Article 19 sees journalistic self-censorship before audience guidelines; worrying who will decide what is true or false, it says

Article 19’s director warns of self-censorship among journalists due to new audience guidelines issued by Mexico's Communications Regulatory Commission (CRT). The guidelines, which outline ethical codes for radio and television, have raised concerns over potential threats to freedom of expression. According to Leopoldo Maldonado, Article 19’s director, these rules could allow the government to impose additional sanctions beyond those already outlined in current legislation. The guidelines were announced by the CRT, which aims to improve transparency and accountability in media operations. However, Maldonado argues that the language used in the proposals is too vague, creating opportunities for the government to enforce penalties against journalistic content. He explained that existing laws only provide for administrative sanctions against license holders who fail to meet obligations, but the new guidelines introduce ambiguous criteria such as “lack of objective information” or mixing opinions with factual reporting. These provisions, he warned, could lead to increased self-censorship among media organizations. Maldonado emphasized that the proposed measures could have a chilling effect on journalism, particularly because the CRT has the authority to impose fines up to 1% of a broadcasting company’s annual revenue. He pointed out that even the threat of such penalties can deter media outlets from publishing critical or investigative reports. “It doesn’t take much for authorities to sanction someone. Just knowing that they might face these high penalties will create an environment of self-censorship,” he stated. He further expressed concern that allowing a federal authority to determine the truthfulness of information undermines the role of journalists as independent watchdogs. “Public criticism and the blending of opinions with facts are common in the media ecosystem. Now, this would be subject to review by the government, which can easily decide whether an opinion is well-founded or not,” Maldonado added. Despite his criticisms, Maldonado acknowledged some positive aspects of the guidelines, including improvements in accessibility, sign language inclusion, and overall media diversity. However, he argued that these benefits are overshadowed by the potential risks posed by the new sanctions framework. On the other hand, Raúl Trejo Delarbre, a journalist and member of the Mexican Association for Information Rights, disagreed with claims that the guidelines constitute censorship. He stated that the project does not currently grant authorities the power to penalize journalistic content or suppress opinions. Trejo noted that while political groups and social media users have raised concerns about possible censorship, the current draft of the guidelines aligns with existing legal frameworks and does not introduce new mechanisms for content control. The debate surrounding the guidelines highlights broader tensions between media regulation and press freedom in Mexico. While some argue that the proposed changes could enhance public accountability, others warn that they risk undermining the independence of the press. As discussions continue, the final version of the guidelines will likely shape the future landscape of media regulation in the country.