Venezuela moves against second opposition TV channel

Source: Reuters

CARACAS (Reuters) - Hours after President Hugo Chavez shut down Venezuela's main opposition broadcaster, his government demanded an investigation of news network Globovision on Monday for allegedly inciting an assassination attempt on the leftist leader.

Chavez took Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV, off the air at midnight on Sunday and replaced it with a state-run channel to promote his socialist programs. The move sparked international condemnation and accusations from the opposition that he was undermining democracy in the
OPEC nation.

Protests over the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest private channel, simmered in several Venezuelan cities on Monday. In some locations, the police used tear gas to disperse the crowds.

Seizing on the momentum of RCTV's closure, Communications Minister Willian Lara presented a case to the state prosecutor's office saying experts hired by the ministry had found that opposition broadcaster Globovision was inciting assassination attempts on Chavez.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070528/ts_nm/venezuela_television_dc_5

---

It is democratic and just to shut down all critics of our Dear Leader, because it is certainly the People's will to be sheltered from all views critical of the government.

If they want to boot him out, 2009 is when they can do it. Their constitution provides recall provisions for removal exactly half-way through a president's tenure. Presidents serve six-year terms down there. 2009 is when his current term is half-way finished.

I happen to support the bulk of his political program. Either way, it's a matter for the people of Venezuela, free from US subversion and aggression, to decide.

I'm not suggesting we interfere in any way, I just want our own people to understand why a lack of opposition is always wrong.

See my post towards the bottom re the Reporters Without Borders. He's trying to shut down anyone and everyone who disagrees with him.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=264986550521167

If "Investor's Business Daily" supports Globovision, I oppose it. I mean that only partially in jest, but in all seriousness, I think I'll await concrete moves by the Venezuelan state before drawing any conclusions. The pope assasination footage could be or could not be incitement. I have no idea, nor do I believe anyone on this board knows the answer to that.

What are they supposed to do, just sit back and look the other way? It should be investigated.

For the last few years I was willing to defend Chavez because at least Venezuela had democratic elections and voices of opposition could speak out freely. But now, increasingly free speech is being sacrificed due to Chavez's paranoia. I now wonder if the 2009 elections will even be held.

They may not realize it now, because they're like 90% of America was way back in 2001, but eventually the stupor of Chavez will dissipate and they'll realize something awful is headed their way. Hopefully those poor dear people will get a democracy without a dictator, everyone in the world deserves it. Including us, our decidership is robbing us of that right.

I will continue to post it every time he steps right down the path.

It will be depressing when this animal farm experiment with our dollars from the pump collapses.

Just a matter of time.

Is that what you mean? If not, why not? I always objected to that work, because the moral of the story is that allegedly the masses are comprised of fools who cannot govern their destinies individually or collectively speaking.

but an entire nation. That's something they'll realize as we are now in this country.

The problem is that you can't trust an authoritarian, Chavez has never really been a democrat, he's always been someone looking for a way to get into power.

The people of Venezuela have had their hopes raped by this man. He has twisted the best parts of themselves and used it to gain power.

One day they'll realize they can actually have a democracy, but that everyone will have to lead it, not one man.

And the average citizen has been greatly empowered by the Chavez government, through participatory democracy.

I guess they are too stupid to realize it. That must be why they need to be ruled by a few US sponsored elites who know better.

"The people of Venezuela have had their hopes raped by this man." Gimme a fucking break.

and other communist states. The equal animals create a system where some are "more equal".

I enjoy a representative democracy, the collective can happen somewhere else.

More private enterprise = communism? On what planet?

Your red-baiting world view has no explanation for this, but anyone with basic common sense can see that redistributing income downward results in a lot of formerly destitute people having money to spend. When that happens, lots of old and new businesses are eager and willing to help them spend it, and grow by doing so. That may surprise you, but it doesn't surprise most of us.

talking about. You cant talk about Orwell without the ussr. Read up.

Their OIL based economy rises with the price of crude. That is the only export that runs their economy. They are single source.

Because of their nationalization no company will invest is systems that take time to return profit. So they will demand higher prices up front.

Does the following look like "communism" to you? Orwell is pretty dated. Your old-fashioned commies thought that they had an exact model for how the future would have to be in Historical Necessity--I can't think of a single leftie I know these days (other than members of a few crackpot splinter sects) who is willing to commit to more than trying various things out and seeing how they work.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2140

Venezuela’s economy grew by 10.2% in the 3rd quarter of this year, compared with the same period last year. The driving force behind the growth is the non-oil sector of the economy, the Venezuelan Central Bank said yesterday.

The oil sector overall growth in the oil sector actually fell. Public sector oil growth was at 0.9%, while the private oil sector fell by 11.2%. This was partly due to maintenance activities, but private companies blame the down time due to the renegotiation of their operating contracts early this year. The combined growth figure for the oil sector compared with last year was down 1.8%.

