Venezuelan Regulators Pull 34 Radio Concessions

Source: AP

Venezuelan regulators revoked the broadcast rights of 34 radio stations on Friday, deepening a rift between President Hugo Chavez's government and the private media. Diosdado Cabello, who heads Venezuela's telecommunications regulatory agency, said some of the stations failed to update their registrations or let their concessions expire, while others held licenses granted to an operator who is now deceased. The affected radio stations "will have to end transmissions once they are notified," he said.

Chavez's government has increasingly clashed with private media in recent months and is slowly tightening its grip over the industry, raising concerns among watchdog and human rights groups that accuse the government of trying to stifle dissent. But Cabello denied the government aims to limit freedom of expression or punish political opponents by revoking licenses. "It's not to persecute anyone," he said.

But Nelson Belfort, president of Venezuela's Radio Chamber and owner of five broadcasters affected by the measure, said it was "suspicious" that his stations were sanctioned so quickly. "This is the cost that one has to incur for defending freedom of expression," Belfort told Globovision. "We lament that the media could be shut down, and especially without due process."

More than 200 other radio stations are also under investigation for failing to update their registrations.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvlx_P9ghozonim6xxllHZpalLRAD99PR26G0

---

Drip, drip, drip. Can someone to explain to me how private consolidation of media ownership is bad, but governmental consolidation of media ownership is good?

:shrug:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/20098133741167236.html

Diosdado Cabello, who is also minister of public works in the government of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, said the closures were due to the stations' inability to meet legal operating requirements, and warned that more closures may follow. "They will have to cease transmission once they have received the order", Cabello said on Friday. "This is about legitimate authority of the government to manage the radio spectrum... We are only implementing what the law says."

Al Jazeera's Dima Khatib, reporting from the capital, Caracas, said: "It looks like a legal measurement but although it does comply with all kinds of regulations... it looks like the opposition is the most affected because the opposition does control most of the private radio stations."

"This is a very polarised society with very polarised media. You have the government media that shows you a perfect Venezuela where everyone is happy, and the opposition media shows you a very bad Venezuela where no-one is happy."

The Venezuelan Chamber of Radio Broadcasters described the closures as a "enormous violation". The decision came amid government efforts to formulate a new media law, setting out prison sentences for "media crimes". Human Rights Watch has said the proposed law would "reduce the ability of government critics to voice their opinions and will seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela."

Oh, those guys. They're just well known shills for the global right wing plutocratic conspiracy.

to operate those concessions. Do you have any evidence that is the case?

And Globovision is not the only outlet that is critical of the government. That's simply what the right wing says to make themselves sound like victims.

Yes, I'm sure the government plans to give broadcasting rights to other groups who may be critical of the government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8177862.stm

A tough new media law, under which journalists could be imprisoned for publishing "harmful" material, has been proposed in Venezuela. Journalists could face up to four years in prison for publishing material deemed to harm state stability. Public prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz, who proposed the changes, said it was necessary to "regulate the freedom of expression" without "harming it".

Under the draft law on media offences, information deemed to be "false" and aimed at "creating a public panic" will also be punishable by prison sentences. It states that anyone - newspaper editor, reporter or artist - could be sentenced to between six months and four years in prison for information which attacks "the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state".

The proposed bill, which must still be debated on the floor of the assembly, comes as some 240 radio stations in Venezuela are at risk of being closed for allegedly failing to hand their registration papers into the government ahead of a deadline last month.

an actual free press in Venezuela. The right wing has been warning that Hugo Chavez will soon eat your children -- for ten years.

Who appointed Luisa Ortega Diaz the Attorney General of Venezuela? Was it Hugo Chavez, or was it an opposition party that's trying to make Chavez look like a bad guy? Diaz is the person who introduced a bill into the National Assembly that would make criticism of the government (among other subjective offenses) punishable by a minimum of 6 months, and a maximum of 4 years, in prison. Do you honestly believe that Chavez would allow her to propose that law if he did not support it himself?

I'm curious...if John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzalez had said "freedom of expression must be limited" and proposed a law that could send people to prison for up to 4 years if they were critical of government institutions, would you have been supportive of their efforts? Would you have claimed it was all just a big pile of "ifs" against an actual free press in the USA?

...will bring out those who worship Saint Hugo Chavez.

but with critical reading. Try it sometime.

Wow, how's that Dengue Koolaid taste?

about how Venezuela is arming FARC, yet another story that has been debunked a hundred times since it came out more than a year ago.

The US is trying to put 5 new bases into Colombia and in order to do that, they have to shake up Venezuela because no one in Latin America wants those bases there except for Colombia, whose homocidal president is our lapdog.

These hit pieces will continue until the issue of those bases is resolved.

So, before you accuse me of drinking Kool Aid, know something about what's going on.

There are no facts...

So it is a "hit piece" by definition.

It is a facile type of propaganda designed, and meant, to confuse those without very much knowledge.

Ignorant opinions are only part of the overall strategy, which is demonizing a hero of the working class, of the poor and disenfranchised.

Hugo Chavez!

Dengue Kool-Aid! You crack me up! At least that is a wee tidbit of entertainment, more than is usually brought to this sort of discussion by "you all".

hmmmmmm

And the supporters will find a way to dismiss it.

