Venezuela uproar concerns Carter Center

Source: AP

Venezuela uproar concerns Carter Center
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela- The Carter Center called for dialogue Thursday between President Hugo Chavez and opponents protesting his decision to force an opposition TV channel off the air, while calm returned to the streets after three days of demonstrations.

The Atlanta-based organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter expressed concern about the potential for escalating violence after the government halted broadcasts by Radio Caracas Television on Sunday. Police have repeatedly clashed with angry crowds hurling rocks and bottles since Chavez refused to renew the station's broadcast license.

"Healthy democracies require spaces for political dialogue and debate to allow divisions about the future direction of the country to be addressed in peaceful ways," the Carter Center said.

<SNIP>

The Carter Center, which has observed past elections here, said it is concerned that "non-renewal of broadcast concessions for political reasons will have a chilling effect on free speech."

"A plurality of opinions should be protected," it said. "The right of dissent must be fiercely defended by every democratic government."

<SNIP>

Read more: http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_6028662

---

I always knew Carter was a right wing propagandist tool! :sarcasm:

on tv stations, and yet we allow FOX to still broadcast its disgusting hate filled propoganda.

It's called freedom of expression, and it's a basic human right. You seem to be lost --Fascist Underground is down the hall to the right.

pivotal in helping pull off a coup in Venezuala... Also, its brodcasting contract was up and they decided not to renue the contract. I read a long article about this a while ago. Now, I can't remember all the details. But it seemed that broadcasting company was breaking certain regulations. I am not a fascist. I do have problems with the good ole' US of A telling other countries what to do when clearly our own backyard is disgustingly filthy.

imply that we shouldn't allow FOX to do their thing? Your post made it clear that until we "stop" FOX we can't look at anybody else. I don't believe FOX needs to be stopped, and I don't feel like I need to be in PerfectUtopiaLandWithFlowersAndPuppies to recognize that government censorship is baloney.

were inherently utopic, then fox would be out of business because it didn't appeal to anyone. I suppose then it is society as a whole that needs to work on its love affair with hate.

The ones that ensured more truth in the media. We should be better able to sue stations that tell an untruth.

I stick up for Chavez for the most part, but I have to agree with you on this point. He would look SOOO much better on the world stage if he allowed this station to have their airways back. He should just make sure their are laws in place to sue for libel and slander and outright lies in the media.

Mr. Chomsky's work, while I don't always agree with it, is certainly better than anything else on CurrentTV.

Get real...and a new talking point.

point for you in the future. Until then, I'm pretty much done with this conversation. Its not that big of a deal to me. Venezuela is not my home country. I am not schooled well enough in its politics, constitution, or general national feelings of the constituents of that country. So, I am not about to jump on anyone's bandwagon or anyone's talking points.. I am not educated enough on being a Venezuelan to pass judgment.

But I can look at our own country and realize that the news is owned by a few major corporations that filter the news and slant it to fit corporate mantra... Look at the Iraq war... I was against it all along. I said it was no good... I got pummeled left and right (even by my own husband) for this view that war is not noble and good. But every news outlet was pumping the war machine up. They didn't do the job they were supposed to. So, I would say we have a few things to clean up here in Amerika before we jump over our borders and tell other's what to do.

Best expression I've ever heard "Preach what you practice"...

By the way, I appreciate your points about media bias. However, i would argue that the answer is not to summon the almighty stong arm of government to shut down political voices we disagree with. In such cases, the cure is worse than the disease...

Cheers!

about a contract that was not renewed. But the details I'm a bit fuzzy on.

About that disease?
When was a switch channel from an analog signal to cable to make way for another channel a disease?

RCTV is still available on cable and satellite, if they choose?

You know...like you get to choose when you get a package of channels from your local subscriber?
Why is this move so popular in Venezuela and why should they listen to you or the Carter Center?

Why can the debate proceed along private vs. public lines?
Is public broadcasting an attack on 'free enterprise' or something? How?
It is the publics airwaves?
Which do you find more accurate?
The BBC or Fox?
One's public and regulated/accountable and one is private and well...um...regulated by um...well...good question.

Are those guys fighting the cops freedom fighters? Are they defending free speech?

