President Claudia Sheinbaum said the new audience-rights guidelines do not limit freedom of expression and are not a mechanism of censorship [1].
This statement comes as the Mexican administration faces accusations that the guidelines could be used to control media content. The dispute centers on the balance between protecting the rights of the viewing and listening public, and maintaining the independence of journalists.
Speaking during a national press conference on July 30, Sheinbaum defended the lineamientos on audience rights [3]. She said the initiative is designed to protect the public rather than restrict the press [2]. The president said that her administration maintains a respect for freedom of expression across all media platforms [3].
According to reports, the guidelines aim to establish standards for radio and television broadcasting [2]. Sheinbaum said the guidelines were developed with an understanding of the rights of the audience [4]. She said that the Cámara de la Industria de la Radio y Televisión (CIRT) was in agreement with the guidelines [4].
Critics have suggested that such regulations could allow the government to penalize outlets that provide unfavorable coverage. However, Sheinbaum said the guidelines do not represent a move toward censorship [5]. She said that the measures are intended to ensure a fair and transparent media environment for the citizens of Mexico [6].
The president said that the government is not seeking to silence critical voices [3]. Instead, she said the focus remains on the legal framework governing the relationship between broadcasters and their audiences [2].
“the new audience-rights guidelines do not limit freedom of expression”
The tension between the Sheinbaum administration and media critics reflects a broader struggle over regulatory control in Mexico. By citing the agreement of the CIRT, the government is attempting to frame these guidelines as a collaborative industry standard rather than a unilateral state mandate. However, the insistence on 'audience rights' can be interpreted by legal experts as a potential loophole for state intervention in editorial decisions.