Contrary to the image of the Venezuelan government and its president, overall private sector growth eclipsed the public sector figure. The private sector grew by 12.3%, while the public sector grew by only 2.7%.

in the huge rightwing paramilitary scandal there (thousands of union organizers, leftists and peasants slaughtered and left in mass graves, drug trafficking and other crimes), that one of the rightwing plots was to assassinate Chavez and other leaders, and destabilize the Andean democracies (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador). It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that global corporate predator news conglomerates were involved. Globovision--like RCTV--was supportive of the violent military coup attempt in 2002. RCTV was more visibly active in support of it (hosted meetings of the coup plotters, broadcast disinformation, tried to rouse up rightwing thugs) which is why the government decided not to renew their license to use the public airwaves. But others also supported the coup attempt, and may have been more actively involved behind the scenes, and the plotting to overthrow the government did not stop. The rightwing candidate for president who ran against Chavez in December '06 disavowed yet another coup plot that included using corporate TV to promulgate the lie that the election was fixed, foment riots and, once again, instigate a military takeover (which, last time, not only involved kidnapping Chavez but also suspending the Constitution and shutting down both the National Assembly and the courts). The news that the Colombian paramilitaries--with ties to the top echelons of the Uribe government (buds of Bush)--were planning to kill Chavez is recent. If there is evidence against Globovision as to these plots, it needs to be exposed, and perps prosecuted.

2. We could lose Faux News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Clear Channel and most corporate radio, and most of our war profiteering corporate news monopoly newspapers and news magazines with no loss to free speech. Busting corporate news conglomerates would in fact enhance free speech. These corporate news monopolies are a poison in our democracy, spewing war propaganda and fascist policy 24/7, and are arguably themselves guilty of a coup for DOCTORING their exit polls to cover up a Kerry win in 2004. I wouldn't cry a tear to see all their licenses to use our public airwaves pulled, and given to small, feisty, competitive, upstart news businesses, worker coops or non-profits who engage in REAL journalism and who actually perform the function of the Fourth Estate--watchdogging our government.

3. None of this--investigating rightwing plots against democratic governments, or denying licenses to bad actor corporate news conglomerates--is anti-democratic. It is just the opposite. Our corporate news monopolies want you to think that Chavez is the "dictator," rather than their own rightwing billionaire CEOs (and their puppet Bush). Don't buy it! Of course any leader needs to be scrutinized on power issues, Chavez included. But I fail to see how diversifying the PUBLIC airwaves in Venezuela--busting up corporate monopolies, denying licenses to them, and/or investigating criminal conspiracies--harms Venezuelan democracy, any more than it would harm ours. I wish WE had a president who take such action.

4. In Venezuela, as here, the rightwing is a minority. But one thing that corporate news monopolies do, in both places, is to give that rightwing minority a BIG TRUMPET to promulgate fascist views, way out of proportion to their numbers. The trick is to convince the progressive majority that they are the minority, and to demoralize and disempower them. It appears to me that they have been successful in that propaganda campaign here--the demoralization campaign. It is their only propaganda success in the U.S. They have utterly failed to convince the American people on the Iraq War, for instance--despite a propaganda campaign such as we have never seen in this country, led by once reputable news organizations like the NYT. All war all the time. WMD lies across the board, from every direction. But their subtler effort to disempower and demoralize the American people--to make us think that OTHER Americans had gone nuts, and supported Bush and fascism--to make us feel that this was the GENERAL view--has been far more successful. If you NEVER hear your own views reflected in any news/opinion forum, it gets to you. Corporate news monopolies have had much less success at this in Venezuela. When all the corporate news monopolies supported the coup in 2002, and told people that it was a done deal and that Chavez had resigned, the Venezuelans DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM, and went out into the streets to protest--and soon found out that Chavez had been kidnapped. (This was the most critical factor in defeating the coup.) Here, they told us Kerry lost, and most of us crawled back into our caves and licked our wounds. (Also, we had no one on our side in the national political establishment. The Venezuelans had the leaders of the Chavez government, who were heroic in re-establishing order and getting news out to people.)


In sum, there are many parallels between our situation and that of the Venezuelans, as to the deadly oppression of the corporate news monopolies. And if you don't think it's deadly, consider the Iraq War, and, in Venezuela, the intent of the coup plotters to kill Chavez (and their actual murder of dozens of his supporters in the streets). The difference is that they have a government who is fighting for their interests, and we do not. We should not equate "free speech" with "corporate speech." Corporations are monoliths. They are not free. They do not promote democracy. They are anti-democratic. And they are furthermore NOT PERSONS, with individual rights. We should not mourn the loss of RCTV or Globovision any more than we should mourn the loss of Faux News or CNN (or any the others) as martyrs to free speech. That is ridiculous. The PUBLIC airwaves should be wide open, with great news/opinion and artistic diversity. Corporations KILL diversity. They try to impose a monoculture, and, at their worst--as here and in Venezuela--they try to impose a FASCIST POLITICAL AGENDA.