If Chavez HAD to set up a Free Speech Zone down there to control that rent-a-mob, you'd probably be against that, right?

of Venezuelans (per capita GDP: $6,200, percentage below poverty line: 20%) have satelite dishes or cable?

are Chavez supporters. Those who support the RW broadcasters are the ones who are wealthy enough to afford cable and satellite anyway, so they aren't going to miss anything. The ones who have a problem with this are the poor, downtrodden oligarchs.

because they don't hear anything else? maybe not.

so as long as people are poor, you are willing to have them fed a steady diet of government propaganda?strange, isn't it, that the replacement station isn't even reporting on the protests outside their front door?

When BOTH the major papers, and ALL broadcasters other than the government station are run by wealthy RW opponants to the regime?

Think maybe the government station is not reporting the protests because the protests are bought and paid for by the oligarchs? The government doesn't HAVE to report on them because every other media source in the country is shouting about them. It's not like no one knows about them.

...Some of us know tyranny when we see it and object.

Others excuse it, enable it, or promote it.

Guess i'll put you in the second category.

you don't know tyranny like your nick did.

Imagine if Jefferson simply stayed at home and simply got the 'talking points' about the France Revolution from one of Hamilton's 'FOX' affiliates.

Also you will find a tyrant of much greater value to your 'tyranny' keyword search in Colombia...you know Uribe.

The guy with the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere. The guy who kills workers and union leaders.
The guy whose country has sent drugs, violence and poverty to your streets.
Chavez sent your poor free oil, Uribe sent cocaine?

Carry on with your 'tyranny detector' - heckva job, jef

But instead of stopping Fox, we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine so that there is an answer to Fox's propaganda. If we do that, then we may be in a better position to criticize what other countries do.

Fox represents state-run media at its worst.

It has a LOT to do with the conversation.

There is no right to manipulate the news and lie to the public to aid and abet a criminal oligarchy. And that's what these people did. it was caught on tape and it's there for all to see.

since not one of them reported that RCTV was shut down and that there are protests? not one reported that protesters have been arrested?

Could it be that they have stopped being critical of the government?

Why is he now threatening another station?

Why does he demonize his fellow citizens that disagree with his decision?

on Democracy Now!, the issue with the other station (Globovision?) is that they played a segment advocating violent overthow of the government up to and including assassination.

But you won't hear that on the MSM. You need to watch or listen to people like Amy Goodman or Greg Palast or the Indy Media.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1412206

Now, let's talk about, Mr. Izarra just mentioned, openly calling for the overthrow of the government, Globovision, during the Alo Ciudadano program. Let's see what they did. Globovision transmitted a set of images from the history of Venezuela and the world, basically which were -- it was indeed a review, after more than fifty years of transmitting, what RCTV -- all of the events that they had been present in. And one of the images -- and this was in a set of different historical images that they presented -- was an image of the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II. And according to Minister of Communications William Lara, a group of expert semioticians -- I’m not joking; this was as it was reported in the New York Times -- a group of expert semioticians working in the Ministry of Communications actually have identified that the transmission of the historical video of the assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II was indeed a call to carry out an assassination attempt against Mr. Chavez. Now, anybody who believes that in a profoundly Catholic country, such as Venezuela, you are going to actually incite people to go out and kill Mr. Chavez by presenting an image of an assassination attempt against the Pope is certainly clearly out of their mind.

the whole transcript?

Geezus. If you had a case, you wouldn't have to resort to this.

"But in terms of -- Mr. Rodriguez is an economist, so these economists have a very linear way of thinking, you know. If you show the images of Pope John Paul II when he was -- his assassination attempt -- and you put a music saying, “Everything has its end. People, go look for the end,” and in a context where you are reporting on all this vitriolic chants against the government and calls for to rebel against the government and denounce a dictatorship, that simple historic image gets a new context, and the message gets a very clear direction. You people, who are broadcasting, who are communications people, know very well how images can be manipulated and can be used to promote a sense and to promote a line of thought and feelings among the people."

I provided the link. The interview is huge (far past DU posting guidelines) feel free to peruse the whole thing.

That is probably the most informative, most balanced debate I have ever seen on the subject. Kudos to Amy for letting both sides have their say-

Link again-

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1412206

He is handing a gift to the Bush adminittration by closing that station down. They want him to give a bad impression in Latin American, and rightly or not that is what is happening now.