On the contrary, every single time the right wing and their American enablers put out one of these things, you people are drooling for it to be true.

So far, you're 0 for 252.

Chavez has been cracking down on the press. I will always be firmly opposed to any government that stifles freedom of the press.

Oh you'll say "But it was the right-wing press." So what? Freedom of speech and of the press means absolutely zip unless you allow it for your opponents. It's easy to allow freedom of the press for your supporters. The test of a leader's commitment to democracy is allowing, even supporting, freedom of the press for his opponents. Chavez has failed miserably on that front, so he is my enemy.

The media in Venezuela is more vigorous than it is here. And you fail miserably to distinguish between propaganda and news.

Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to put others at risk, which the privately owned right wing media in Venezuela has never hesitated to do.

Are we talking saying something the president doesn't like so it might convince people to get him out of office and that's a risk to the country in his opinion? Or we talking Geraldo drawing troop positions in the sand kind of risk?

They say things Chavez doesn't like. Chavez wants to silence them for that reason.

They threaten his power. They threaten his desire to be president for life, a dictator.

he's been re-elected in clean elections by big margins and that he's hugely popular.

lol

There is still a possibility he could be ousted in later elections. That cannot be allowed.

And clean elections? You're going off of the Carter Center? To the most telling part of the recall election was how the European Union monitors stayed out. You see, Chavez had put too many restrictions on them, so many they didn't think they could properly monitor an election.

So the Carter Center was probably operating off of only what Chavez wanted it to see.

their elections. NAACP, National Lawyers Guild, others. They use transparent voting systems with paper and they do a big aduit.

The Chavez paranoia here is hilarious because the information to answer these questions is readily available for people who are actually interested in knowing it.

And the EU didn't not show because of restrictions. They had a scheduling conflict. Good grief. That's why the NAACP and Lawyers' Guild went down instead.

So that's what they're calling it these days.

The Chavez love around here is too sweet for me.

monitored instead. It was a referendum and not in the normal rotation.

What you're calling "Chavez love" other people call knowing what the hell you're talking about.

trying so desperately hard to bother E. Ferrari, who DOES know about the subject, and in depth.

This is something which was discussed fully here at the time by the more honorable ones among us who DO make a point of reading, researching, looking for answers when we know we don't know the truth about something.

I was replying to 47of74.

He watches this board carefully to protect Chavez and his puppets and jumps on any post even slightly critical of these wannabe tin-pot dictators.

I started in this agreeing with another poster then got jumped on by the Chavez supporters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3995862&mesg_id=3996239

And you got my gender about as right as you got anything.

Hitler seized total power by legal means, didn't make him less a dictator.

millions of your tax dollars for their campaigns via NED.

brings out the mad gibbering little assholes who sit around in a circle and toss one liners to one another in lieu of a good wank.

out of the grip of the right wing here, the screaming would sound exactly the same. Christ, they're calling Obama a socialist because he wants to limit how much insurance companies can screw us. It's the same thing.

Racist, Muslim, foreigner. I heard it from my congressman.

If the US had laws in place to restrain the media during the 2008 Presidential campaign maybe we wouldn't be stuck with President John McCain now.

I am still curious though...what do you think of the law that Chavez has proposed? The one that makes it a crime to say anything that attacks "the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state"? Are Chavez and the Attorney General asking the National Assembly to pass this law, or is this report right wing disinformation?

right wing media that LIED to the public and told them their president had resigned in 2002 when they knew he had been kidnapped by their fellow coupsters. Would you call that an attack on the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state? I would.

I'm sure Chavez is asking for some bill of this kind to be developed and passed. It doesn't sound as if they actually have a bill yet so it's a little silly to attack it yet.

You sound like Bush - "Terra! Terra! 9/11! 9/11!"

Using your line of reasoning, it is perfectly okay for the US to impose draconian laws against all young muslim males in the US because we were attacked by young muslim males. We can also limit the rights of all Saudi Arabians in the US, because the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We shouldn't limit the laws to the specific individuals who are guilty of any offenses. Rather, we should impose laws against everyone belonging to those groups, whether they've done anything wrong or not. You know...in an effort to keep us safe. 3,000 Americans dead. Would you call that "an attack on the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state?" I would.

To claim that the proposed media censorship law is a reaction to events that occurred over 7 years ago strains credulity. In fact, it requires a willful suspension of disbelief. But you go ahead and keep living in your dream world where Hugo is merely killing freedom of expression in order to save freedom of expression.

the oligarchy.

You, of course, don't have to approve of that. You can go ahead an invest in yet more hype based on speculation about the future which never seems to arrive.

Because while surfing the net for more information on past Chavez stories I've found lots of pro-Chavez outlets.

Rather than attempting to haggle with DU'ers who DO know about the subject, why don't you follow their lead, and invest your OWN energy, focus your attention yourself, use your own time getting to those valuable answers you clearly need.

Get to know about the subject yourself instead of relying in what the reactionary, delusional, uninformed, hallucinating right-wing idiots tell you. Once you know what you're talking about, THAT would be the appropriate starting point for a coversation.

