2024-08-01 13:06:34
Vidal explained her position by saying that “within the framework of absolute freedom of expression, I believe that the essence of the public channel generates greater diversity and other points of view.”
Francisco Vidal, TVN’s chairman, retracted his words against competing channelsafter the public channel itself clarified that his statements “were made in a personal capacity.”
It is that during his time in the Chamber of Deputies, the former Government spokesman expressed that “not having public television in the ecosystem of television media, This means that Chileans get their information from economic groups like Luksic (Channel 13) or Heller (Mega), or from some gringos circulating in Chilevisión. and they keep changing ownership.”
This position did not go down well with the TV channels mentioned, which stated that Vidal’s assertions “constitute a sign of a profound lack of knowledge of the law that governs open television channels, and They reveal an inexplicable hatred towards the participation of the private sector in the media.”
Given the commotion caused, Francisco Vidal backed off his stance In an interview with Diario Financiero, where he said that “Maybe my tone betrayed me once again, I think personalizing it was a mistake.”
The TVN chairman stressed that he respects “all the opinions that the channels have expressed, but I want to point out that I respect all the workers at all levels, and particularly the journalists, who I would say I know almost all of. This is not a personal matter, it is not a criticism of people.”
“Within the framework of absolute freedom of expression, I believe that the essence of the public channel generates greater diversity and other points of view; and consequently, I believe that the entire debate we are having in Congress on the project that seeks public financing of TVN’s public lines is taking place in the context of an open TV system, where for me it is essential to have a view of a public channel in all its plurality, which, moreover, coexists with private television and its legitimate editorial lines,” he argued.
For Francisco Vidal, “the defense of public TV occurs in a context of the relevant presence of private channels, which have every right to exist and have their editorial line; and thinking about the citizens, It is good for the country that in a very small system, only seven open TV channels – of which only four are substantial in terms of audience, and where only one of those four is a public TV – coexist and that the sum of those views satisfies the greatest wealth of that information.”