Buenos Aires Mayor, Mauricio Macri, was one of the politicians to dine with Héctor Magnetto (Photo/GCBA)

Understanding Media in Argentine politics today – and arguably elsewhere – is less about Marshall McLuhan’s 1964 argument that the media were becoming a neutral, technology-based extension of Man that it is about the Media (capitalisation not neutral) becoming a part of politics. In Carl von Clausewitz’s paraphrased terms, an extension of politics by other means.

In Argentina for the last two years, everything that is political has been connected to the media. Political actors, from the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner down, are, in one way or another, defining themselves in relation to the country’s largest media conglomerate: Clarín.

The government says that Clarín/Clarín (two-word explanation further down) leads the opposition. The opposition is giving the government the stories to defend the statement. One of these arguments was the revelation that the mayor of Buenos Aires, the conservative Mauricio Macri, and four politicians in the faction of the ruling Peronist party that opposes the government gathered for dinner at the home of Héctor Magnetto, the CEO of Clarín. In an effort to save face after the news was leaked, one of the diners said that the leader of one non-Peronist opposition party, the Radical Ricardo Alfonsín, has also showed for dinner at Magnetto’s once or twice.

Understanding the media conflict in Argentina requires a quick look back at who were and who are the factual powers in a country in which political crisis has been the norm rather than the exception over the last century. Since the first coup d’état in 1930 all the way to the most brutal military regime of 1976-83, politics has not been the prime transformational force in Argentina. Other powers-that-be were, most notably the military in alliance with actors like the Church or the economic establishment represented here by the owners of the country’s main business asset: the land. Politics was only a subsidiary force, one that could be disposed of if it threatened the more traditional powers. Both Peronism (1946-55, 1973-86) as representative of a rising working class of domestic migrants and Radicalism earlier (1916-30) as representative of a rising urban middle class of foreign immigrants were brought to a brutal end by the de facto action of the conservative Argentina, one that would stubbornly refuse to lose any of its privileges.

There is no military today, at least not as a factual political force. Much has been written about the military winning the so-called “dirty war” of the 1970s on the battle ground but losing it on the symbolic terrain. But the fact that the military are marching back to trial more than 30 years after the end of the dictatorship’s atrocities is a show that they were merely the front-line pawns of somebody else’s game.

What does this have to do with a newspaper called Clarín? Clarín as the title of a newspaper carries Italics. But Clarín as a business group does not. The group goes in bold, as Clarín is an integrated media business that ranks among the top three in Latin America. The feud between the government and Clarín started when the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration sought to increase duties on the export of Argentina’s world leading farming produce, especially soy on its various forms.

Government supporters accuse Clarín of 'lies' (Photo/Guillermo Tomoyose)

The relationship between them has gone downhill fast since then. Once the war was declared, the government decided to go all the way and attack Clarín from every front available. Things came to a head at the government-sponsored approval by Congress of a reform to broadcast media  legislation tailor-made to slash Clarín’s clout.  Clarín and its ally – the agro-industry, in which the media group’s main shareholders have interests – call it an attack on press freedom.

The problem of that argument is that Clarín is not a press organization anymore – at least not only or mainly a press organization. The past, again, may shed light on the present. Clarín was founded in 1945 by Roberto Noble, a politician with a Socialism background in his youth who would then wholeheartedly embrace the pro-development ideas of the MID Desarrollista party of Rogelio Frigerio and former president Arturo Frondizi (1958-62). Upon Noble’s death in 1969, the paper begins a slow but steady move away from the party line to embark on a successful all-out race to become a business empire. Magnetto was the man behind that construction – the Pulitzer of the pampas.

The Kirchners believe – and many other politicians agree, be it openly or quietly – that Clarín has become too much of a factor of influence in Argentina’s power corridors. And that it is, paradoxically, a political power without a political project – its project being simply to grow as a business organization – or, under the current circumstances, to hold the ground already won. The Clarín CEO, unlike the Clarín founder, is not a politician and therefore needs some pawns. When it comes to playing somebody else’s game, the pawns need to be fed well. Bon appétit!