Didn't I say I was reading about it? I don't know where you came up with the nonsense about me listening to right wingers. Because I don't put up a wall against any negative information about Chavez by immediately declaring it corporate propaganda without a further look doesn't make me a wingnut.

By the way, one of the pro-Chavez sources I came across I got from you.

This is your reasoning. That's why I don't trust your claimed expertise.

It was a good source though. Lots of information and it looked solid.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/

Here's there take on the story we are talking about. Not much like Reuters:

Community Media: The Thriving Voice of the Venezuelan People

July 31st 2009, by Liz Migliorelli and Caitlin McNulty
In Venezuela today a grass-roots movement of community and alternative media is challenging the domination of private commercial media. Community oriented, non profit, non commercial, citizen and volunteer run media outlets are a crucial part of the democratic transformation of society that is occurring throughout Venezuela. Part of this transformation is the understanding of freedom of speech as a positive and basic right. This right includes universal access to a meaningful space for communication in addition to freedom from censorship. Freedom of expression as a positive right provides universal access to the means of communication. Political Analyst Diana Raby reiterates; "the technology of modern communications has to be made accessible to all, not merely as consumers but as participants and creators."<1> Community media is beginning to fill this role in Venezuela.

The radio operators were given plenty of time to get themselves into compliance with the law as written. But, they're used to the law being only for the little people and didn't bother.

And this bill that the OP is having fits about hasn't even been finalized yet.

It's too bad Reuters can't be more accurate but their job is to get people into a lather.

If you can't get foreign reporting, you are at the mercy of the powers that be.

and just rely on stringers from wire services, or as in broadcasting, "sister stations," as CNN does with either Globovision or one of their big ones.

You may remember the New York Times originally depended upon Francisco Toro to do their Venezuela assignments until it was learned he was deeply embedded as a member of the full blown oligarchy there, even belonged to an anti-Chavez NGO which receives big chunks of change from the U.S. taxpayers via NED, etc. Francisco Toro was discovered to be to twisted toward the oligarchy he became an embarrassment and he resigned, and runs his own virulently anti-Chavez blog.

Some time ago read about the reporter for Reuters, I think, who actually lifted his material for his articles from a Caracas TV news station. Just copied it. Sure saves wear and tear on the journalist, and he arrives rested and fresh for dinner at the end of a day!

If there was a coup plot in the US, I'd expect to see the plotters tried and convicted and sentenced under due process of law. I wouldn't accept the government responding by declaring a rule that they can silence, arrest of confiscate property from anybody they, in their own opinion only, think represents a threat. Even convicted murderers in the US have some free speech rights, although they are limited.

Why didn't Chavez try all these people seven years ago? Probably because he saw the potential of leaving them loose and declaring them a threat.

based on a hit piece.

2. The public good trumps individual free speech, just as it does here.

3. The government, not Chavez, gave those people amnesty and apparently, they weren't interested.

Comparing these wealthy people with convicted murderers is a little silly. On the other hand, they've never cared much who dies for their profit.

Usually its either a dictator or some self possessed lunatics who think they can make all the decisions for everybody better than they can make them for themselves. Usually winds up with the forensic experts settling for rough estimates of the dead.

Then again, I don't know more about what's good for people than they do.

They didn't elect you so I think you're cool.

Even if we do not care for it, the laws of this country protect their right to dissent, to criticize, to disagree.

I don't want the government, or those that agree with it, to be the only opinions I hear.

Hugo wants to eliminate all opposition opinion, and use the force of law to do so by labeling it as subversion.

You can apologize all you want for him, but his slide down that slippery slope is increasing.

But they don't have an inherent right to own the air waves.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Birthers, those claiming Obama is a terrorist, that he'll force the elderly to commit suicide, etc. It's the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. They are destroying the nation.

Here's the rest of that quote you posted. Even AP posted it.

It also would punish media owners who "manipulate the news with the purpose of transmitting a false perception of the facts."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyUV62oPuXBor_gBTOupaNkH66bgD99P3IKO0

They can come here and frog march Hannity, Rush, et. al.

:)

yeah, the gov't deciding who can and can't broadcast isn't gov't control. You are sooo cute.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But in Venezuela, it's called suppression of free speech. lol

No double standard there at all. True to form, cali.

"Chavez has said the concessions could be handed over to operators who share his vision for a socialist Venezuela."

Chevez is the government.

Venezuela, just like the USA, has a constitution that Hugo Chavez is widely noted for scrupulously upholding and honoring, in all of his actions and policies.

Obama, not so much.

Bush, not at all.

...his hand picked assembly re-wrote it.

Who on earth do you imagine would believe your blather? Who would ever be slow enough to think what you said is even possible?

"hand picked assembly."

That's truly one for the books.

Chavez went to his supporters and asked them to elect his candidates to the assembly. Of course, being supporters and numerically superior, they did. He put forth his outline for the new constitution, they wrote it up and made it the law, over the screaming voices of the minority opposition. It's called politics. Happens in every country in the world.

... his handpicked assembly re-wrote it.

Of course. Scrupulously upholds, follows and respects, just like I said!

I am happy to have your complete agreement!

You are truly an expert on Venezuela.