(I want him to give a good impression. Yes I am routing for Chavez and the left in Latin America to give a good impression in my heart)

have gotten so bad that many people here forget--or never knew (because they are young)--that we once had the "Fairness Doctrine" here--before the Reaganites got rid of it (along with the progressive tax and a number of other fairness policies)--which, among other things, required that all TV/radio stations give equal time to opposing views on public issues. We furthermore had strong laws against news/entertainment monopolies--these monster corporations that control all TV/radio, newsprint, books, music and entertainment markets.

We forget that we were once a sovereign people with the right to regulate our PUBLIC airwaves, and to insist that they be used in the public interest, according to laws aimed at promoting diversity and a wide-spectrum discussion of public policy.

Venezuela is reminding us.

They faced the worst: not just 24/7 fascist propaganda, but RCTV's active participation in a violent military coup. And it is only a matter of time here. You let these global corporate predators misuse the public airwaves without consequences, and the next thing you know...

Must have missed that one, pretty sure I got dinged pretty bad this year.

what does their 'constituion' or laws say about WHO renews or doesn't renew licenses? Did he usurp power from some other entity? Or is it his right?

democratically elected again & again & again.

But you're supposed to just regard this as a "free speech issue" (it is not) and Chavez as a dictator (he is not).

flasher - but she gets to the heart of the matter appropriately - time and time again. (She AND Juan and their team)

:)

RCTV claims that their license was extended for 20 years in 2001, and that their license should be good until 2022. Chavez's government claims their license was issued for 20 years in 1987, and expired this year.

So, to begin with there was a dispute over whether a new license was even needed.

Another point of contention here: even without a license, RCTV retains the rights to broadcast on cable and satellite. However, the government seized all their equipment and studios to start the government-backed station, so they are effectively blocked from producing any broadcasts at all (for now).

all you need to remember is that, right now by Congressional Decree, Chavez IS the law.

Chavez has the right to rule by decree, no? That pretty much makes it a case of "what I say goes."

Chavez was never given, and never claimed, the right to rule by decree.

might be awkward, since he is writing editorials defending Rule by Decree. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1962

"President Chavez has this power for only 18 months and can pass laws in key areas aimed at weeding out corruption, increasing government efficiency, and bringing more equality to our poorest citizens. These laws can be modified or rescinded by the National Assembly at any time and the population has the guaranteed right under our constitution to nullify any of these laws through a national referendum."

This is not 'ruling by decree'. This is allowing the president to formulate legislation which the National Assembly can modify or rescind completely. In our system the executive does not formulate legislation (except by signing statements) but under their constitution it is entirely legitimate. It does NOT give him dictatorial powers. It has been used by many previous presidents.

You can't look at this through the eyes of the US - that is patronizing and paternalistic. This is no less a valid expression of democracy than is that of Britain, Norway or France - none of whom do things the way we do, but still manage to get things done without dictatorship.

I think that "ruling by decree" is a deliberate mis-translation of what the situation really is.

and you control who's in your party? pretty much, yeah.

Was Clinton ruling by decree when he rescinded the bans on discussion abortion previously tied to international family planning funding?

Rule by decree passed for Chavez

President Chavez has vowed to deepen his "Bolivarian revolution"

Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Many, many more here --> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-05,GGLD:en&q=rule+by+decree+chavez

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Venezuela's own Baghdad Bob.

interesting. so please do be so kind as to tell me what the limits on Rule By Decree are? in the words of the Venezuela ambassador to the US, Bernardo Alvarez, the rule by decree is limited to: "weeding out corruption, increasing government efficiency, and bringing more equality to our poorest citizens" this is pretty much anything, right?

and yes, the national assembly can overrule him. but until it happens, that can only be considered a fig leaf (after all, the Republican Congress could have overruled George Bush between 2000-2007, right? if you don't use a power, you don't know if it will work) and yes, there can be a national referendum on any particular law. a national referendum, when the media is controlled, to a great extent, by the President and his party. doesn't seem likely, does it?

so, where's the overstatement?

has nothing to do with fictional unlimited powers. It's the law.

Hugo had no choice. He's just enforcing the law... Mmmmk.

And, no one "boarded up" anything. Geezus.

