• By Silvia Higuera
• August 13, 2026

A proposal by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government has sparked a debate over how to balance press freedom with audiences’ right to receive accurate information.

Sheinbaum announced(opens in new tab) the proposal — titled “General Guidelines for the Protection of Audience Rights(opens in new tab)” — on July 28. The guidelines would apply to both commercial and public television and radio broadcasters. According to an official with the president’s office, there are currently no plans to include print or digital media(opens in new tab) in the guidelines.

The proposal is open for public comment until Aug. 21(opens in new tab). Anyone in Mexico can submit comments and opinions.

The guidelines proposed by Mexico’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT), the body that would be responsible for ensuring compliance, stem from the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law(opens in new tab) approved in 2025 and seek to enforce audiences’ right to receive accurate and timely information. Media outlets, industry groups and civil society organizations have criticized the proposal, citing concerns that it would give the government leverage to sanction and censor television and radio broadcasters.

Under the proposal, broadcasters would be required to use on-screen notices or messages to distinguish between news, opinion and advertising content.

The guidelines would also require each media outlet to appoint an audience ombudsperson responsible for “receiving, registering, responding to, documenting, processing and following up on complaints, observations, claims, suggestions, requests or comments from audiences.” For community, Indigenous or Afro-Mexican media outlets, the ombudsperson would have to come from the same community. And if the CRT determines that an ombudsperson is not performing their duties, it could request that the outlet appoint additional ombudspersons.

Under the proposal, broadcasters would also have to guarantee audiences’ right to reply when they believe inaccurate or false information has been published, as well as take steps to be inclusive of audiences with disabilities.

In addition, the guidelines would establish a complaints-based protection mechanism. Each outlet’s audience ombudsperson would be responsible for investigating complaints and making recommendations to the outlet on how to respond. If those recommendations are not followed, or if an audience member believes their rights have not been observed, the CRT could intervene and impose sanctions and fines. The fines could amount to as much as 1% of a broadcaster’s annual revenue.

Broadcasters would also be required to publish an ethics code outlining their editorial criteria and the measures they take to ensure that all their information  is accurate. They would also have to publicly explain audiences’ rights, how they select their audience ombudsperson and how audience members can file a complaint.

Ambiguity raises concerns

Mexico’s National Chamber of the Radio and Television Industry (CIRT) was one of the first organizations to raise concerns with the guidelines, which it described as ambiguous. CIRT worried they could give the government the power to intervene in and sanction media outlets.

“The proposal allows the government to define what constitutes false or decontextualized information, undermining self-regulatory mechanisms and rendering the audience ombudsperson ineffective by placing them under [the government’s] authority,” the organization said in a July 28 statement(opens in new tab).

CIRT also raised concerns with what it called “excessive” fines and allowing anonymous complaints, which the organization said could be used to pressure media outlets.

On Aug. 10, the organization issued another statement saying regulatory officials had shown a willingness to listen to its concerns(opens in new tab).

Adriana Solórzano, an expert in information rights and founder and former president of the Mexican Association of Audience Ombuds Offices(opens in new tab) (AMDA), told LatAm Journalism Review (LJR) that some of the concerns with the guidelines stem from the fact that the CRT, which would enforce the rules, lost its autonomy following the 2025 reform of the Telecommunications Law. As a government agency, the commission would have the authority to sanction those who fail to comply.

That is why, Solórzano said, it is essential that the guidelines be as clear as possible, without ambiguities in their wording, and that they not go beyond what is established by Mexican law.

Solórzano cited Article 12 of the guidelines as an example. It establishes, among other things, audiences’ right to receive accurate and contextualized information. But, she said, no Mexican law requires media outlets to provide contextualized information or establishes a right to receive information in that form.

“Any regulation must be consistent with the law or with what is established in the Constitution,” she added.

Solórzano also said she was concerned about the audience ombudspersons’ role, arguing that the proposed guidelines distort what should be a voluntary activity within media outlets.

The provision requiring outlets to comply with recommendations from each audience ombudsperson undermines the essence of what should be a self-regulatory process determined by each broadcaster.

“Recommendations are just that: recommendations,” she said. “They are not punitive.”

Balbina Flores, Mexico representative for Reporters Without Borders (RSF), told LJR that the guidelines could be used to control information. According to Flores, two provisions are particularly concerning: the ethics code and the fines.

Regarding the provision that would require every media outlet to have an ethics code — something many outlets already have — “the problem is if the regulatory commission wants to dictate in these codes what is right and what is wrong, because that is the responsibility of the media,” she said.

Flores also said she was concerned about the ambiguity surrounding fines and the lack of clear criteria for determining when they should be imposed.

A decades-long fight for audiences’ rights

Sheinbaum has responded to criticism of the guidelines during her morning press conferences, denying any intention to censor or control information.

“What’s really behind this is that [broadcasters] disagree with our government because they would like to have the same privileges they had before; but they don’t anymore. Mexico has changed, and it changed because the people of Mexico decided it should,” Sheinbaum said during her Aug. 4 morning press conference(opens in new tab). “Is there censorship? There is no censorship. Do people disagree with the guidelines? Then we need to find ways to make them clearer. But audience rights are a constitutional principle.”

Flores and Solórzano both agree on the importance of protecting audience rights. Solórzano noted that discussions about this type of regulation have been ongoing since 2013, but have faced opposition from broadcasters.

Solórzano said that, ideally, media outlets themselves should establish self-regulatory mechanisms to guarantee audience rights, based on the understanding that information is a public good and freedom of expression is a two-way street.

“When we seek to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, what we are seeking is for media outlets to be able to broadcast freely, but also to guarantee citizens’ right to receive reliable information, free from discrimination and bias, and information that is plural and as trustworthy as possible, because they will make decisions based on that information,” she said.

For Solórzano, civil society would not have demanded a regulatory model involving the government if media outlets had demonstrated a willingness to regulate themselves.

“In an ideal world, audience rights should be a paramount concern for every media outlet, and they should be so concerned about them that they would not have just one or two self-regulatory mechanisms — they would have many more mechanisms and operate with complete transparency,” Solórzano said.

This article was translated with AI assistance and reviewed by Alejandro Martínez-Cabrera