Many thanks, my friend

Muchas gracias, mi amigo

As the great Sun Tsu said:

是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。

the president of Venezuela's Association of Newspapers, on Friday called the proposed law a violation of the constitution that aims to limit freedom of expression.

Its approval "would close the final window of democracy" in Venezuela, said Natera, whose organization represents the country's principal newspapers.



Lawmakers, meanwhile, are discussing a bill that would punish yet-to-be defined media crimes with up to four years in prison. Attorney General Luisa Ortega said Thursday that the law would punish media that have attempted to "cause panic" or "manipulate the news with the purpose of transmitting a false perception of the facts."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRvPoCWElOc&feature=related

No ?

and any other s. american leader that doesn't capitulate to america's needs had better protect themselves. looks like honduras has already fell.

Indicating how far we've slipped down that slippery slope.

---

but many believe there is

And not just by RW's using that as an insult.

And like you say, "many believe". I know a "progressive" who is the personification of a DLC Talking Point and has no idea.

the moral values of the left go beyond that for the good of the people.

For something maybe closer to the truth concerning the background read this : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8177862.stm

Apparently what started this issue was one of the right wing press publishing a poster of a girl with her clothes torn off with the caption "Communism will rob you of everything"

The whole thing is only a draft proposal anyway.

:hi:

a free country with true freedom of speech and expression must allow all voices to be heard, even the whacko insane dipshit ones.

They are on the air as a result of media consolidation in the hands very wealthy right wing corporations.

people can't use them only a selected group

:shrug:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/places/Venezuela

and, all I can say - is if FAUX noise could be made honest, I would back the same action in the US

:)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After a while the whole country will be on the same message that hugo perscribes and everyone
will be living at the same paygrade and level...except for hugo and his elite few that will
of course need the finer things in life to insure that everybody else remains balanced.

If he does it right and keeps his fatcats well fed he can have a job for life. Until all the
little people run out of everyone elses money that is. My guess is that the people with the money
will leave before they lower their living standards to the lowest common level.

34 radio station licenses pulled, and more than 200 under investigation for failing to serve the public interest. When I first became aware of how rightwing corporations gain control of our public airwaves, back in the 1960s-1970s when I was a student, we had certain principles of public service that were enforced as conditions of acquiring a broadcast license, including providing air time for the discussion of important public issues, coverage of public events, the "Fairness Doctrine" (if the owners of the license interjected their own views, or a one-sided view, on a public issue, they were required to provide "equal time" for opposing views), and--perhaps the most important of all--laws against monopolies (one corporation dominating a news market) and megamonopolies (owning large swaths of print, TV, radio and movie outlets) . It wasn't a perfect system but it was aimed in the right direction: access to the public airwaves of a wider spectrum of news and opinion than business corporations would provide if left to their own devices.

And we had a much better print media as a result of the influence of the "Fairness Doctrine" and these other principles. For instance, we had a New York Times that printed the Pentagon Papers in defiance of the Nixon government, as opposed to a New York Times that suppressed its knowledge of widespread domestic spying by the Bushwhacks so as to aide the 're-election' of the Bushwhacks in 2004. And we had a Washington Post that exposed dangerous corruption in the Nixon White House ("Watergate" et al) as opposed to a Washington Post that is merely a whore of the CIA. Across the board--in newspaper, news magazine, book and other unregulated media (such as movies)--the principles of fairness, objectivity, access to all views, and the importance to democracy of a wide-ranging public discussion of all issues were enhanced by the government (public/democratic) regulatory power over the public airwaves.

We also had a CBS, for instance, whose executives wouldn't dare interfere with CBS News--because it was considered a public service and, as such, insulated from the commercial side of the business--as opposed to a CBS whose executives fired their chief news anchor--Dan Rather--for a story questioning Bush Jr.'s military service, and gave their reason (to Rather) that Junior's 're-election' was "in our interest."

This is how proper democratic control of the levers of communication should work, in a mixed capitalist/socialist economic system. Private entities can obtain a license from the government (i.e., from the people) to broadcast on the public TV/radio airwaves provided that they do not let their own private, commericial interests interfere with politics, and provided that they follow other regulations (f.i., anti-monopoly regulations). The regulations are aimed at diversity (and in an ideal system the licenses would only be granted to small business enterprises and non-profits). The government--in the public interest--also provides direct access to broadcast media through public TV and radio stations, to help insure adequate discussion of public issues and the provision of diverse information as well as entertainment to the public at large .

From everything I have seen reports of, as to the Chavez government in Venezuela, this is their goal--to re-balance use of the public airwaves (now wholly dominated by rightwing corporations with great octopus-like reach (multi-nationals)) in the public interest. It is a humungous task, given that the rightwing multinational corporations will and are fighting them every inch of the way. Do the people dare deny a broadcast license to a multinational corporation whose local outlet, RCTV, actively participated in a violent rightwing military coup against the elected government? Lordy, lordy, half a dozen CIA front groups and rightwing 'think tanks" will issue 'reports' that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator" (or--their more clever line--"increasingly dictatorial"), which are then trumpeted around the world, and repeated ad nauseum by...um, the very rightwing 'news' multinationals who might be curtailed.

