All the Venezuelans need is for the opposition to commit itself to socialism, setup commissions to purge free-market purists from government, universities and other public life, then undertake media campaigns of indefinite length to instill reverence for the chosen economic paradigm until it just becomes part of the culture.

WE have two dedicated capitalist parties. Why should the US establishment get a pass without representing an economic alternative while VZ has to support both?

are opposing."

Frankly, that's brain-numbingly stupid. The idea is for opposing views to hash it out in the public square, not for the opposition to be crushed and "put in line." Who's running the party in power down there, now? A bunch of corrupt pigs who are making off with the nation's wealth, that's who. Yet people who think that the shit trickling down to the poor, the cell phones and crappy substandard housing, are the "answer" are deluding themselves. "Isn't that wonderful" they exclaim, while the Boligarchs in power are pocketing BILLIONS and wasting even more through their shitty mismanagement of "nationalized" industries they are running into the ground. That place has a real problem with BASIC food supplies, everything from chicken to arepa flour--and money supply? They can't make that work either. They're taking unfavorable loans in the billions from China to try to keep all their balls in the air, and it's going to get ugly eventually.

And (not that this OP is about the US, and I really don't go for that "Waah, the US is just as bad" sort of argument--because it's not the subject under discussion)... if you think a Nebraska Democrat is the same as a New York Democrat, pass the duchy!

...but that is what we are expected to accept in the USA in the name of "freedom". And the current VZ opposition wouldn't need to become "just like" the PSUV... they could have differences on social issues and maybe one day get a bit of their voice back in the mass media in the form of a cable channel like MSNBC. Hypocrisy is always relevant to a discussion where it can be pointed out (and attempting to suppress the point is mere arrogance).

Plenty of developing countries have issues with food supplies. The main difference here is that the poor are not swept under the rug anymore like they were before the socialists came in... if there is a problem feeding them, then it will remain a burning issue.

As for "pigs" running off with the wealth, that is the role of fleeing capitalists who scream 'harassment' when they are regulated; the rumor about Chavez pocketing billions was only that... a rumor started by an 'analyst' wannabe DHS contractor. In terms of advancing education, healthcare, housing and transportation the numbers are in and they look immensely better than before...the 'wasted' resources are apparently a good investment.

BTW, have you paid attention to what is currently happening in western finance? Its hard to imagine a more corrupt, destructive system. Even Congress amounts to little more these days than a group of insider traders.

Chavez didn't take any money with him; he squirreled away plenty for his family, but I am not even talking about him.

If the numbers looked so good, VZ wouldn't be borrowing from China to make ends meet. And even Chavistas wouldn't be saying "This is fucked up and getting worse, not better."

http://caracaschronicles.com/2013/04/30/overheard-at-a-tool-convention/

No mention of their involvement in the 2002 coup? Or of their other attempts at subversion? LA Times is slipping

MANIPULATION AND DISTORTION

International reports labeling Globovision as the “last opposition broadcast television station remaining” in Venezuela create the false impression that voices critical of the government are somehow being silenced. The reality is quite the opposite, however, as the vast majority of print and radio media in Venezuela continue to be dominated by the country’s conservative opposition while multiple private broadcast television stations present critical perspectives regularly.

Stations such as Venevision and Televen often cover opposition political events during news broadcasts and provide the viewing public with dissenting opinions during talk show programs. The difference between the aforementioned television stations and Globovision is that Venevision and Televen present their criticisms responsibly, in a fashion that maintains some semblance of democracy and balance in programming.

Globovision, on the other hand, is as strident in its hatred for the government as it is manipulative in the information that it presents to the Venezuelan public. Although the private station is currently being hoisted up by international media outlets and right-wing NGOs as a posterchild for democracy and freedom, the channel’s history of sowing panic and fear in the population tells a different story.

COUP SUPPORT

Perhaps the best example of Globovision’s anti-democratic character is that of the failed coup d’etat carried out against the popularly elected government of Hugo Chavez in April 2002.

The private media in Venezuela, including Globovision, actively colluded with opposition political groups and business leaders to orchestrate the build up to and the execution of the violent coup which left 17 civilians dead and caused widespread panic throughout the country.

