CIRT highlights progress with the Regulatory Commission on audience rights; rules out censorship and editorial intervention

Raúl Trejo Delarbre, a journalist, academic, and media expert, has criticized new guidelines issued by Mexico's telecommunications regulator, arguing they overstep legal boundaries and risk introducing censorship under the guise of protecting audience rights. The Lineamientos Generales para la Protección de los Derechos de las Audiencias, or General Guidelines for the Protection of Audience Rights, have drawn sharp criticism from Trejo Delarbre, who claims the document introduces provisions not grounded in existing legislation. According to Trejo Delarbre, the guidelines do not constitute censorship but go beyond the scope of the law by granting the Comisión Reguladora de Telecomunicaciones (CRT) powers not explicitly outlined in the Telecommunications Law. He emphasized that the current legal framework does not mention false or misleading information, nor does it assign authority to any regulatory body to review the accuracy of news content. “The law says nothing about false or miscontextualized news,” he stated during an interview with EL UNIVERSAL. “It states that audiences have a right to professional, truthful information, but it doesn’t say there will be an authority reviewing the truthfulness of news.” He pointed out that the guidelines introduce a provision in Article 12 stating that media should not broadcast false or misleading information. However, he questioned how such violations would be addressed, noting that the guidelines fail to establish procedures for verifying the authenticity of news. “If a media outlet broadcasts false information, nothing happens because there are no rules here to determine whether the news is true or not,” he explained. “This is an overreach by this document to include the concept of false information.” Trejo Delarbre further highlighted that the law currently provides a process for individuals dissatisfied with media content to file complaints with the Defensor de Audiencias, a consumer advocate, who can issue recommendations if the complaint is deemed valid. If the media outlet ignores these recommendations, the complainant has no further recourse. According to him, the new guidelines allow complainants to take their grievances directly to the CRT, a government agency, which he views as an abuse of power since the law does not grant the CRT authority over such matters. He stressed that in the Mexican legal system, authorities can act only within the limits set by laws and the Constitution. “The law does not state that the CRT must review or comment on the decisions made by the Defensor de Audiencias,” he said. “This intrusion could be significant, especially since the system of audience defenders established by the law over the past 12 years is based on self-regulation.” Additionally, Trejo Delarbre raised concerns about the possibility of imposing fines for infractions related to audience rights beyond the two already defined in the Federal Telecommunications Law. Under current regulations, penalties range from 0.01% to 1% of a company’s income for failing to appoint a defender of audience rights or for not establishing an ethics code. He noted that the guidelines open the door to potential fines for other unspecified reasons, which he finds troubling. Another point of contention is the inclusion of measures aimed at preventing confusion between information and opinion. While the intent may be to ensure clarity, Trejo Delarbre suggested that such provisions could inadvertently blur the lines of journalistic freedom, potentially leading to unintended restrictions on media expression. The controversy surrounding the guidelines comes amid broader discussions about the role of regulation in ensuring transparency and accountability in media. Critics argue that while the intention behind the guidelines may be well-meaning, their implementation risks undermining the principles of free speech and independent journalism. As debates continue, stakeholders remain divided on whether the new rules represent necessary safeguards or an encroachment on press freedoms.