Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished teachers, fellow students, and friends of the people, good afternoon! It is a profound honor to take part in this significant forum, where we gather to reflect on an issue of vital importance to the future of humanity. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to East China Normal University, the Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies, the Center for International Communication and Research of the CCP Party School, and the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research for their invitation.
Why is the issue we are discussing today so critical? Because it concerns how we can win the hearts and minds of people to create the world we aspire to build based on the values of unity and equality.
Today, we need to reflect on the role of the media in the modern history of Latin America. I will begin with a telling example of how media outlets are engaged in class struggle in the contemporary era. Then, I will present two case studies that illustrate both progress and setbacks in the struggle to democratize access to information. Finally, I will reflect specifically on the challenges confronting mass media today.
Allow me to set the stage with a reference to a historic moment. In 1998, Fidel Castro addressed the 7th Congress of the Young Communist League in Cuba. In that momentous speech, he captured the essence of the class struggle with striking clarity: "The struggle we are discussing is fundamentally an ideological struggle. It will not become a war. Nuclear weapons cannot resolve the world's problems. That's not possible. Nor can wars provide solutions. Indeed, I would argue that even an isolated revolution is insufficient. In an order shaped by neoliberal globalization, an isolated revolution can be overturned in a matter of days, or at most, weeks."
That is what Castro told the leaders of the Cuban Young Communist League. The speech was broadcast publicly on television and radio. At that time, Cuba was undergoing a period of profound difficulty imposed by isolation and economic blockade. Castro had already foreseen the challenges sweeping across Latin America, warning: "Even under these conditions, we must never let our guard down. If people’ disappointment in the current government leads to the rise of fascist or far-right groups, it could thrust us back into the past. Nor can we exclude the possibility of military aggression. Yet, above all, our present struggle is an ideological struggle." In closing, he clearly pointed out one of the Cuban Revolution's greatest strengths: "Its success stemmed from its ability to sow ideas."
In that year, that is, 1998, resistance to neoliberalism had spread throughout the continent. Popular uprisings emerged in countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela. That same year, Commander Chávez, elected as a champion of the people, won the presidential election. The victory paved the way for a series of electoral triumphs across various nations. Argentina faced widespread popular uprisings in late 2001, while Mr Lula secured his first presidential term in Brazil in 2002. The resistance has steadily intensified alongside the growing momentum of popular mobilization. The year 2005 marked a turning point for Latin America with the demise of the FTAA, followed by the elections of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador, Lugo in Paraguay, and Zelaya in Honduras as presidents. However, amidst these successes, there exist pockets of tension, conflict, and discontent.
All these new governments share a common challenge: they operate within countries where the media landscape is heavily centralized, dominated by a few economic entities with a clear ideological bias against socialist principles. In response to this reality, governments have had to amend existing communication laws or enact new ones. Venezuela, under President Chávez, emerged as a leading force in the integration of Latin America, supported by the administrations of Brazil's Lula and Argentina's Kirchner. The collapse of the FTAA in 2005 catalyzed the formation of key integration mechanisms like the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, the Union of South American Nations, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States recently established.
The pivotal events of 2002 not only shaped the Bolívar process but also Latin America, marked by the failed coup in Venezuela. This period saw 49 significant governmental measures, of which five were the most important, including the Land Law, the Hydrocarbon Law, the Education Law, the Coast Law, and the Fisheries Law, directly challenging the interests of former power holders in Venezuela. Media outlets played a critical role during these events, with television programs, broadcasting corporations, and major private media entities aligning against Chávez's reforms, fostering conditions for the coup attempt to overturn Chávez's administration on April 11, 2002. These media outlets distorted and undermined Chávez's message to the Venezuelan people, which reals their tactics to a certain extent. On the other they have papered over the Venezuelan people's practice of direct democracy. There have been numerous large-scale demonstrations aimed at restoring the constitution and freeing the president from house arrest.
On Thursday, April 11, the proprietors of five private channels, namely Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión, Globovisión, Televen, and CMT, along with nine of the top 10 international newspapers, such as Universal, Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, and El Nuevo País, actively engaged in anti-Chavez activities. Print media outlets were also involved. An editorial in the El País on April 13 characterized the protests, spearheaded by entrepreneurs and the military, as a form of "civil resistance." They demanded the dissolution of democratic institutions, ransacked the Cuban embassy, and assaulted Chávez's ministers. Similarly, an editorial in the El Mundo on April 13 portrayed these actions as manifestations of "public outrage." In stark contrast, those advocating for the reinstatement of the constitutional presidency and the preservation of democratic institutions post-coup were disparagingly labeled as "mobs" or "mentally unstable demonstrators." This was featured in the April 15 edition of the El País.