We complain about the corporate media here, as if they care about what we think. They do not. They are into creating a national delusion--a false narrative of our national political life. There is nothing democratic about it. Like Bush, they are UNRESPONSIVE to the public. Their money and illegitimate power insulate them from us. They manipulate us--and, if we are resistant, they simply ignore us. And it is quite stupid of people here to vilify the Chavez government for trying to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THEY are fighting these news conglomerates. They understand what evildoers they are--having witnessed their raw powermongering in an attempted overthrow of their popularly elected government. It is absurd to equate the powermongering activities of fascist news corporations with "free speech."

Distorting the Venezuelan media story

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with Granier and RCTV is political."

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

nt

No, the relevant authorities are investigating possible evidence of incitement to assassinate the president. It was presented by the Minister of Communications to the prosecutor's office. Please try and keep the Chavez-as-bogeyman clichés to a minimum. It's getting tiresome.

Now i feel much better about this free-speech/press clampdown. :sarcasm:

Why am i not surprised? Booo Hugo!

They supposedly broadcast footage of the Pope John Paul II assassination attempt with some weird song in the background.

They claim it's a subliminal message. Now I'm not stupid, I know what the CIA did in Iran in the '50s, they used former Nazis and fake demonstrators to drum Mossadeq out of power. This is not that in any way a method they'd use, this is a bunch of bullshit the Venezuelan government is making up so that it looks acceptable for them to shut down this station.

Can you explain to me how the hell showing Pope John Paul II getting shot is supposed to cause people to want to shoot Chavez? How the fuck does that even work? It doesn't make any fucking sense.

Now I'm not saying we should be naive and think the opposition to Chavez is not a bunch of violent thugs, I'm just saying we shouldn't be naive and think Chavez is hear to spread happy dust on everything and make the world a better place.

if any other head of state tried to pull this same shit.

I can't explain why anyone would put their eggs in the seamy Hugo basket.

n/t

to favor the government and they would still be on the air. simply a matter of making a business decision over that of principle.

"Pollster Datanalisis found almost 70 percent of Venezuelans opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.

The Venevision network, which stood alongside RCTV during the 2002 coup, had its broadcast license renewed over the weekend after nearly three years of adjusting its editorial line to favor the government."


http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=3219088&page=2

The only time Venevision has ever backed the government line was this case, and that was because a rival would be forced to move to cable. Venevision and Televen are now more neutral and akin what the MSM is in the states.

Back then, you had to be pretty affluent to own a telephone, and that skewed the data. I don't doubt that 70% of the wealthiest 20% of Venezuelans opposed the shut-down.

But if Chavez wants to be like Hitler, he will need to shed a few pounds prior to growing his mustache.

Well, there's always sattelite TV....right?..As long as CNN is blocked, all should be ok, right?

And personal insults, too. Come back when you grow up.

Still, the scale of impact is not as great. And I hope it remains that way.

I'm no Chavez fan, but to even compare him to Hitler in 1933 is ludicrous.

It is up to him to decide and it will likely be dropped, just to point out the Atty General is not part of the executive and is an independant power elected by congress.

And everything to do with "money talks".

Private for-profit television stations have nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with "Money talks".

To translate, I don't think it has squat to do with a "free speech" environment, anymore than de-franchising Fox News would. They don't own the bandwidth and the government can take it back. If they don't like it, their redress is in the courts and at the ballot box, where it should be.

choosing the political stances of the media. In my opinion this does hinder free speech as the intent is to limit the ability for a point of view to be able to spread a message. We have also seen throughout history that the controlling the media is often problematic.

Nobody gives a crap whether I get to spread my point of view with my own TV station. Why should I give a crap if these right-wing blowhards have to make do like the rest of us?

takes effort to control the content of the media. There is a strong correlation between freedom of speech measures and this type of action. In particular the countries which fair well on freedom of press measures do not shut down dissenting opinion but rather, often through publicly funded broadcasting, work to make it so everybody has a say.

With the exception of the usual caveats such as hate crimes and discrimination, it strikes me as problematic having a government take steps to eliminate a certain viewpoint. This is not the matter of a government shutting down a right-wing station it is a matter of a government shutting down an opinion which it does not agree with. This is problematic in that it gives the state far too much power and works to encourage corrupt decision making.

but they do control and regulate the public airwaves, because there is limited bandwidth due to the nature of over the air broadcasting.

I think making sure public airwaves are not turned into a propaganda arm of some powerful media conglomerate is generally a good idea, and that news stations should be held to certain standards.