Why do you people hate Chavez so much? It's just irrational.

but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is pretty hard to conclude that it is anything but a duck.

and since you refuse to stay on topic, I won't respond to you any more.

n/t

didn't you know?

as you say, the law lets him make a decision. and every decision he has made has helped consolidate power in his hands. every one. walking like a duck He makes himself the face of the revolution, and therefore opposing him, and anything he wants, is opposing the revolution. sounding like a duck uses patriotic and populast rhetoric to make himself a hero and his opponents into enemies and traitors looking like a duck

shall we see if this duck can swim?

Do you like him so much? Thats irrational.

Do you dislike him so much? That's irrational.

and replacing that broadcast license with a friendly one, no problem. and confiscating the equipment used and giving it to the new, friendly one? no worries. just business as usual.

strange how two tv stations had licenses expiring on the same day? interesting. and how RCTV has documentation that their license was renewed in 2001 for 20 years? must be forgeries.

if it walks like a duck...

tyrannical power grab, and concoct some crazy shit along the way in that effort. They selectively reject long-held progressive principles. They discredit respected organizations like AI and HRW. Now i guess they throw Jimmy Carter under the bus... It's sad...really.

You people bring no facts to the table but many opinions straight out of the BushCo playbook.

Carter is making a mistake here and it's not surprising because the hit job on Chavez, who is undermining BushCo every day, is so pervasive that's it's an understandable one.

No one is throwing President Carter under a bus. Yet one more example of the fact-based reasoning of the knee jerk Chavez detractors.

It's sad, really.

an "apologist" isn't a person who "apologizes," right?

and the same any more. Jimmy Carter started the Center--but I don't believe he's directly associated with it now. And I seem to recall that they might have had a falling out over that phony, private Baker (James)/Carter "election reform" commission that failed to scrutinize our rigged system and favored big e-voting corporations and Puke allegations of "voter fraud" (Rove's pet project) in the testimony it allowed at its PRIVATE hearings.

Jimmy got shanghaied on that one, I think.

As for the Carter Center criticizing Venezuela's denial of a license to use the public airwaves, to RCTV, their criticism is rather mild--they state their "concern" for a possible "chilling effect." In diplomatic circles, this would be recognized as a pro forma statement that the matter was low on the priority list, as to being a real threat to anybody or anything.

The Carter Center has been among the international monitors--along with the OAS and EU election monitoring groups--who have unanimously certified Venezuelan elections as honest and aboveboard. So it carries a particular sting because of that. But all they call for is "dialogue." And what this says to me is that, a) they know how bad RCTV has been--they are not shouting for reinstatement of the license, nor claiming that its denial is illegal or illegitimate; they just don't like to see riots about it; and b) they are slightly--in a pro forma way--pandering to the powers-that-be in Washington DC (the Bushite fascists, and their Democratic enablers), cuz they need access and cooperation in order to carry out election monitoring in third world countries.

It is a matter of "concern" (not very alarming) for which the remedy is "dialogue" (the fascists don't want "dialogue" and they know it).

http://www.cartercenter.org/about/trustees/index.html

Carter Center Board of Trustees


Promoting Democracy, Human Rights, and Peacemaking
The Center established its board in 1994. Chaired by John Moores since March 2005, and with President and Mrs. Carter as active members, the board decides and supports the Center's mission and manages its property and assets. Members of the board are appointed both by The Carter Center and Emory University, with the president of Emory serving as an ex officio member. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter chaired the board and Rosalynn Carter was vice chair from 1994-2005.

renewed, you don't try to get your issuer gone, you don't sponsor a NEWS BLACKOUT when your government is being illegally overthrown.

And we know no BushCo collaborators EVER use forgeries. :eyes:

when there are protests against shutting down a rival station, and you are a hero!

Chavez does not issue permits in his name, they are in the name of Venezuela. but, of course, in the new Venezuela, Chavez IS Venezuela, right?

see? you think they must be forgeries. because chavez would never stretch the truth, right? if Chavez told you the sky was purple, you would go to the eye doctor to get a new prescription. And then blame Bush for it.

The station contends that its re-registration under the 2001 broadcasting law entailed a full license renewal in the absence of an "administrative authorization" to the contrary, while the government insists that existing license durations were unaffected. Rival opposition station Globovision seems to consider its own 1994 license to be due for renewal in 2014.

