A critical analysis of the global methodologies and the alleged reduction of the level of freedom of the press in Argentina.
The new study prepared by Dr. Martín Krause, Academic Director of the foundation, analyzes six international methodologies and warns of their high subjective component and their application to the Argentine case.
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression constitute fundamental pillars of any republican society. They guarantee the circulation of ideas, allow for the exercise of power to be controlled, and make it possible for journalists, media outlets, and citizens to actively participate in the public debate. However, assessing their validity is not a straightforward task: behind every international index or classification lie criteria, weights, and methodologies that can produce very different diagnoses regarding the same reality.
Based on a comparison between the reports of Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, the Fraser Institute and the Cato Institute, V-Dem, the Center for Law and Democracy and the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, the author examines what variables they consider, how they construct their scores and what is the weight of verifiable data and subjective assessments.
The work seeks to question the global methodologies frequently used in the journalistic ecosystem regarding freedom of the press, which, under the guise of scientific objectivity, can present ideological perceptions, ambiguous categories, and less transparent criteria as unquestionable truths.