Cable and satellite is a whole different ball of wax.

by the Kinks with the line
Paranoia may
destroy ya

If one of the basic cabal "news" channels in the US were to 24/7 call Smirk (truthfully) stupid, incompetent, drunk, ignorant, lazy, and mean, and continuously question his sanity, sobriety, and motivation, they would be yanked off the air in less time than it takes to play a golf tournament.

and were only declined license renewal because of it, there'd be thousands of rightwingnuts screeching in the streets about thier loss of "freedom of speech".

Anyone who calls Chavez a dictator has not read the facts of the matter. And for a progressive board, that's sad.

nm

Minister of communication from William Lara, his outbursts have no chance to get anywhere from here, but the insane PR damage he is causing merits a swift demotion.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.

"freedom of speech".

It's a crime.

Had they done it here, they'd not have been on-air until their license expired; they'd be rotting in jail. Rightly so.

If there was a right winged government in Venezuela who shut down the opposition TV networks, the people here would be screaming fascists.

If in the US someone called for a violent overthrow of the government, chances are they would get fined and kick off the air. The person would also get a chance to appeal the decision to the FCC. They wouldn't send troops in to take over the station and impose a state controlled channel instead.

If a right wing government shut down an opposition TV station you wouldn't hear a peep about it from politicians in Washington, or on the news.

both in trying to overthrow Chavez as well as manipulate the U.S. impression of him is incredibly naive and quite ignorant of the U.S. history of involvement in South America.

From the FAIR article:

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."
<snip>

As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."
<snip>

The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

Yes, 18 people shot down by pro-coup snipers, and a democratically elected government overthrown thanks to the fine journalistic standards at RCTV.

I can't believe people are defending this company.

same bullshit US SOP.

If progressives can't get it, how the hell will we ever straighten out the rest of America??!

If this station did here in the USA what they did there in Venezuealla, they'd be lucky only to be sitting in Gitmo the rest of their lives! WAKE UP, PEOPLE! The US Agenda is at it again!

I mean the cia build a station 53 years ago, just to use it against chavez.

The PROGRESSIVE magazine did just this by disclosing the design for the us' thermonuclear warhead in the press.

Indymedia goes first if this was done in the US.

This is a sad discussion. Loyalty to the man rather than the free word.

The mind boggles, does it not? And here I was thinking DUers had better BS detectors. Looks like I was wrong.

It's frustrating and deeply disheartening. :(

PMing you now...

I never understood the gleeful support around here for Chavez simply because he also hates Bush. Turns out he appears more and more like any other tinhorn dictator.

Considering a tipical example of binary thinking is using labels.

and a 'liberal democracy' is.

They actually love the latter, but have confused their intense lust for the former with love, not realizing that 'democracy' by herself is deeply into bondage and under that nice mask lay genocide and repression.

liberal democracy really means libertarian democracy. Liberal means libertarian to the rest of the world. True democracy is not constrained by anything other than the will of the people, therefore liberal democracy is an oxymoron, nothing can preced democracy.

before making such statements.

I don't like Chavez simply because he hates Bush. You do realize that the U.S. actively tried to overthrow Chavez, right?

The heart of the issue is control over oil profits:
The strikers’ goal was maintaining control over the national oil company so they could keep the wealth to themselves, and getting Chávez out of office. They lost, and Venezuela’s oil wealth now benefits the entire country instead of a traditional elite.

<snip>
As “US Intervention in Venezuela” makes clear, the Administration’s concerns about Venezuela are not fundamentally about these issues but relate to a deeper concern about the erosion of support for the neoliberal “free market” system promoted by the US government in Latin America for decades. The Chávez government is currently leading one of the fastest growing economies in the region, bringing down unemployment through the use of a dynamic set of policies that combine the assets of the private sector with, strategic government investment in specific industries, and incentives for cooperatives and small and local businesses.

Most importantly, the Chávez administration is funneling billions of dollars of the country’s oil wealth into social programs for the poor. These programs have succeeded in eradicating illiteracy in Venezuela; vastly increasing school enrollment; providing subsidized food and housing to the poor; and implementing a national system of preventative, community-based health care. Call it the threat of a good example!


Try reading this article by Medea Benjamin

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0304-20.htm

.... including Poppy's (in)famous 'fishing trips'.

I see Chavez as a mixed bag (non-binary thinking). On the one hand, he's doing some commendable social good. On the other hand, he's employing some totalitarianesque tactics in so doing.

I may be a lefty/liberal, but I'm not a communist.

I also made my post and stand by it. That said, to discuss it, or not, is simply masturbation. I suspect there's little common ground between the wildly cheering pro-Chavez crowd and me.

Another country has a leader we don't like, so we devote resources to harassing that leader. if said leader keeps his cool and doesn't turn into a complete paranoid madman, he gets to live through a US-backed anti-whomever-it-is PR campaign that will last through the duration of that administration.

What's going on with these stations doesn't bother me so much, simply because if it were here in the US and they did to Bush what they'd done to Chavez, the ownership would have been transferred to Rupert Murdoch or Pat Robertson already.