Only airwave broadcast equipment was taken, and only because their license was not renewed. They are free to produce whatever right-wing garbage they want in their studios and publicize it however they choose, just not over the publicly-owned airwaves.

Chavez IS the law. He has powers to rule by decree if he says it is in the national interest.

of a privately held station that actively participated in overthrowing their legal government. Does it?

Chavez was so popular, he could have had these people thrown in jail immediately. Instead, he uses the LEGAL means at his disposal to deal with them.

Oh, and the news manager quit in protest when that station collaborated with the plotters, LIED to the people and MANIPULATED video footage. I wonder if Carter knows about that.

the channel should also be MANDATED to have a name indicative of its content.

That name is RNC TV. (Rethuglican National Committee Television)

We need a new, expanded fairness doctrine in this country.

As far as RCTV in Venezuela, that is an internal matter for Venezuelans to resolve. It is not our business.

but we're still free to express our opinions. I've not heard anybody imply we need to invade Venezuela over the issue.

and Iraq, I'm almost certain we would have.

our own business. If the people of Venezuela get fed up with Chavez, they will get rid of him. The only reason any dictator remains in power in South America is because we, the USA, are helping them stay in power for our own business interests and agenda.

when Chavez calls out George Bush on things like Katrina? that it's an internal matter?

what, exactly, isn't an internal matter? when can we start paying attention to anything inside a country?

and start with championing the cause of those dissenters who in the last five years have been fired from CNN like Bill Press, or CBS like Dan Rather, or even PBS who canned Bill Moyers, only to bring him back recently.

I really think we need to back off of Chavez and concentrate on the real dictators in Latin America, whom you never hear a word of criticizm about. But of course they are friends of the Bushistas, which Chavez is not.

just wondering.

and there is still a difference between a company firing an employee, and a state shutting down a station to make room for one that supports the state.

And no one shut down that station. Their license expired and it was not renewed because there is no right to LIE to the people using THEIR OWN AIRWAVES.

and how many people in Venezeula have satellite or cable?

and why have no other stations reported on the protests? there are thousands of people in the street, on both sides, and not one station has reported on it. what is that but lying by ommission?

Are you suggesting that other stations in Venezuela now feel free to criticize the government without fear of reprisals? All Chavez needs is the threat of shut-down to keep the other stations in line.

collaborate with traitors to the Constitution? That will blackout news when a coup is underway? That will lie to the people? That will manipulate footage to make it look like the snipers in the pay of the oligarchy are Chavez supporters?

Sorry. They were caught redhanded. And it has taken the Chavez government five years to lawfully withdraw their access to the public airwaves.

that was apparently trying to assassinate him.

we shall see what happens the next time a TV station dares criticize, right?

The station has the right to return to cable and satellite, but the Chavez government seized all of their equipment and facilities.

No cameras, no video recording equipment, no stages, no sets, no lighting, no offices. Sure, they may have the right, they just don't currently have the ability.

(And to answer the other questions, about 20% of homes in Venezuela have access to cable or satellite, and RCTV was the single most popular TV station in the nation prior to this).

they tried to install a real dictator in the pay of the oligarchy.

It just makes you want to weep, doesn't it? :sarcasm:

I don't understand how your comment addresses the ability of RCTV to broadcast on cable and satellite.

But as long as you bring it up, can you detail the actions taken by RCTV to "install a real dictator"?

I didn't know about that seizure and have to do some reading because it's very hard to get information about Venezuela that hasn't been through the RW wringer twice. So, I will do that.

The coup aimed to take out an elected leader and install an unelected leader.

The people didn't go for it, no matter what the media conglomerate fed them. I don't believe Chavez is the Second Coming. But just the fact that people felt empowered enough to protest and ultimately stop that coup says something for his leadership and also, for all those little things like putting in literacy programs so people could read their own damn Constitution.

Like my family's country of origin, El Salvador, Venezuela has a few families who are used to controlling everything, especially the media.

Okay, now that was probably 5 non sequiturs. lol

That would only be useful for transmitting over the air.

I have seen no mention of Chavez taking their studios, where did you read this?

political because Karl Rove or someone in the White House recommended it. There are rumors about this happening including an ancedote by John Dean about Barbara Olsen (prior to 9-11) getting her talking points from the White House over her cell phone before they both appeared on a CNN talk show. Soon they just started lopping off the liberal TV personalities like Phil Donohue so that they didn't have any face time at all the the message became overwhelmingly the Christo-neocon one.