Once powerful rightwing corporations gain control over media, such that they can spew their fascist propaganda 24/7, on all channels, in all media, they won't relinquish that power without blood being shed. They want Hugo Chavez dead--and, believe me, they and their fascist brethren are still working on it--because he is the ikon of change. He isn't change itself. That is coming from the people, to whom he is wholly beholden for his position and power (both through clean elections, and direct rescue--tens of thousands of Venezuelans pouring into the streets, in 2002, to demand restoration of their Constitution and their president). But he is willing to battle these forces, and they have simultaneously built up this phantom Chavez (the "dictator") whom they want to take down for several reasons--they think they can crush the powerful leftist democracy movement in Latin America that way, and also they want to restore global corporate predator control of Venezuela's oil (the profits of which are now mostly going to the public good, including the funding of public access TV/radio).

I think it is excellent that the Chavez government is daring to try to straighten out their very, very crooked, rightwing/corporate-controlled media. I wish we could do that here--but we have a long way to go before we can ever elect leaders who will take on these kind of fundamental democracy battles on our behalf. The corpo/fascists have a lock on things here, even to the privatized ('TRADE SECRET' code) 'counting' of our votes. We have a lot of work to do on our democracy. The Venezuelans have done that work--and are the leaders of the hemisphere in this respect. We should learn from them, rather than responding to so-called 'news' articles like this in the fashion that the Associated Pukes want to us to respond--unthinking absorption of the impression they want to create that Chavez is a "dictator" and "clamping down on free speech," etc. The opposite is true. The Chavez government and the people of Venezuela who overwhelmingly support that government are enhancing free speech, by regulating private corporate control of the airwaves and funding and creating public access TV/radio.

now, I wish this anti-Chavez right wingers at DU would shut up, already.

In other words, Chavez is going to kill free speech in order to save free speech. What's your opinion of this?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8177862.stm

A tough new media law, under which journalists could be imprisoned for publishing "harmful" material, has been proposed in Venezuela.

Journalists could face up to four years in prison for publishing material deemed to harm state stability.

Public prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz, who proposed the changes, said it was necessary to "regulate the freedom of expression" without "harming it".

Under the draft law on media offences, information deemed to be "false" and aimed at "creating a public panic" will also be punishable by prison sentences.

It states that anyone - newspaper editor, reporter or artist - could be sentenced to between six months and four years in prison for information which attacks "the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state".


Is this an acceptable method of "straighten(ing) out their very, very crooked, rightwing/corporate-controlled media."? If so, how can you consider yourself a progressive?

routinely down there, they'd be in Gitmo. They are Glen Beck on steroids and I'm glad to see Venezuela taking some steps to curb that stuff.

and support corporate control of the media. Perhaps you have a suggestion, for here and for there, on how ordinary people--the poor, workers, the majority--can achieve the right of free speech, or even learn to think straight, with the constant din of corpo/fascist propaganda on all the airwaves. The right of free speech has been entirely corrupted by mega-monopoly ownership of the public airwaves. So what is your remedy for this?

You use this proposal as a "talking point" for "Chavez the dictator," but you don't address the issue. Maybe the wording of this Venezuelan proposal is too vague, too loose, too easy to abuse. So what would you do? What I see is that they are trying to solve two problems. One is that they have been the victims of a violent rightwing coup, whose first act was to suspend the Constitution and all civil rights--a coup that was aided and abetted, in an active way, by RCTV and other multinational media conglomerates. How do you solve that problem? Clearly, these media moguls were misusing the privilege of broadcasting to greatly harm the public interest. No one has a right to broadcast. Broadcasting is licensed and regulated in every country in the world. How do you stop them from doing this if there is no law with teeth (i.e., jail time) that forbids it? Maybe this proposed law in Venezuela is not the way to do it. Perhaps the law should be tighter, more specific, clearer? Perhaps there is some other approach to this problem that you could propose. You are ignoring the problem that they are trying to solve. How would you solve it?

Secondly, you have to create a diverse, decentralized, non-monopolistic media system with a set of enforceable rules and regs. This is an essential element of a good democracy. Venezuela has 24/7 lying, vicious, rightwing bullshit being spewed over the airwaves. It is very like here, but worse. This is insupportable. Corporations should not have this kind of power. Do you approve of them having this kind of power? If not, how would you curtail them? Do you approve of the principle of public ownership of, and regulatory power over, the airwaves? If you don't, then you are not a progressive.

You want me to oppose this proposal. Maybe I would, if I were Venezuelan. But maybe Venezuelans understand this proposal according to their own language, social, cultural and legal traditions and definitions--and history. Maybe it's exactly what they need. I would have to know more. But I think you want something in addition to my opposition to the proposal. You want me to agree that "Chavez is a dictator." I do not agree with that. Also, I think that the problems that the proposal is trying to solve are very real --the on-going threat of corporate media collusion in fascist coups, and the use of the public airwaves to promulgate rightwing propaganda. I don't think you are into solving those problems, but merely into dissing Chavez. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Those that oppose these measures, based on a religious like faith in freedom of expression fail to understand what is and has been taking place in Latin America.