Globovision alongside other private television stations manipulated video images during the coup, repeating ad infinito the outright lie that government supporters had fired upon nnocent demonstrators, thereby justifying the coup.

Notwithstanding subsequent investigations that have proven the mendacity of the private media’s claims, Globovision’s President, Guillermo Zuloaga, has continued to repeat this patently false version of events surrounding the coup d’etat and has publicly lamented the fact that the coup was a failure.

Zuloaga recently fled Venezuela after being indicted for the hoarding of 17 luxury vehicles on his Caracas estate. He remains a fugitive from Venezuelan justice, taking refuge in the United States.

From December 2002 – February 2003, Globovision and the private media played the role of cheerleaders for a management lock-out of the oil industry which caused widespread hardship for the population and crippled the country’s economy for months. The lockout was a decidedly political act with the sole purpose of bringing down the government of Hugo Chavez.

On October 13, 2008, continuing with its virulent anti-Chavez line, Globovision invited Rafael Poleo, the owner of the opposition newspaper Un Nuevo Tiempo, to appear on the talk show “Alo Ciudadano” where he publicly stated that President Chavez, “needs to be careful not to end up like Mussolini with his head hanging upside down”.

In May of 2009, Globovision’s director, Alberto Ravell, used unofficial and alarmist information regarding an earthquake near Caracas to launch politically motivated attacks against the Venezuelan government before the latter had provided the public with verifiable information regarding the situation.

Venezuela’s penal code rightfully prohibits domestic media outlets from using panic and violence to incite the population, acts which Globovision has clearly committed to the point of subversion in its efforts to bring down the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez.

If, in the United States, a private television station broadcasting over public airwaves engaged in violent and inciting acts with the purpose of overthrowing the elected government of Barack Obama, that station would undoubtedly be eliminated. In fact, as Noam Chomsky has reminded us when writing on the topic, subversion in the United States is punishable by death.

Yet, the anti-democratic principles which underpin Globovision’s complete lack of journalistic standards are the same that are being defended by international media conglomerates and foreign “human rights” organizations as they come to the rescue of the private station and its cabal of corporate executives. Such a defense is indicative of the interests that these groups represent, interests that have nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Over the years, corporate media outlets have made an art form out of misinforming the international community regarding current affairs in Venezuela. The recent situation pertaining to Globovision is not an exception. Inaccurate coverage continues to distort the reality on the ground, depriving the international public of the information it deserves and needs to make an educated assessment of the democratic changes underway in the country.

This work is licensed under a Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Creative Commons license

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5551

And you expect people to take that shit seriously?

Come on. The musings of Gregory Wilpert, as overblown and over-the-top as the pronouncements of the dear leader himself.

That's like posting a bulletin from Fox News saying Rupert Murdoch is a living saint, and expecting us to buy that bullshit.

People aren't stupid, and that "source" sucks.

They always criticize anything posted by Fox News and any other heavily biased sites, but when it's a heavily biased site in favor of their views, they seem to pass it off as legitimate journalism.

By the usual suspects.

Granted, it's completely arbitrary, but what can you do when you're surrounded by authoritarian hypocrites.

Literally hosted the people behind it.

Of course, they know, but they support billionaire boligarch Gustavo Cisneros because he went fishing with Carter.



Where Carter went on to broker an agreement with Venevision to change their programming.

Of course, going by previous posts, you wouldn't know that.

I respect Carter but when he went and did that it was sad. He has to know what he did was bullshit.

Gustavo Cisneros donated a lot of money to the Carter Center, but he's also friends with Bush Sr. It's sad that even Carter isn't immune from this sort of politiking (though Carter isn't immune as he was also responsible for meddling in Latin America during his Presidency).

I was down at the Carter Center a year and then some ago; it's a beautiful joint--very fine layout, quality construction, nice attention to detail. Probably not cheap to build or maintain, even in GA where costs are lower.

Damn shame.

...and quit the regime-change tactics, you label him a 'Boligarch'.

Hmmm...

...to being a host of chavista propaganda makes him a boligarch.

NOWHERE have I EVER said I believed it's great Jimmy Carter has befriended Gustavo Cisneros. Quite the contrary. I find it abhorrent, and my post you dragged out doesn't even approach some kind of approval.

How can you be so confused?