Here are some presidents of Latin American countries that seem to have warm relations with our fascist regime, the Bush White House, for starters. They aren't dictators in the Castro or Pinnochet mold, but they are front men for the conservative interests that run those countries who are friendly to American business interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Garc%C3%ADa_P%C3%A9rez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Berger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Saca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Uribe

You don't hear anything about what they do behind the scenes because they are American friendly, not like Chavez who calls Bush as he sees him.

because they are conservative, they are automatically dictators, or just as good? Can you find me a realistic accusation that Uribe isn't governing completely within the bounds of the rules underwhich he was elected? is Garcia Perez ruling by Decree? how about Oscar Berger? Antonio Saca? you may not like their politics, but that doesn't make them dictators, hardly the case, in fact. none of them have the power to rule by decree, as far as I know, none have the power to seize property by decree (that I know of). none have shut down opposing media, that I know of.

and I read much more than the US media for information, but maybe groups like Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Common Dreams, the Guardian, and others don't report on things because they are so in love with Bush? is that it?

that being "elected" gives them more credibility in today's world but they are still part of the same old guard of aristocrats who have kept power since the days I lived in South America. They are propped up by our government with money and other bribes to protect American interests in those countries so naturally no one is going to delve very deep to find out whose interests they are championing.

All I'm saying is that there are worse SA presidents out there than Chavez who don't give a rat's ass about the common people and their poverty and lack of education. The reason Chavez is so hated is because he doesn't play by our rules. If in fact he proves to be this awful dictator in the making, his own people will dethrone him. But we have to leave them alone to decide their own destiny. I said the same thing about Allende in Chile. He was elected and I'm sure would have been unelected in the next election. But our country couldn't wait and had to assassinate him instead and prop up one of the worst dictators of the century there.

Yes. Applies to Chavez as well.

Under it's Peace Program parteners, is listed the Foundacion Cisneros
http://www.cartercenter.org/donate/partners/index.html

The Foundacion Cisneros, is run by Gustavo Cisneros, a Venezualan media mogul, and one of the wealthiest men in the world, he is definantly not a friend of Chavez and was involved in the 2002 coup.

say what you mean.

I would rather that people looked at the information and draw their own conclusions though.

Another point is that if you look at the partners page you'll notice that despite the Carter Center having a major America's program, to supposedly invigorate involvement with South and middle American countries, there aren't any partners from said countries. So we have say the German and Norwegian governments, etc. as partners, but not a single partner from Latin America. As far as I can tell, only the Foundacion Cisneros is from Latin America, along with the largely US controlled OAS, and CAF a multilateral financial institution.

One notices in Carter Centers news and information about democracies and human rights nothing about the horribly repressive completely non-democratic Saudi Regime, probably because of both US interests, and the fact that The Saudi Development Fund and Prince Alwaleed are partners.

Finally one wonders why the Carter Center spends so much time on Venezuela, say compared to Columbia, who's human rights, press freedom and democracy are among the worst in Latin America, I guess it probably has nothing to do with the fact that the US sends millions in military aid to Columbia, considering the US has close ties to Columbia's government, one would think it would be fairly easy for the Carter Center to get involved.

and Chavez.

I assume that included knocking off the 24/7 Chavez bashing, since they are now being criticized for being "too soft" on Chavez.

This site appears pretty politically neutral to me:
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2007/DA_spring_07/Venezuela_07/venezuela_07.html

So it's interests mirror the US. The US Foreign Correspondents who formed it, largely worked for Multinational Media Corporations, so obviously they have interests in maintaining Multinational Media Corporation prerogatives irrespective of it's effects on democracies. Notice you don't see any stories at all about the dangers to a free press of media consolidation by corporations on their site. I wonder why?

Most of their website seems to be dedicated to safety for journalists, and covering violence against journalists (including here in the US).

You seem to be saying that unless they concern themselves with the *structure* of journalism (ownership), they can't be trusted on the issues of journalism?

Regardless, the summary of events seems very good to me.

I have a hard time believing a US press organization is politically neutral on foreign affairs, especially if it is made up of Major Media Journalists. This is not an international group, despite the appearance that it might be.