The public airways should be used to benefit the public. Private companies spread lies and garbage. Especially in Latin America. They are nothing but criminals. Screw em.

instances. But there are many lies told here on DU. Should the government shut it down?

is shortly after an earthquake, the reich wingnuts in Ven went on the air telling people that the situation was on going and the government was leaving them to fend for themselves. It was that episode that was the last straw and then the government sat down to figure out how to stop that kind of stuff.

You have to understand that the right wing private media in Venezuela makes Lou Dobbs look like a kindly grandfather and Beck sound reasonable. They consider their media holdings to be just another arrow in their quiver to maintain and expand their wealth. They could care less if they start a national panic as long as their bottom line improves.

when he had actually been holding a rose given to him at a speech he made for a women's association?

What certain people don't like is Americans finding out what is going on in Venezuela, like this nasty trick the Venezuelan paper, Tal Cual perpetrated on the public by erasing a rose from Chavez hand in a photo taken at a speech and replacing it with a gun:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com.nyud.net:8090/images/2003/sep/tal_cual_pistola_original.jpg http://www.venezuelanalysis.com.nyud.net:8090/images/2003/sep/tal_cual_pistola_fotomontaje.jpg

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1025

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may remind some people of the Miami Herald's Spanish edition and its trickery in producing a photo of Cuban hookers standing by cops with the message prostitution is state-protected in Cuba....

http://media.newtimes.com.nyud.net:8090/48673.0.jpg

Clues to Deception: In the doorway, there is a sharp variation in light between the right and left sides. Note the difference in perspective between the police officers and prostitutes. The police officers cast shadows. The prostitutes don't.

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

Listen Up, McClatchy
The most-honored Spanish newspaper in the United States is ethically challenged
By Chuck Strouse
Article Published Jul 27, 2006

A striking, five-column color photo was splashed across the Sunday, June 25 edition of El Nuevo Herald. It showed four spandex-clad prostitutes in Cuba hailing a foreign tourist. Just a few feet away, two policemen conversed with a little girl and a woman. The headline: "Hookers: The Sad Meat of the American Dollar."

The cops obviously didn't care about the working girls — a clear sign of the hypocritically wanton ways of Fidel Castro's Cuba.

Problem is, the picture was a fake. Indeed it was just the kind of manipulated combination of two images that prompted the Los Angeles Times to fire staff photographer Brian Walski in 2003. Walski, you may recall, altered two photos of an American soldier to make them appear as one, more dramatic image. Several papers unknowingly published the combo on their front pages, and Thom McGuire, a Hartford Courant assistant managing editor, said the incident made him "sick to my stomach."

El Nuevo's sin was worse. Its image — on page 27A — appeared with the caption "The government has proven incapable of confronting the dramatic phenomenon of prostitution" and a story about a book on Cuba's working girls by author Amir Valle.

More:
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2006-07-27/news/listen-up-mcclatchy/

Source: Reuters

CARACAS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - More than a dozen of 34 radio stations ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez's drive to extend his socialist revolution to the media...

Chavez defended the closures, calling them part of the government's effort to democratize the airwaves.

"We haven't closed any radio stations, we've applied the law," Chavez said on state television. "We've recovered a bunch of stations that were outside the law, that now belong to the people and not the bourgeoisie."...

Another 120 radio stations were being investigated for administrative irregularities and the radio frequency of stations being shut down would be transferred to new community broadcasters ...

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0146551720090801

---

I have excised opposition commentary from this summary, except for the last paragraph which is speculation by Juan Caldera, of the Party Primero Justicia. The Government's rationale appears to be that the airways belong to the people, and when licenses expire, or are forfeited by breaching regulations, or breaking the law, they will be returned to the people.

in the comments (#58) of the other OP on this topic. We had a time in this country when the media was much better than it is today--as to the corpo/fascist brainwashing that our people are subjected to, day in, day out, in the current era--and that was the era of the "Fairness Doctrine" and anti-news monopoly regulation. Venezuela, from what I can see, is seeking that balance that we once had, not perfect by any means, but aimed in the right to direction as to the use of our public airwaves and broadcast licenses, and more objective journalism. The broadcast media in Venezuela is even worse than here--totally unbalanced, to the point of multinational news corps actively participating in the violent rightwing 2002 coup attempt, and constantly spewing fascist propaganda. This situation cries out for reform--for regulation in the public interest and more public access. And I only wish that were possible here.

Comment #58
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3995862#3997060

And posted in my DU Journal.

All 120 of them took part in the coup plot. :sarcasm:

The coup was seven years ago. Its not an excuse for anything anymore. Neither is the politics of the radio stations. Should they be shut down for disagreeing with the government ? Or is it just that way when the government is leftist?

The blindness on DU when it comes to Chavez is astounding. He's creating a hard core dictatorship. The only difference between Chavez and fascism will be that Chavez imposes complete control rather than a bunch of rich businessmen. Other than that, its the exact same thing.

DU - Wake up!

"Diosdado Cabello, the public works minister who also oversees Conatel,"


"Another 120 radio stations were being investigated for administrative irregularities and the radio frequency of stations being shut down would be transferred to new community broadcasters, Cabello had said."