The Court of Appeal denied a petition to prevent the DNA of the two adopted children of the owner of Clarín from being compared with a national data bank of the victims of the dirty war because they failed to sign the relevant paperwork.

Marcela and Felipe Herrera Noble, who were adopted in 1976 by the owner of the Clarín media group, Ernestina Herrera de Noble, are suspected of being the abducted children of victims of the 1976 to 1983 military dictatorship. The Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo, a lobby group made up of the families of victims, have been campaigning since the 1990s to find the missing children of those who were killed by the military regime. The Abuelas have been in dispute with the Noble Herreras since 2000 about whether they should submit their DNA to be compared with Argentina’s national data bank.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Herrera Nobles’ case that they should not be forced to have their DNA compared with the national data bank on the grounds that their paperwork was not in order. The judges announced on Friday that the appeal was invalid because one of the documents used in the case had only been signed by the Herrera Noble’s lawyers but not the defendants themselves.

The judgement was criticised in the right-leaning Argentine Daily La Nación for “not considering any of the arguments at the core (of the case)” However, it was viewed positively by one of the lawyers of the Abuelas Alan Lud, who told the paper Página 12 that it was a “very important ruling” and said that “finally, after so many years we’ve achieved the possibility of finding truth and justice.”

The Herrera Nobles were appealing an original ruling by the court of San Martin, which ordered that genetic samples should be taken from them by force. Samples were taken three months ago, but have yet to be compared with the national DNA bank due to the ongoing legal dispute. The Herrera Noble’s have announced their intention to appeal now to the Supreme Court.

On Monday president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner fired back at critical media sources who she accused of defamation, misinforming the public and inventing news. The president was speaking in the Patagonia town of El Calafate, Santa Cruz province, at the inauguration of a major infrastructure project surrounding Glacier National Park. The president took the opportunity to respond to recent accusations of preferential treatment during the bidding process for the construction contract of a massive hydroelectric dam.

In the latest development in their ongoing feud with the administration, the Clarín media group had reported that the bidding for the lucrative contract had been limited to only a couple of firms, all with close ties to the Kirchners, who are from Santa Cruz province. The president denounced the charge, stating that “newspapers like Clarín and La Nación entered the second stage, which is to invent, invent news like this about companies that are friends of this government.” She went on to assure that there had been no preferential treatment in the bidding process.

The President further remarked that some media corporations have declared themselves as “enemies” of her administration, and added that “Journalists have all the right to disagree with the government’s politics, they can criticize us, but why do we have to go through a state of media paranoia and hysteria; why do they have to lie all the time, or treat me like I were a liar?” This last point of the president’s statement referenced a series of articles published by La Nación that called into question the president’s claim of being briefly detained in 1976 during the last military dictatorship. To this assertion the president retorted sharply that “they are the same newspapers that showed you a country that didn’t exist and a freedom that we didn’t have (during the last dictatorship).”

The adopted children of Clarín media mogul Ernestina Herrera de Noble have given DNA samples to Argentine authorities in hopes of determining whether they may be the offspring of a political prisoner who gave birth during the dictatorship.

Adopted in 1976, Felipe and Marcela as suspected by Human Rights groups to be the victims of a forced adoption scheme run by the government from 1976-1983. Harrera de Noble, 84, claims the babies were left on her doorstep one night.

On Tuesday the siblings were ordered by a judge to provide DNA samples at a Judicial Morgue, a federal forensic agency.

The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo disagree with the test, stating it should have taken place at Durand Hospital where the National Bank of Genetic Data is stored. The group also maintains that the siblings may be some of the more than 400 babies born during the dictatorship and adopted into families after their parents’ murder. The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo say they will continue fighting for an independent investigation.

Last month, Congress passed legislation allowing the forced extraction of DNA from people who may be the children of political prisoners, even if the person doesn’t wish to know the truth.
No test results are expected for 45 days.