If an air personality went on the air in the US and backed a coup-in-progress, they should expect to get their ass canned. If they did it with the blessing of management, they should lose their license. Period.

Of more concern is how things will shake out (re: violence) in land reform.

:sarcasm:
I wonder what color Chavez prefers?

Venezuela28 May 2007

International community urged to rally to defence of Venezuela’s media after RCTV’s closure

Reporters Without Borders today called for international condemnation of President Hugo Chávez’s decision not to renew the licence of Venezuela’s oldest TV station, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), which was finally forced to stop broadcasting at midnight last night.

“The closure of RCTV, which was founded in 1953, is a serious violation of freedom of expression and a major setback to democracy and pluralism,” the press freedom organisation said. “President Chávez has silenced Venezuela’s most popular TV station and the only national station to criticise him, and he has violated all legal norms by seizing RCTV’s broadcast equipment for the new public TV station that is replacing it.”

Reporters Without Borders continued: “The grounds given for not renewing RCTV’s licence, including its support, along with other media, for the April 2002 coup attempt, are just pretexts. Other privately-owned TV stations that supported the coup attempt have not suffered the same fate because they subsequently adopted a subservient attitude towards the regime.”
snip
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22326

being labeled as a Right Wing Neo-con group supporting the wealthy in 3...2...1

Could you explain the meaning of your post?

My post was mostly sarcasm directed at the host of Chavez supporters who will label any source that dares suggest that Chavez is anything but a saint as Neo-Con/Fascist/Uninformed/Et. Al. (then quote the same source a few days later, in a different thread, when it says something pro-Chavez).

Finally the truth has come to light. Mr. Robert Ménard, secretary general of the RSF for twenty years, has confessed to receiving financing from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that depends on the U.S. Department of State, whose principal role is to promote the agenda of the White House for the entire world. Ménard was indeed very clear. “We indeed receive money from the NED. And that hasn’t posed any problem.” (1)

Former U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1983, during a period in which military violence took the place of traditional diplomacy in order to resolve international matters. Thanks to its powerful ability of financial penetration, the NED’s goal is to weaken governments that would oppose the foreign hegemonic power of Washington. (2) In Latin America, the two targets are Cuba and Venezuela.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=7851

Reagan not right-wing enough for you?

As, for example, Chavez is trying to shut down freedom of the press?

Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression
(Washington, DC, May 22, 2007)—The Venezuelan government’s politically motivated decision not to renew a television broadcasting license is a serious setback for freedom of expression in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision will shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the country’s oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007.

President Hugo Chávez is misusing the state's regulatory authority to punish a media outlet for its criticism of the government. The move to shut down RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela.

snip
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

there is NO-ONE who you could cite who could be a "credible" voice of criticism against Saint Hugo. Not Castro himself and certainly not the Venezuelan protesters.

/Republican/Fascist etc...

apparently if they take more than 3 cents of funding from any US govt source, they are automatically anti-Chavez and anti-everythingelseweholdtrueanddear.

Any media encouraging and supporting a coup should have been shut down immediately after the coup was thwarted not a few years later.

I think Chavez is going after all independent media criticizing his regime.

snip
"This attack on media pluralism is just the latest in a long series of press freedom violations in Venezuela that have included attacks on hundreds of journalists in recent years, a “media social responsibility” law that restricts their programming, criminal code amendments increasing the penalties for press offences, publication of a list of journalists who allegedly “sold out to US interests,” and verbal threats by Chávez against foreign journalists.

“We appeal to the international community to actively condemn this use of force and to defend what remains of the independent media in Venezuela,” Reporters Without Borders added.

The threat to RCTV surfaced just eight days after Chávez’s reelection as president, when communication and information minister William Lara announced on 11 December 2006 that the renewal of its licence would be put to a referendum. President Chávez’s decision to terminate its licence without bothering with a referendum was announced 17 days later."

Read what I said. He should not be doing this now he should have done it years ago after the coup is what I said. Just for the record you are saying that news outlets that encouraged and supported a military coup should not have been shut down or punished in any way?

He shut down the most popular station in the country and that's okay with you? It seems he tolerates no talk of opposition.

From Human Rights Watch: snip
"The White Book accuses RCTV of “inciting rebellion,” showing “lack of respect for authorities and institutions,” breaking the laws protecting minors, engaging in monopolistic practices, and failing to pay taxes. However, it does not cite a single final judicial or administrative ruling establishing that the channel had in fact committed any of these alleged offenses during its 20–year contract. No one from the channel has been convicted for their alleged complicity in the attempted coup. "

snip
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

I actually think it is a mistake to shut them down so long after the fact. It does reek of retribution. But, your position is frankly laughable. If anything is grounds for shutting down a station, using public resources (airwaves) to advocate a military coup is surely one of them.

Is Human Rights Watch wrong on this matter too? Your position isn't laughable; it's sad.

