Press Freedoms Under Threat in Argentina

Latin America Correspondent Jon Bonfiglio looks at recent events curtailing press access to the Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires, and the broader context of diminishing press Freedoms internationally. 

Transcript

Reporters Without Borders has a press freedom index, which does what it says on the tin. Over the last two years, one of the starkest shifts of any country on earth has been in Argentina, which had a ranking of 98, which has now fallen to 66. 

But before we get to Argentina, let me just read the general statement issued by Reporters Without Borders, when they issued their report a few days ago:

“For the first time in the history of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low. Since 2001, the expansion of increasingly restrictive legal arsenals — particularly those linked to national security policies — has been steadily eroding the right to information, even in democratic countries. The Index’s legal indicator has declined the most over the past year, a clear sign that journalism is increasingly criminalised worldwide. In the Americas, the situation has evolved significantly, with the United States dropping seven places and several Latin American countries sliding deeper into a spiral of violence and repression.”

It’s a stark reality. 

In Argentina, President Javier Milei uses as standard the slogan: “We don’t hate journalists enough.” He also insults journalists in person, and in public, calling them out as an endemically corrupt industry. It echoes, of course, a standard operating procedure from the Trump administration towards journalists in the US. 

This all reached a head in the last few weeks, specifically on April 23rd, when Milei blocked reporters from entering the Casa Rosada to cover the president. It was another in a long line of attacks on news professionals. The decision, however, triggered a backlash in the country, from across sectors, including the Catholic church, the business community and politicians across all parties. It was a backlash which would ultimately see media re-admitted to the presidential building, but not in their entirety. Some reporters were still barred, without explanation. Throughout, the reasons given have been based on security, specifically an alleged recording of the inside of the building, made by a journalist through their smart glasses, but of course it’s a thinly veiled excuse to demonstrate presidential strength and impunity of actions. The TV channel involved, Todo Noticias, says that it had permission for the recording and that what was recorded was already in the public domain, and far from sensitive material. 

Although limited access has been restored, entry to the Casa Rosada has been transformed, with wide-ranging security checks, barriers and newly installed frosted glass obscuring views. 

It’s difficult to remember an instance in which there has been such outright hostility to the media in Argentina, certainly not since democracy was restored in 1983, and marks a strategy of punishment to non-compliant media, in particular given structural difficulties which Javier Milei is struggling to control, including the age-old Argentine curse of inflation. 

Let’s head back to Journalists Without Borders, and Anne Bocandé, its Editorial Director, who issued this statement:

Journalists Without Borders, she said, is “looking squarely at the future with a simple question: how much longer will we tolerate the suffocation of journalism, the systematic obstruction of reporters and the continued erosion of press freedom? Although attacks on the right to information are more diverse and sophisticated, their perpetrators are now operating in plain sight. Authoritarian states, complicit or incompetent political powers, predatory economic actors and under-regulated online platforms are directly and overwhelmingly responsible for the global decline in press freedom. Given this context, inaction is a form of endorsement. It’s no longer enough just to state principles — effective measures to protect journalists are essential and must be seen as a catalyst for change. This starts with ending the criminalisation of journalism: the misuse of national security laws and the systematic obstruction of those who investigate, expose and name names. Current protection mechanisms are not strong enough; international law is being undermined and impunity is rife. We need firm guarantees and meaningful sanctions. The ball is in the court of democracies and their citizens. It is up to them to stand in the way of those who seek to silence the press. The spread of authoritarianism isn’t inevitable.”