Secondly their stated goal is "defending press freedom worldwide", and many of their stories have nothing to do with violence against journalists, so that is hardly the only focus, otherwise there would be no stories about Venezuela, but if one is concerned about press freedom one has to be concerned about any powerful group that tries to dominate and control the news. And yes they do concern themselves with the structure of journalism(ownership) as they write numerous articles about government owned press.

would go unchallenged. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth, and the truth is that unbridled power corrupts. We should expect independence, however.

As to the independence of CPJ, if you have evidence that they are corporate shills, i would love to see it. You know, that Anthony Lewis, Dave Marsh, and Seigenthaler... Got to watch out for them... :sarcasm:

--but that Brazil and Venezuela are the least bad.

http://www.cpj.org/attacks05/americas05/americas05.html



This is certainly not a reason to ignore problems in Venezuela and Brazil, but it makes you wonder why only Venezuela is in the news here when the subject comes up. Sort of reminds me about how we hear so much about what horrible threats Islamic extremists in Iraq and Iran are, but nothing whatsoever about the Saudis or Pakistan.

How dare he speak for corporate media and against our dear Hugo!

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

And, just for the record, who owns RCTV?

"A plurality of opinions should be protected," it said. "The right of dissent must be fiercely defended by every democratic government."

Right now, that's a bit of a question in Hugo's Venezuela, eh?

Criminals are being handled.

What other Bush talking points are you promoting?

If they are "criminals" as you believe, why hasn't Hugo hauled their asses into his Kangaroo court? ... unless it's *the message* he finds criminal.

What other tyrants are you defending?

these embarrassingly stupid claims, that's your choice.

DUers outraged!

two up? Well, I know why. Because global corporate predators have managed to define global corporate predation as a human right.

The disinformation, and just plain wrong information, in this thread is appalling.

People don't seem to understand their rights--and the rights of a legitimate, representative government--with regard to corporate news monopolies.

The Venezuelan government had a right to deny RCTV a license--and arguably, given RCTV's actions during the military coup attempt, a duty to do so. We, too, have that right--as a free people, as a sovereign people--for much less cause than the Venezuelans have. If corporations or others misuse our PUBLIC airwaves--for political advantage, for profit, or, really, according to any standard or regulation that we, the people, decide upon--we can deny them a license to use our PUBLIC airwaves. We furthermore have the right--although most of us don't realize it--to dismantle ANY corporation whose business practices we decide are not in the public interest.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with free speech. Free speech is a HUMAN right, not a corporate right. We also have "truth in advertising" laws--if they were only enforced--and all sorts of other potential curtailment of trade that harms the public interest, or that we deem to be unfair.

Corporations like RCTV and Globovision--and our entire war profiteering corporate monopoly press--OPPOSES any such public interest legislation and enforcement. They lobby against it. They use their bully power of the PUBLIC airwaves to kill the careers of any politician who advocate for such regulation. They JUST DID THIS RECENTLY, in the case of Howard Dean's candidacy for president of the U.S. He announced a policy of curtailing corporate news monopolies, and the next week they destroyed his campaign with the doctored "shout" tape.

The discussion in this thread--especially on the anti-Chavez side--reminds me of Al Gore's book "The Assault on Reason." People take a position, comprised of their prejudices and emotional inclinations, and then stubbornly hold to that position, regardless of the facts. "Hugo Chavez is a dictator." Therefore ANY evidence to the contrary is sneered at, and anyone who states that evidence is ridiculed. And 99% of Hugo Chavez's policies and actions are ignored in favor of DISTORTED presentations of a few facts that, upon scrutiny, don't hold up as the policies or actions of a "dictator."

Hugo Chavez "rules by decree." The facts: Previous Venezuelan National Assemblies have given THE SAME POWERS OF DECREE to PREVIOUS presidents. These are needed in times of economic crisis, corruption or other problems. And they are limited powers. What they most closely resemble are the powers that Congress gave FDR during the Great Depression. And the rightwing called HIM a "dictator" for the same reason. He was helping the poor! The government SHOULDN'T BE helping the poor. It should be helping the rich--don't you know? It's unnatural...and authoritarian...and dictatorial...for the government to be STRONG--active, vibrant, innovative, forceful--on behalf of the poor!