Venezuelans Protest As TV Station Shuts

Tuesday May 29, 2007 5:46 AM


By FABIOLA SANCHEZ

Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.

Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas. They later regrouped in Caracas' Plaza Brion chanting ``freedom!'' Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.

It was the largest of several protests that broke out across Caracas hours after Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting at midnight Sunday and was replaced with a new state-funded channel. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's broadcast license, accusing it of ``subversive'' activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him.

snip



http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6667303,00.html

is not a wise thing for any democracy or social democracy.


If * did it here how would you all feel?

having their broadcasting license revoked would be the least of their worries.

which showcased * as a miserable failure, then they would be within their right under free speech.


Shutting down a news outlet to silence them is wrong regardless of who does it: * or Chavez.



A social revolution is a good thing, but when one man becomes the decider for the revolution then he is no more than a dictator...regardless of how he is adored by the citizenry.

People here are acting like their worst crime was calling Chavez a poopyhead. They aided and abetted a military coup against a democratically elected government. They incited people to violence, and steered their own supporters into a sniper trap as a pretext for the coup. They cheered and patted themselves on the back on live TV about the job well done, as the coup plotters abolished the constitution and supreme court, then refused to cover the news when the people took back the government through mass uprising! All this has been recorded to tape for posterity, yet in the mainstream media it's treated as an unfounded allegation from deranged dictator.

This is not something a responsible media company does, and any company that does engage in it should not be granted a license for public broadcasting.

don't tell me that shutting down dissent is the reasonable approach.

Nothing but anti Chavez propaganda, on all TV stations, since the state run station was sabotaged and taken off the air.

They don't want free speech, they want a monopoly on speech.

So like with the recent rallies against the closing of RCTV, they can focus only on the pro-Chavez demostrators.

Hooray for free speech! :sarcasm:

The state doesn't dominate the media.

They have shut down one broadcast station, cowed two other private stations and are threatening a 3rd.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=abZxsP7rSAWs&refer=latin_america

"Chavez's government has financed scores of new community and national media friendly to its agenda, boosting its reach to include seven open television signals, two cable networks, and 28 community TV channels, along with 200 local radio signals, 110 websites, 40 regional and 4 national newspapers, Rosales said today."

And this part? Its my favorite.


"Disturbances were reported last night in Caracas's Chacao municipality, an opposition stronghold. The private news network Globovision aired a home video of clashes on one of Chacao's main thoroughfares, showing a group of armed men crowded in high-rise vestibule shooting into the street as scattered debris piles burned in the deserted roadway. A second video showed Metropolitan police shooting at a group of people who scaled a fence to take refuge in an office building's lobby."

"According to Metropolitan Police Chief Romero, the video is part of a ``media war'' intended to misrepresent events and incite more violence, state media said.

``Why don't they say they were shooting plastic bullets, permitted by international law for use in disturbances to the public order?'' Romero asked. ``Why don't they show the videos where police are talking to the students and trying to dissuade them in the first place?''

But but why aren't they showing the good things going on in Iraq.

among a lot of average people, and under his administration, they have been empowered to broadcast their ideas where formerly they were shut out.

I guess it's only a free press if the opposition gets to monopolize the news.

And, yes, there is a big difference between firing plastic bullets, and real ones, but I guess that is just too much nuance for globovision.

They just don't have the use of the public airwaves. I suggest they go satellite.

August 1, 2006

International Republican Institute Grants Uncovered
Reporters Without Borders and Washington's Coups
By DIANA BARAHONA and JEB SPRAGUE

British press baron Lord Northcliff said, "News is something that someone, somewhere wants to keep secret, everything else is advertising." If this is true, then U.S. government funding of Reporters Without Borders must be news, because the organization and its friends in Washington have gone to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. In spite of 14 months of stonewalling by the National Endowment for Democracy over a Freedom of Information Act request and a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED has revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute.

The NED still refuses to provide the requested documents or even reveal the grant amounts, but they are identified by these numbers: IRI 2002-022/7270, IRI 2003-027/7470 and IRI 2004-035/7473. Investigative reporter Jeremy Bigwood asked Morillon on April 25 if her group was getting any money from the I.R.I., and she denied it, but the existence of the grants was confirmed by NED assistant to the president, Patrick Thomas.

The discovery of the grants reveals a major deception by the group, which for years denied it was getting any Washington dollars until some relatively small grants from the NED and the Center for a Free Cuba were revealed (see Counterpunch: "Reporters Without Borders Unmasked"). When asked to account for its large income RSF has claimed the money came from the sale of books of photographs. But researcher Salim Lamrani has pointed out the improbability of this claim. Even taking into account that the books are published for free, it would have had to sell 170 200 books in 2004 and 188 400 books in 2005 to earn the more than $2 million the organization claims to make each year ­ 516 books per day in 2005. The money clearly had to come from other sources, as it turns out it did.

