of American States rapporteurs, there is a consistent and continuous recognition that freedom of expression is “the cornerstone of democracy”. When we review the codes of etics of the advertising agencies association in different countries, there are two concurring points: (a) the obligation to respect human rights, and (b) the obligation to fully respect the laws and societies considerations. The Japanese Advertising Agencies Association is very clear in this regard as well as the Australian and American. In other words, if the de facto powers were to decide which news would the public receive and which not, it would amount eventually to an illegality; two basic human rights would be infringed: freedom of expression and freedom of information, and hence the public interest. Moreover, banks are concesionnaires of the government and their obligations to comply with the Constitution are more, than any other private company.
Se puedo entender que las empresas privadas no inviertan en publicidad en medios sin público, pero es inaceptable que condicionen el ejercicio del poder económico que tienen a la definición de contenidos en perjuicio de la sociedad entera. El tema es una realidad. Si no se toman las medidas que el caso amerita por parte de anunciantes, medios, agencias de publicidad, periodistas y el gobierno, los poderes fácticos - de los que se ha hablado pero ahora con evidencias en la mano que muestran su fuerza y su interés- serán los censores que no deberíamos permitir por el bien de todos.
We can understand that private companies do not spend in advertisements in media without audience, but it is unacceptable that private companies with their economic power condition what contents should or should not be delivered, or in which form they may be delivered, because that damages the whole society. This theme is a reality. If there are no measures by advertisers, media, advertising agencies, journalists and the government, the factual powers –those which have been named but now with evidence in hand where they demostrate their power and interests- will be the censors that we must not permit for the sake of all.
@evillanuevamx
ernestovillanueva@hushmail.com