Conatel is the Venezuelan government group that is taking control. This type of error, jumping to a false conclusion, may be attributed to Chavez supporters automatically dismissing anything negative said about Chavez as the work of evil enemies of the Venezuelan people. Here, even when its Chavez's own guy, the same response comes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8177862.stm

A tough new media law, under which journalists could be imprisoned for publishing "harmful" material, has been proposed in Venezuela.

Journalists could face up to four years in prison for publishing material deemed to harm state stability.

Public prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz, who proposed the changes, said it was necessary to "regulate the freedom of expression" without "harming it".

Under the draft law on media offences, information deemed to be "false" and aimed at "creating a public panic" will also be punishable by prison sentences.

It states that anyone - newspaper editor, reporter or artist - could be sentenced to between six months and four years in prison for information which attacks "the peace, security and independence of the nation and the institutions of the state".



Here's hoping this law, endorsed by Chavez and his Attorney General, is enacted soon. This will speed up the democratization of the Venezuelan airwaves faster than anything else I can imagine!




:sarcasm: in case it wasn't obvious

It smacks of authoritarianism.

i understand the struggle of oligarchy and fascism vs social democracy.

i just feel somewhat uncomfortable dealing with it this way. maybe its the brainwashing.

Silence the opposition by force of law.

If progressives are looking for an ideal world leader who embodies what progressivism is all about, I suggest looking somewhere other than Caracas.

crappy compared to many other countries. I wonder if it's very much better than in Venezuela.

The answer to criticism of a foreign nation, with an added edge since 911.

For some, I think supporting this is not coming from a well of dislike for opposing views, but from a place of honestly believing Chavez is trying to do the right thing for his country and however he needs to get there needs to be tolerated.

It's more a matter of carrying out your commitments, doing what you were elected to do. Elections have consequences.

Formerly ruling oligarchies hate that.

with their abomination the Patriot Act.

Look, the desire to shut down opposition is disgusting coming from left or right.

Who wants to deal with obstructions? The question is whether what you do is legal. He is not shutting them up, he's taking away their government monopoly broadcast spectrum. Try running a pirate radio station here and see how far you get.

The government is trying to reform a media that has served exclusively the good of the oligarchs and at times, to the peril of the populace. If this is overkill, they will have a fight about it in the Assembly and at the ballot box and they will work it out.

You who don't study Venezuela tend to talk about these events as if Chavez is some kind of puppet master or the only one in the government. In fact, that isn't true and the people have been encouraged to be more, not less, active in their own government in the last ten years.

you mean only things written by the Chavez approved crew no doubt.

and have a lot of practice sorting out facts from bullshit. YMMV.

are really just defending the boorish monopolization of the airwaves by corpo/fascist business tycoons. That is not free speech. It is: money rules! They are NOT defending the free speech rights of most people, who have to struggle to be heard when these big corporations dominate TV/radio. That is why the public access principle of the "Fairness Doctrine" is also important--not just equal time for opposing views, and not just forbidding monopolies, but also providing air time to the public, with public access channels and broadcast facilities, to encourage wide spectrum discussion and information. Ordinary people can't buy a radio station license, even as a small business. They need capital to do that. How do they access the airwaves that belong to them as a member of the public? The rich and the corporate have all that very well organized. They can pay for their viewpoint to be broadcast. Others--the majority--cannot. So, how do you equalize things to promote democracy? You take some of the big business licenses away and grant them to small businesses and non-profits. You ban monopolies, and maybe even ban media businesses over a certain size. You preserve some of the TV/radio airwaves for community broadcasting, and you assist with facilities and other help.

The danger of government regulation of the airwaves, and government involvement in providing public access, is, of course, is that the government viewpoint--which, in the US, is the corporate viewpoint, and, in Venezuela, the viewpoint of the vast poor majority, may end up dominating the airwaves. In the latter case, if that happens--only pro-government viewpoints being permitted to use the new access--you still haven't yet harmed free speech, because, right now, rightwing/corpo viewpoints monopolize the airwaves. You will have balanced things out; made them more democratic. (The Chavez government clearly represents the majority.) In the former case, the corporations have entirely invaded PBS and NPR, for instance, which seldom broadcast anything that is not in the corporate interest, and often toady to corporate and war profiteer interests just like the directly corporate-run stations. We get the corpo/fascist viewpoint from our government, from all the commercial stations and from national public TV/radio. (Some local community stations still provide broad spectrum viewpoints.) It is well past time to re-balance the media here. In fact, we could do with a period of NO corporate broadcasting--of entirely throwing them out of the broadcast business--as they most certainly should be thrown out of the elections business. You can't have democracy with privatized, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines. And democracy is a great struggle--and barely possible--with entirely privatized media that is not regulated in the public interest.*

It's REALLY important, when discussing "free speech," to define WHOSE "free speech" you are talking about: Free speech rights for Exxon Mobil? Or free speech rights for you and me?

----------------------

*(It's an interesting question how democracy was achieved in Venezuela with the media as bad as it is. Maybe the Chavez government shouldn't mess with the formula of corpo/fascist media monopolies driving people in the opposite direction, politically. (Ha, ha.) Probably the answer--or part of it--is grass roots political organizing by people who can't afford TVs.)

where is the oil money going (other than migs?) and I doubt those slums have gone away in the last 2 years or so. Wonder where that cash goes?