The I.R.I., an arm of the Republican Party, specializes in meddling in elections in foreign countries, as a look at NED annual reports and the I.R.I. website shows. It is one of the four core grantees of the NED, the organization founded by Congress under the Reagan administration in 1983 to replace the CIA's civil society covert action programs, which had been devastated by exposure by the Church committee in the mid-1970s (Ignatius, 1991). The other three pillars of the NED are the National Democratic Institute (the Democratic Party), the Solidarity Center (AFL-CIO) and the Center for International Private Enterprise (U.S. Chamber of Commerce). But of all the groups the I.R.I. is closest to the Bush administration, according to a recent piece in The New York Times exposing its role in the overthrow of Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide:

"President Bush picked its president, Lorne W. Craner, to run his administration's democracy-building efforts. The institute, which works in more than 60 countries, has seen its federal financing nearly triple in three years, from $26 million in 2003 to $75 million in 2005. Last spring, at an I.R.I. fund-raiser, Mr. Bush called democracy-building 'a growth industry.'" (Bogdanich and Nordberg, 2006)

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona08012006.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On edit, adding more:

Reporters Without Britches
Reporters Without Borders Caught with Their Pants Down
by Carolina Cositore
February 12, 2006

Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
What’s in a name?

The assumption of the cachet Reporters Without Borders twenty years ago, in conscious parody of the then above reproach international humanitarian Doctors Without Borders, certainly lent Robert Menard’s group more than a touch of automatic respectability from the get-go.

The appellation gave the group acceptance as an unbiased investigative human rights organization defending journalists all over the world. When honest reporting can bring threats, attacks, prison terms, and even death, such an organization is badly needed. Sadly, the true nature of Reporters sans frontières (RSF=French acronym) is far otherwise.


Unbiased? Non-politically affiliated?

RSF does report on some discrimination against journalists, but in a very selective way, that is, targeting nations on the US State Department "hit list": Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., while ignoring any and all anti-journalist activities in areas allied with the US, and of course, never in the US itself.

For three examples of many to give the idea: RSF does not defend reporters in the Phillippines, which is the second deadliest nation for journalists after Iraq but is a strong ally of the US military. RSF completely ignores Mumia abu Jamal, a US reporter on death row and the object of support from "other" human rights organizations all over the globe. And in a recent interview, despite his very close ties with the Cuban-American community in Miami, RSF director Robert Menard claimed to be completely "unfamiliar" with the case of the Cuban Five. The Five, one of whom is a Cuban journalist, are serving life sentences in US prisons for infiltrating these Miami groups to prevent terrorist attacks on their homeland.1
(snip)

Although incurious about the fate of journalists in Venezuela before President Hugo Chavez, RSF was very quick to support the coup d’etat against him, of course it had to be as the coup was very brief. Menard’s group has since been outspoken against what it alleges to be anti-freedom of the press legislation in Venezuela, without evidently having read said legislation, and while incidently having a close relationship with Venezuelan multi-millionaire media giant Gustavo Cisneros.

More:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9713

n/t

in the RSF article? In any case, the article isn't clear if they are still receiving funds NOW versus in 2004 and 2005.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders

financing from the US. But even if they did, that still doesn't have a darn thing to do with freedom of the press and what that dictator in Venezuela is doing. The world press is not exactly singing praises for Chavez for silencing the opposition press.

UPDATED ON:
MONDAY, MAY 28, 2007
7:51 MECCA TIME, 4:51 GMT

Venezuela's RCTV taken off air

Venezuela's oldest private television station has been taken off the air as thousands banged on pots and pans in protest against their president's decision not to renew the channel's free-to-air licence.
snip

Using water cannons, police dispersed thousands of stone-throwing protesters outside Venezuela's telecom authority, the body which ordered RCTV off air.
snip
About 70 to 80 per cent of Venezuelans oppose the restrictions, according to recent polls.
snip

El Nacional daily in a front-page editorial said RCTV's shutdown marked "the end of pluralism" in Venezuela and the government's growing "information monopoly".
snip

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41B9681F-39CC-4F22-8329-CDC6F35B140A.htm

Authoritarian. How long until he extends the "presidential" term and hold sham elections?


Hey, my Uncle Ron called Bush a "devil" too, doesnt mean I have to like him!

is still nonetheless a dictator.

May 29, 2007 REMOTE CONTROL SOCIALISM
Chavez on Every Channel
By Jens Glüsing in Rio de Janeiro

For Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, television is the ultimate instrument of power. Now, despite every protest, he has let the license expire for RCTV, a private station that has long been critical of the government. The country's last remaining opposition channel must now fear for its future, too.

Using water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets, the police used brute force against the close to 5,000 protesters. They had gathered on Monday to protest the shutdown of private TV channel Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), which had been critical of the government. Afterwards, small groups of demonstrators engaged in skirmishes with the police in several locations in the Venezuelan capital. At least three demonstrators and one policeman were injured.

