Guidelines on the rights of hearings do not impose a single vision: Luisa Alcalde

More than 4,000 comments have been submitted during the public consultation on audience rights in Mexico, with the process set to conclude in one week. As of Friday afternoon, August 14, the Commission for Telecommunications Regulation (CRT) reported 4,600 comments and 4,400 unique participants. The consultation began on July 27 and will end on August 21 at 11:59 PM. The CRT stated that the purpose of the consultation is to allow anyone, including sectors, regulated agents, or interested parties, to submit comments, opinions, contributions, or other analytical elements regarding mechanisms that enable television viewers and radio listeners to exercise their audience rights against media outlets. The commission acknowledged the diverse voices expressed during the consultation on the General Guidelines for the Protection of Audience Rights. “This consultation constitutes a democratic, plural, and transparent exercise,” the CRT affirmed. It clarified that audience rights do not apply to print media or digital platforms. Additionally, the CRT emphasized that these guidelines are not a censorship mechanism, as they do not restrict individuals' right to express and disseminate ideas. President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo described the initiative as a democratic advancement for the country during her morning press conference at the National Palace. She defended the government’s information space in the Treasury Hall and reiterated that the government would not sanction media outlets for misleading audiences with false information. Instead, she insisted on having an ethics code and an audience defender. “We won’t even do that, we won’t sanction any media outlet for deceiving the audience. All we said, according to the law, is ‘have an audience defender and an ethics code’...,” Sheinbaum said, reaffirming that the National Chamber of the Radio and Television Industry (CIRT) agreed with this approach. She maintained that the initiative is a democratic advance because media outlets must disclose their codes and allow audiences to complain to defenders they themselves appoint. She added that the consultation continues because it was put to public review, emphasizing that freedom of expression exists in Mexico and no one is censored. Luisa María Alcalde, the Legal Counselor of the Presidency, rejected claims that the guidelines for ensuring audience rights constitute a censorship mechanism or grant the government power to dictate what media can publish. In an interview with El Universal, Alcalde defended the provisions currently under public consultation, which concludes on August 21, and asserted that criticisms from experts, organizations, and representatives of the radio and television industry stem from misinterpretations of the proposal. She emphasized that the guidelines do not include prohibitions on expressing opinions, sanctions for journalistic content, or the possibility of the authority determining an official truth. “These criticisms are completely off the mark, more focused on generating a false narrative about the guidelines,” Alcalde accused. “The guidelines and the law do not establish new obligations or criteria related to censorship, absolutely not.” Alcalde insisted that reading the document confirms there are no provisions aimed at silencing voices or imposing singular visions. “If one enters and reads the guidelines, anyone can verify that they do not contain elements linked to, for example, as has been said, the inability to express opinions, the sanctioning of media content, the ultimate truth being controlled by the government, the intention to silence voices or to have singular visions. False. Absolutely false,” she said. Alcalde defended the audience rights as not being a creation of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration, noting that they have been recognized in the Constitution since 2013. She explained that in 2014, mechanisms related to these rights were incorporated into telecommunications legislation, including the obligation to have ethics codes and audience defenders. However, she pointed out that a counter-reform pushed by the PAN later removed mechanisms to make these rights effective. Therefore, she argued that the 2025 reform revived parts of the provisions considered years ago. “It practically resumes what was in the 2014 law,” she said. Alcalde clarified that the current guidelines under discussion apply exclusively to radio and television. The objective, she explained, is to help audiences easily identify when they receive news, when they hear opinions, and when they encounter advertising content. She cited the example of an informative program where the host combines news presentation with personal comments. In such cases, there should be prior warnings to inform the audience that both types of content will be present. “It is not absurd to say that now it's an opinion, now it's news, now it's an opinion. No,” she explained. This involves placing a banner or a label beforehand to inform the public about what they will find in the program. The same logic applies to advertising. Media outlets must warn when advertising content appears within a program and, if applicable, identify the promoted brands. Alcalde continued to elaborate on these points.