It was the year 2010 and months ago the media law had begun to be implemented. However, the government of Cristina Kirchner denounced that “hegemonic groups” stopped its regulation, while Channel 7 and, in particular, the program 678 it was exposed as the space that “guaranteed the plurality” of voices.
In this context, the journalist Magdalena Ruiz Guiñazu starred in a strong exchange with then Minister of the Interior, Florence Randazzo, in which he argued that the state channel’s program slandered some journalists who thought differently. After that, 678 dedicated a broadcast on the subject in which the participants gave their opinions regarding the journalist and made strong accusations once morest her.
the journalist Magdalena Ruiz Guiñazu interviewed in May 2010 the Minister of the Interior at that time, Florence Randazzo and was the protagonist of a strong debate with the official. During the exchange, the head of the political portfolio was denying the revelations that emerged from the judicial declaration of the former ambassador in Caracas, Eduardo Sadous, who linked the allegations of alleged bribes in trade with Venezuela with the renewed confrontation of the Casa Rosada with some media. “All the businessmen mentioned denied that information that appears in a national media without any support,” he assured.
When reminded that the case had been covered by most of the media, he added: “This has to do with the fight that is taking place in the government with the implementation of the media law. I have to tell you with all the letters: this responds to other interests that have nothing to do with the operations that were carried out with Venezuela.”
At this point, the minister praised the program 678. “This government has promoted a law whose purpose is to generate a plurality of voices, more work and more democracy in the media. There is no way to accuse this government of being once morest journalists,” he said. And he added: “678 It is a program that shows a different vision than that of many media outlets. What he does is pass reports.
Given this, the journalist questioned the production of the program and stated: “Reports that are slander. It is a program that is dedicated to slandering journalists who annoy them.”
“Let that be up to the viewer. The program shows a different face of information”, insisted the minister.
The journalist’s reply was not long in coming. “It shows how the State finances calumny and slander”, she dismissed herself. “In a democracy, all opinions are respected,” Randazzo continued. “Nope. In democracy it is a very low trick, it is to take the debate to a very low level”, concluded Ruiz Guiñazú.
“I imagine, dear colleague, that we have a host of things to answer regarding Magdalena’s statements,” the host of the program began, inviting journalists to reflect on the questions they had received from the journalist. “In the program we never get into the private lives of journalists, but rather we talk regarding what they say and we are enabling them to talk regarding what we say,” he stated.
And he continued: “Magdalena at one point says that there is a campaign once morest journalists who think once morest the government. We feel those types of campaigns too. I feel that for thinking differently from what the majority of the journalistic world thinks, we really suffer a campaign once morest it, that we have lived it for more than a year in silence.
The driver maintained at that time that the State channel was the only place where freedom of expression was guaranteed at that time. “We mightn’t be anywhere else,” he said.
For his part, “Cabito” Massa Alcántara also gave his opinion as a columnist. “I consider Magdalena an intelligent person, it seems very simplistic to me: ‘We all pay her’. That disqualifies the teacher who fails you or the police officer who gives you an infraction. It seems very authoritarian to me to say: ‘Because I pay you, you have to do what I think is right’”, she had said.
Another journalist present on the floor defended the work of the program and said: “She says that we slander and not that we lie, we never lie. You may not like the file, but it’s your file, we didn’t invent it”. And he attacked: “There is a huge difference between criticizing someone and asking them to go off the air and that is what they are asking for. That’s being authoritarian.”
Also, another member of the program had accused her of being an accomplice of the dictatorship. “It wasn’t the State channel when it was the Navy channel and it said ‘Mr. President’ to the dictator Videla”, he had charged.