Protests also occurred in the university town of Valencia on Monday. Four students were injured. At the protest rally in Caracas, RCTV anchorman Miguel Angel Rodriguez called out: "They will not silence us!" But the new public TV channel Tves was already broadcasting on RCTV's former frequency by then.

snip
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485461,00.html

This Chavez dictatorship is not looking very benevolent to me. Take a look at some of the photos this publication has shown with its story. A very sad day for press freedom in Venezuela.

snip~

Chávez justified his decision not to renew RCTV’s broadcasting licence by accusing its directors of having backed the 2002 coup that briefly ousted him. Indeed, RCTV broadcast opposition calls to overthrow Chávez and gave little coverage of the protests that followed demanding his return. However, this excuse led to fierce criticism that Chávez was acting just like the TV’s directors and imposing censorship in Venezuela. The government was later forced to change its tune and justified RCTV’s imminent closure by claiming this would “democratize” Venezuela’s TV coverage.

This justification, however, did not convince either. Indeed, RCTV was quickly substituted by a state-sponsored TV channel, TVES, just after its final broadcast before midnight of 27 May. The government claims TVES will be impartial in its coverage because it will buy most of its programming from independent producers. However, five of TVES’s seven directors have been directly appointed by the executive and they will have the final say over the broadcaster’s programming.

Most of Venezuela’s media remains in private hands, including several newspapers and radio stations that are fiercely critical of Chávez. RCTV, however, was the only TV station critical of the government that reached all Venezuelans. The only other TV broadcaster that remains critical of the government, Globovisión, is not seen in all parts of the country. Even so, it seems the government also wants to shut it down. The government accused Globovisión of inciting attempts on Chávez’s life and the communications ministry requested a formal inquiry is to be carried out. Globovisión’s managers say the claim is “ridiculous”.

<http://www.latinnews.com/ldb/LDB14158.asp?instance=6>

It seems this move by Chavez is being universally condemned in Latin American papers except for Cuba.


"Venezuela took "a step backwards", say Latin American newspapers

Latin America's leading newspapers devoted their Monday editorials to the discontinuation of 53-year old private TV channel Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV). They all claimed that the arbitrary measure taken against an enterprise that pioneered TV broadcasting in Venezuela was "a step backwards" in the freedoms of the country and the whole region.

Editor of Venezuelan evening newspaper Tal Cual Teodoro Petkoff pointed out in the Argentinean Clarín daily that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is pressing ahead with "his plans to set up a mass media hegemonic position." In this regard, he said that if the excuse not to renew a broadcasting license for RCTV was "its involvement in a coup", then Venezuelan TV channel Venevisión "should have been taken off the air a long time ago."

Brazilian Jornal do Brasil asserted that the Venezuelan ruler's decision on RCTV was "a slap on Latin America's face" and regretted the the fact that "the stable democracies in the region, including Brazil, were unable to prevent another hazardous demonstration of contempt for freedom."

snip
Translated by Servio Viloria
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/29/en_pol_art_venezuela-took-a-st_29A877079.shtml

My mistake.

--and that is by lottery. Chavez obviously fails by that standard, but so does everybody else.

well, it depends. if it was against conservatives in power of course the perpetrators would be prosecuted with full prejudice. but if it was against liberals or by conservative lackeys it would be ignored. case in point, "head shots" against the Feds comment, anthrax scare, falwell, robertson, etc. so our free speech/crime defining line is blurred by who controls the reins.

but, for the most part calling for assassinations tends to be investigated quite strongly around the world. why should it be any different in Venezuela? why are we being fed bogus propaganda expecting Venezuela to treat such incidences differently than all other states in the world? that is the real question. start thinking for yourself people, it isn't all that hard.

As is all major media coverage of Venezuela. They have a script to sell us, and that is Chavez is a dangerous dictator, so all coverage is fit into that filter. Most people won't look much deeper into this news, like all other slanted news on Chavez. All these reports build on each other, until people's first reaction is to call Chavez a thug and dictator. It's similar to how Iraq became a wholesale terrorist and WMD warehouse before the invasion. Somehow the free press in the US magically colludes with the government on these sorts of issues, and then black is white, Iraq is selling nukes to Al Qaeda, and Chavez is the next Hitler.

We have footage of RCTV owners and coup plotters patting themselves on the back for a job well done on the air, and yet RCTVs involvement in the overthrowing of Venezuela's democracy in a coup is treated as some deranged hallucination of a power-mad Chavez.

Said station is still online spewing propaganda that would blush Fox News.

Neoconservatism will not win this battle.

....people's revolution will. Law of unintended consequences may just bite Hugo in the butt on this one.

The "show trials" will begin soon.

will justify those also...

That's treason no matter how you spin it. The media moguls should be rounded up and shot.

he'll invade Poland!

Booga booga! Fer Pete's sake...

His threats to shut them down will cower them enough. He's learned well from Castro.