:)

LATIN AMERICA: And Now For Some More Ambitious Anti-Poverty Goals
By Daniela Estrada

SANTIAGO, Nov 16 (IPS) - Sixty-eight percent of the time available for reaching the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG), which is to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, has expired, and Latin America has gone 87 percent of the way towards achieving it. Countries that have advanced the most should now work on halving total poverty, ECLAC says.

According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 36.5 percent of the total population of the region, or 194 million people, were poor in 2006. Of these, 71 million people, or 13.4 percent, were extremely poor, that is, living on less than a dollar a day.

Fifteen million people escaped poverty in 2006, and 10 million overcame extreme poverty. In proportional terms, total poverty fell by 3.3 percentage points with respect to 2005, and extreme poverty dropped two percentage points.

In spite of this improvement, the region is still nowhere near its 1980 figures, when the number of poor people was 136 million, of whom 62 million people were indigent.

In absolute numbers, though not as percentages, there are more poor and extremely poor people in the region today than there were 27 years ago, said ECLAC Executive Secretary José Luis Machinea at the launch of the report "Social Panorama of Latin America 2007", in the Chilean capital Thursday.

The countries that have made the most progress in reducing poverty and extreme poverty since 2002 are Argentina, where the levels have fallen by 24.4 and 13.7 percent, respectively, and Venezuela, with reductions of 18.4 and 12.3 percent.

More:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40088
(published 2007)

Public access for all. Make the airwaves like the internet.

Oh, I forgot. There was Katia TV in Caracas, a public access station, which the mayor of Caracas, a Chavez opponent dismantled and knocked off the air altogether during the coup, and a radio station, so the people of Caracas wouldn't be able to learn their President had been kidnapped at gunpoint, and wouldn't find out about it until the oligarch's coup had nailed down the government entirely.

So they were unable to know the coup President had sent the police out to track down and arrest and imprison all the cabinet members of the Chavez government, as well as officials in their National Assembly, etc.

When the stations all played music, and ran old movies for the entire coup, they BLOCKED the news about the coup the people of Venezuela were ENTITLED by right to know about. They BLOCKED it, THEY LIED to the people of Venezuela to prevent their attempt to reverse their coup.

That means they KNOW the public didn't want it, or accept it, and they used their media powers to prevent their knowledge, like a weapon.

You support this perversity? I know I don't.

alternative opinion. The only perversity that exists is your continual support of somebody who's destroying freedom and human rights. Shame on you!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

before you run around upbraiding people who are better informed than you are.

yabber yabber yabber. spew some more crap.

some here will justify this guy when he has his enemies hanging with piano wire. Hugo has a nice gig going there and is not leaving any time soon.

The real question is where are the billions of dollars in oil revenue going? Fixing the slums on the hills outside caracas? They were there 2 years ago, bet they will be there next time I am there.

Chavez WAS a coup leader, he knows the game. He leaves 3 ways, he dies a natural death, his replacement blows his brains out, or he quits (not a big chance of that). Once you set the stage so you can stay forever, you will stay forever.

Now they're running scared spitless over the very thought they could be expected to share broadcast airspace with other Americans.

plotting the overthrow of the legitimately elected government...

Good riddance. Here in the USAmerikan Empire they would have been arrested as "terrorists" and tossed into Guantanamo to be tortured.

They got off easy.

for his quick prosecution of anti-Semitic crimes in Venezuela.

Why do you say those horrible things?

Venezuela is a functioning democracy with internationally recognized fair and honest elections and vote counting.

Democracy1st? Or not...

Can you document your provocative statement?

Have you anything to add to the discussion except name calling?

Anything?

Perhaps something humorous...

whether you're from the right or left,people have a right to believe in whatever philosophy they choose.

You used dispicable language to call Hugo Chavez disgusting names without any explanation or rationale.

I asked you to tell me why you did so by documenting your allegation with some corroboration.

Since you can't possibly do that you duck behind a simplistic, "people have a right to believe in whatever philosophy they choose".

Nobody would argue with that, an adroit change of focus, you are very clever! Not!!!

Your ignorant name calling of Hugo Chavez, a hero of freedom loving people world-wide, shows you to be uninformed at best or a reactionary propagandist.

I thought this shitty thread was about a boogeyman the right wing keeps trying to spam DU with.

At one point when a political party came into power in Venezuela and you were of a different power but working for the government, you lost your job. Nothing could be done for you unless you brought money. So jobs were squirreled away through family trees.

On another front the "media" that you so embellish routinely posted that jobs were being stolen by los indocumentados, a reference to the colombianos living there. The fury got so bad that one day the entire freaking country shut down while the military went from building to building in pursuit of the indocumentados and also taking the national census.

One of the great headlines I remember from the following day was "Los indocumentados somos nosotros!" We are the illegals! Over two million Venezuelans never bothered to register their children or update their national ID cards when they periodically expire. No, this was never during Chávez, but rather a Christian Democrat in power. And our media were silent over the national lock down. This lock down just shows how little some people follow regulations such as renewal. Little wonder it is in the media as well.