That's where "dictator" comes from--as an epithet against Chavez. Nothing of that epithet holds up, when you bother to look into the facts.

It is the fascists who want to be the "dictators." It is the fascists who want to curtail free speech. It is the fascists who have, for the last 50 years, totally neglected education in Venezuela, so they ended up with 40% illiteracy rate--which the Chavez government wiped out in five years, with an intense program of adult education and schools. Free speech is more than speaking freely. It is being able to read, being able to obtain and evaluate information. Total neglect of education for the vast poor population is anti-free speech!

That is what these liars who are now yelling about "free speech" did! No schools in poor areas. No access to education for MOST of the population. High school, college--impossible. Miserable poverty. Living in miserable shantytowns. Pushed off little plots of farm land. Millions of people in poverty with no hope of improvement.

What "dictator" WANTS his "subjects" to READ the Constitution? WHO wants an ignorant, manipulable population? Who excluded the poor--the majority--from government? Who has an active, intense program for increasing citizen participation in government at every level?

Answer these questions truthfully--on the facts--and the meme of Chavez as "dictator" evaporates.

The Carter Center issued a mild statement about the denial of RCTV's license, calling for dialogue. And this is used to bolster the 'a priori' case that Chavez is a "dictator"?

This is an assault on reason.

For those who wish to be informed about what is really going on in Venezuela, I recommend: www.venezuelanalysis.com. It is is pro-Chavez, but well-written, informative, and well-REASONED. It has a wide spectrum of writers and reports. If you have a negative opinion of Venezuela, you owe it to Venezuelans to try to see their country from THEIR point of view--and from the point of view of sympathetic writers. You also owe it to yourself--because the Bolivarian revolution is not going to go away. Indeed, its ideas of Latin American self-determination, sovereignty and social justice are spreading like wildfire, as country after country elects leftist governments that are friendly toward Venezuela and Chavez, and are benefiting from the regional cooperation that Venezuela and the Chavistas have advocated.

Imagine what the rightwing of Europe was saying about the American Revolution, while it was going on. That's what we're getting from our corporate news monopolies, the Bush State Department, and others who fear Latin American self-determination, and real democracy. Fear that Latin America ain't gonna be their fascist playground any more; fear that Venezuela's and Bolivia's and Ecuador's oil, gas, minerals, forests and other resources will benefit the poor, and not make the rich richer. Fear of losing an exploitable market. Fear of the colonized ones dumping your tea in the harbor.

Fear and the assault on reason go hand in hand. Fear fears the facts. Fear prefers ignorance. Fear is the favored tool of the wicked and the greedy.

What have we, or the Venezuelans, to fear from the denial of a license to RCTV? What have we to fear from doing the same thing here--de-licensing Faux News, and CNN and the rest of the alphabet, for their relentless lies about the Iraq War, and stolen elections, and many other important public issues?

Losing our free speech? Nope. Free speech would be enhanced by breaking up their monopolies. Fear of fairness? Fear of equal time for opposing opinions? What have we to fear from real, wide spectrum political discussion? Fear of a government that insists on fairness? Why should we fear such a government? We once had one, you know.

What do we have to fear from fairness in all aspects of our public and economic life? What do we have to fear from Hugo Chavez--the thrice elected president of Venezuela, and probably the most popular leader in Latin America, whom the elected president of Argentina, Nester Kirchner, considers a friend, whom the elected president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, considers a friend, whom the elected president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, considers a friend, whom the elected president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, considers a friend, and whom the vast poor population of South America--and many in the middle class as well--consider a hero?

What's wrong with us--or with some of us--that we so easily fall prey to the lies of our corporate new media, and Bush's State Department? Perhaps THAT is what we should fear--rather than an "authoritarian" (i.e., strong) leftist government and continent-wide movement in South America??? Fear our OWN truly "authoritarian" government??? Something to think about, anyway. Who is committing the assault on reason?

That is EXACTLY the right comparison.

If News stations don't report the truth, we have a right to clamp down on them without anyone screaming that we're violating their rights to free speech.

I always liken the airwaves to a jury trial. Lawyers from either side have the opportunity to make their case and give evidence of their "truth." What's happened with the U.S. corporate media is that the corporate opinion has 100 lawyers for every 1 of the other side and they get the floor 90% of the time.

this ain't about free speech.