[center][/center]
I have posted this image tons of times at D.U., as I see it as a friendship far more honest than the one Cisneros set up with Jimmy Carter. It's common knowledge these clowns befriend anyone in the US government who can do them any good, like the butthead dirtbag "Sugar Barons," the Cuban "exile" Fanjul brothers of Florida, and the Dominican Republic who have owned sugar cane plantations in both places after the Cuban revolution drove them out of Cuba, where, as they have admitted to newspapers, their own father, Sugar King Baron himself, normally bribed government officials to get his own way in that country.

Politically, Cisneros is far closer to George H. W. Bush than he is to Jimmy Carter. I lost respect for Caeter when I learned he had responded to Gustavo's gestures of friendship to him.

George H. W, Bush is the one who went to huddle with Cisneros IMMEDIATELY after Cisneros' cabal in Venezuela lost their coup, by settling in for a nice long vacation together at the Fanjuls' resort in the Dominican Republic.

Photo taken in February, 2011:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gustavoacisneros/7291870906/lightbox/

[center]

Bárbara Bush, George H. W. Bush, Patricia Phelps de Cisneros y Gustavo Cisneros.

Agosto, 2010.Kennebunkport, Maine. [/center]
You were really wildly off in your attempt to use that link to my thread. I marvel at your lack of comprehension combined with your wish to engage in character assassination. That was ridiculous.

No Democrat or democrat affiliated with the D.U. has EVER supported Gustavo Cisneros. NO ONE. We know it, you misfired.

Carter is the one that got Gustavo Cisneros to change his programming. Gustavo Cisneros could've easily sold out and left the country but he went on to be a boligarch for the revolution. It shows the disconnect when you at one point admitted that Gustavo Cisneros was the "foremost sponsor of his illegal, violent coup" and now suddenly the whole Venevision affair is forgotten.

Fortunately, many intelligent, well-informed people here don't think that source "sucks". Now if you were talking about AP or some of the sources printed here in support of the right wing Venezuelan opposition, then you'd have a point.

Clearly you would not be satisfied unless the source had Nike and Exxon ads writhing all over it. Not to mention all of the foreign policy misinformation typical of American media outlets.

Try addressing the content of the post instead of making ad-hominem attacks.

I addressed the content of the post--it's crap.

Here's a little reality for ya: http://www.abc.es/internacional/20130410/abci-maduro-admite-colapso-economico-201304091944.html

The opposition forces in Venezuela are just as batty as our GOP goons here. No big loss.

This is just one rich elite exchanging something for another rich elite. Politics aren't really an issue in these matters here. If the Koch brothers wanted to buy out CBS or ABC or something, it'd probably pass muster without event a blink of an eye by antitrust investigators.

Of course that should give anyone pause that such a thing happened ... in Venezuela.

"The sale of Globovision, Venezuela's last major television station critical of the government, raised concern Tuesday that no mass media platform may remain on which to challenge the Chavista administration of President Nicolas Maduro."

Well... why should mass media assume the role of the opposition in first place? They were not elected by anyone. Their acting as a political force lacks legitimacy, and it's widespread. Anywhere in Latin America when the right-wing is not on power and get increasingly weaker in elections, media assumes the role of the opposition. In Venezuela they literally, organized, a coup d'etat and put it in action.

This must be reviewed, under the recognition of the right of freedom of expression and thought, of course. But aggressive opposition by media oligopolies operating under public concession and based in destabilization shouldn't be tolerated anywhere in a civilized world.

So in countries where the right wing rules you are likewise against the existence of opposition media?

Mainstream media is always biased to the right, it doesn't matter if the right is on power or not. So I have no idea of WTF you're talking about.

or who should have a political TV station to represent them and who not.

I will say I stopped giving a shit about anything whatsoever on TV as serious information a long time ago. TV is entertainment and advertising and propaganda. And especially any station that is not independently and securely funded, like all of ours, for example. If they are worried about their jobs, the talking heads are not going to really say what they think, or about much of anything else, so what they say is doubly worthless. PBS used to try, but they have been beaten into submission.

People who want their own TV station are not out to keep you well-informed, they want to buy their own bullhorn.

I posted this, found it interesting, as an indication of who is winning, that's all.

I don't watch it at all. I watch some shows on Netflix when I travel and I'm bored but that's it.