Protecting the Media

Carlos Lauría weighs in on new legislation to protect Mexican journalists: 

With total unanimity, 263 vote in favor and not a single one against, the Chamber of Deputies passed a modification of the Federal Penal Code that imposes penal sanctions on crimes committed against "journalistic activity." Although this measure was interpreted as a step forward in the fight to put an end to the prevailing impunity in cases of aggression against free expression in Mexico, the passage of this measure won't have the desired effect without the inclusion of a deeper reform that includes a constitutional amendment to give the federal government greater jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of attacks against the media and journalists. 

[Break]

Despite various organizations presenting objections in regard to the determination of who would be considered a journalists --especially taking into account the rise of the internet and bloggers-- article 431 of the Penal Code that the legislators voted for includes a wide definition of journalistic activity as "the exercise of seeking, collecting, photographing, investigating, synthesizing, editing, arranging, supervising, printing, divulging, publishing, or disseminating information, news, ideas, or opinions for the awareness of the general public, through any mode of communication, including its distribution". The legislation adds "this activity can be carried out habitually or sporadically, salaried or without there necessarily existing a working relationship with the media outlet".

But for the reforms to have effect, according to the experts' opinions, it's necessary that Congress approves a Constitutional amendment. Under the reform to Article 73 of the Mexican Constitution, federal authorities would have greater faculties to investigate and prosecute crimes against the freedom of expression. The initiative was already passed by the commission of Constitutional issues of the Chamber of Deputies and awaits, before the end of April, a vote before the whole of the Chamber and later before the Senate. Otherwise, the topic would pass on to be treated by the next legislature. 

I'd like to know more about who opposed the wide definition of journalistic activity. It's understandable that traditional media, especially newspapers, is uneasy about the rise of blogs, but what do they have to gain by excluding bloggers from such legislation? That's just mean.