\nI think a part of it relates to the regulator in particular, who has a serious problem of nearsightedness regarding the territory. They don\u2019t value communication at a local and regional level. There is a lack of vision, but it has to do with the institutionalism\u2019s own conditions. For example, the National Television Council (CNTV) doesn\u2019t have regional offices. Although there was an attempt to have offices in other regions, it didn\u2019t take off because there are no resources. Ultimately, what we identified in our study is that local and regional channels are left to fend for themselves. And they all survive the best way they can. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
There is a centralist view of television and in addressing these issues. <\/strong>What matters is nationwide channels, and this whole other sector that can be very important for the relationship of the communities with television is overlooked. The other channels are quite irrelevant within the concerns of the CNTV, which has very little knowledge of the sector. In fact, they have never conducted a study like the one we did. This speaks poorly of how the regulator understands its role.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAnd what should be the role of the CNTV?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
I think it should be more sensitive to the development of television at a territorial level beyond Santiago.<\/strong> That is the main issue we have. For example, we point out the importance of journalism at a local level, but there are areas of the country that don\u2019t have any media of their own; radio, press or television. But this also surpasses the CNTV, as it is a deeper problem. It\u2019s what several American authors call \u201cinformation deserts\u201d, where television is one aspect in which there are no state agencies addressing these issues. <\/strong>Here, we have the Media Fund granted by the Ministry General Secretariat of Government, but this fund is a mere salutation to information pluralism in the regions because it is very little money. We need a much more strategic perspective on these issues. Although there is a lot of talk about the issue of concentration and monopoly, all of it is always with Santiago in mind. The promotion of other media is unseen. There are many other options that can be created and that are not only up to the National Television Council. The CNTV today, as it is, is insufficient to respond to all of these emerging issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhich neighboring countries have you observed that have managed to promote plurality, considering they are also experiencing a similar situation in terms of shortage of resources?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
I think there are countries with a greater development of regional media, and this has to do with the fact that regional diversity is much more present in the discourse around national identity. The case of Colombia and Brazil is interesting. But the important thing is the presence of regional public media.<\/strong> There are often regional public channels, and that means there is public money involved in the development of specific contents for the regions. So then you wonder: what happens with national television and regional contents? What is the role assigned by national television to regional contents? I mean, it is simply 15 minutes of the newscast when maybe, for instance, there should be a transporter of regional contents. If we were more imaginative, or if the authorities were more imaginative, alternatives could be found. There is an issue of political imagination and not giving this problem the importance it has in terms of information and identity. The lack of vision regarding this problem astonishes me.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe book emphasizes that the concept of pluralism must always be problematized and kept in mind, but how can this be put into practice on a daily basis?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
It is important to do it because in many channels, the first thing to be done was to reduce pluralism to political pluralism, only seeing it in binary form. For example, in one channel, only left-wing and right-wing people are interviewed. This shows there is very little political representation, as there are lots of parties that do not appear in the news. Thus, a first conclusion is that pluralism is not only limited to that. On the other hand, local and regional channels must understand who the relevant actors in their environment are, which are not only official actors or institutional agents, such as companies or representatives of the local regional government. There is an issue with the official guideline, from which we need to stray. Other types of agents could be interviewed, for example, from culture, social organizations, the environmental sector, the academia, etc. There are greater possibilities for diversification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, I must say that it is understandable because in a precarious context, the most usual actors are those who are within reach and willing to participate. In our interviews, we realized it is difficult, they told us that some people did not participate due to the level of exposure. All of this feeds the non-diverse logic for understanding plurality. There needs to be more questioning. The channels need to ask themselves whether they are addressing things, conflicts, etc. the right way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/regulacionconvergente.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/librochiara2024.jpeg?resize=1024%2C673&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n