The struggle for a progressive wave in Latin America hinges significantly on garnering public support, with one critical battleground being the media landscape. Argentina's 2010 Media Law upholds communication right as a human right, curtails media monopolies, grants licenses to mass media outlets, and upholds viewers' rights. This has played a pivotal role in democratizing and legitimizing media discourse. It marks a departure from the media landscape following Argentina's return to democracy in 1983. The first draft of the legislation was publicly heard across the countries and made aware of by the media system after months of deliberations, compelling the political system to address an uncomfortable issue, particularly given its growing reliance on mass media. Notably, the law's most profound impact was challenging the prevailing notion that journalism had lost its independence. This is the major culture shock that this process produces.
Following the law's passage in Congress, the country's leading media conglomerate, Clarín, immediately filed a lawsuit for non-compliance with this law. Amidst persistent conflicts and divergent interests, the nation has not exhibited the same acumen in radio management and licensing decisions as it once did. The Media Law stands as a testament to the deeper transformations instigated by clashes between social factions guided by Kirchner and the dominant agricultural sector. It should be viewed as a product of a time marked by the rise of political forces opposing neoliberal vision, gaining momentum following Argentina's tumultuous 2001-2002 crisis and subsequent uprisings. Ten years later, amidst the enduring wave of neoliberalism, the country finds itself grappling with another crisis.
As soon as Mauricio Macri's government took power in 2015, it issued a decree pinpointing crucial aspects of the law and, with congressional backing, the government effectively achieved its intent. He intervened in the communication landscape to ensure profitability for major economic entities and relax constraints on media consolidation.
In Ecuador, a grand movement unfolded against a backdrop of media-government tensions. In the 2011 referendum, Ecuadorians overwhelmingly voted to curb media consolidation and economic influences on media operations. Two years later in 2013, the National Congress, buoyed by public support, enacted the Organization Law, which regulates news content across all media platforms. This legislation provides that information is not to be exploited for commercial purposes but should be regarded as a public good, a non-commercial service untainted by privileges favoring select economic elites.
Furthermore, it stresses that news content ought to elevate civic engagement, foster diversity and inclusion, and uphold journalistic objectivity. In 2021, Guillermo Lasso was elected as president. Just one month later, he submitted a bill to the National Assembly, proposing substantial amendments to laws promulgated during the Correa administration. This new legislation deprived the public of right to information. In short, it is driven by a philosophy of market self-regulation, defining freedom of speech as an individual right rather than a collective one.
This institutional battle took place against the backdrop of the social and political backlash against neoliberalism that swept Latin America in the 1990s. By that time, significant experience, particularly in the field of communications, had been accumulated, establishing a precedent for later national or even international conflict planning. It was perhaps from the Bolivarian Revolution of the early 21st century that a new instrument for the era emerged: teleSUR. It is co-sponsored by several Latin American governments. For years, we have worked to accumulate the grassroots communication experiences that Latin American countries have developed despite limited resources and technological constraints. Last year, we gathered in Brazil with over 60 Latin American mass media outlets to develop a common strategy aligned with the needs and visions of our civil organizations. Supported by teleSUR and other sister organizations, we coordinated joint training programs.
As communication tools transform with the rise of new social networks and digital platforms, there is an urgent need to reopen the debate on communication strategies. Worldwide, discussions about regulating Big Tech are gaining momentum. The rise of artificial intelligence has made the regulation of social networks an increasingly urgent issue. This includes regulating both economic actors and controlling access to public discourse. Many of the world's most influential corporations are now involved in the media landscape, where they often manipulate or censor information to serve private interests.
Mass media organizations have been advocating for advertisement legislation that would include both national and international entities in advertising distribution channels and mandate them to pay for making advertisements. Despite traditional media's strong emphasis on market efficiency and their resistance to state intervention, their operations remain heavily dependent on approvals from domestic institutions. Furthermore, there remains a significant lack of discussion around public media, which currently operate far below their potential capacity. During the years of the neoliberal government, these media were all dismantled, making their reconstruction crucial. Any effective strategy must actively include both public media workers and civil society organizations.
Finally, we faces the essential task of crafting our own narratives and our own stories. Today’s dominant cultural discourse claims that the end of capitalism is harder to imagine than the end of the world. How do we respond to such narratives? What stories should we tell, and from which perspectives? Where do we find hope? These questions are central to shaping our communication strategies. That is why we consider it both a great honor and a unique opportunity to be here in China, reflecting on these questions together. We believe that as China sharing its experience with the peoples of the Global South in the practice of people-centered governance, we will find the key to the future of humanity.
(Transcribed from recording and edited.)