At 8 pm this Thursday evening, the Presidency once again interrupted the programming of private and public channels in Colombia to broadcast a speech from the speech of president Gustavo Petro, previously broadcast in another context. Four months ago, the president embraced this tradition, which has sparked mixed reactions across different sectors.
(You see: President Petro talks about the alleged coup attempt again: ‘Don’t be rude’)
A total of 10 presidential speeches have been made since 2022, when Gustavo Petro came to power. Two of them were in the second half of last year and the rest in 2023. Of these, only four were interventions explicitly designed for this type of space, and the other six were speeches made in other contexts or even in the previous days, which were later re-aired on the channels’ triple A programme: 7-9. afternoon.And.
Gustavo Petro’s television interventions yesterday and the last five followed this pattern of extracting discourse from another context. But that wasn’t the first president’s rule in his first months. Previously, only three addresses were given, and all were designed in this format: the call for participation in binding dialogues, the Christmas message, and the announcement of the departure of Alejandro Gaviria and other government ministers.
But over the past four months, the speeches that were previously long speeches by the president have gained weight, lasting between half an hour and an hour each. The first of these was its intervention before the Organization of American States (OAS), first held on April 19 and published on April 27.
(Also: ‘This act is recognition of a state that kills its citizens’: President Petro)
This was followed by the speech in which Laura Sarabia and Armando Benedetti announced their departure from the government, the dialogue with the Colombians in France, the speech on 7 August, the intervention in the land transfer in El Salado, and two more. interventions. The president’s recent television cuts have sparked mixed reactions.
Some celebrated the messages and emphasized their “strength” on television. Journalists and some opponents of the Executive questioned how the regular programs were interrupted. For example, before the August 31 message, the message was delivered several times at 7 pm.
Upon the messages that the last speech was rejected, the president spoke on his social networks. “They say it shouldn’t be broadcast on national television because I’m not in the palace but in a place where the massacre took place, I don’t have a tie and I’m surrounded by humble villagers and my words come from my heart and my reason.” The President asked them to share the message on Twitter, and then on social networks.
(Also: President Petro responded to criticism of a decree linked to ‘open expropriation’)
The controversy has led some to wonder if the president has the power to interrupt the television program at will. And the first answer is yes. Pursuant to Article 32 of the Law No. 182 of 1995, which regulates the “television service”: “The President may use the television services to address the country at any time and without limitation.”
The law does not set any limits or criteria. However, the Constitutional Court addressed this situation in its 2001 decision numbered C-1172 regarding the lawsuit filed against Law No. 182. The court declared the “without limitation” section unenforceable.
“Therefore, the President’s intervention through television must be personal, related to matters of public interest, directly related to his duties as Head of State, Head of Government, and high administrative authority, and must not lead to any arbitrariness. Because the dignity of the office must respect the rights and freedoms of the most governed. makes it mandatory,” writes the supreme court decision.
(Also: Details of the dialogue between President Petro and the Liberal Chamber delegation)
In addition to this restriction, a decision taken by the Third Chamber of the Council of State in 2014 stated: “In the event that the President does not comply with the conditions stipulated by the laws, stipulated in the Convention and the Constitution while making a television speech, his intervention will be unlawful and will lead to compensation in favor of the service operator, because it will unfairly limit or restrict the economic activity of the service employer”.
The addresses, beyond legal issues, brought with them discussions about its effectiveness. The sources responsible for Casa de Nariño’s communications explained to EL TIEMPO that the trend for the speeches to be published was based on the advice of some consultants.
They also commented that the president himself determines which speeches should be republished. “When he thinks the speeches are of national importance, he wants us to pass it on as a speech,” they said.
Professor Mario Morales, a communications expert at the University of Javeriana, said that the address issue is another expression of biased media coverage of the President’s government. “Their strategy is to try to get the direct message across,” he says.
(Also: Cielo Rusinque confirms President Gustavo Petro’s departure from his government)
And that doesn’t necessarily work: “Television discourse is not the same as that of the audience,” the academic said, warning that the absence of television language in interventions “increases audience misunderstanding.” It bothers people because it gets boring.”
Political communications expert Nury Astrid Gómez criticized the president’s actions: “Abusing certain privileges granted by the president’s inauguration is not above the law, no less,” says the analyst.
Source: Exame
